The Fearful Master - Chapter 7


<<Chapter 6


Chapter 8>>


Communist Control of the United Nations

What will be left of the American experiment when we have been integrated with the political system of France, the economic system of Turkey, the social system of Italy? I do not know--but SOMEONE knows. . . .

Senator William E. Jenner, June 1956


Speaking before the Senate on February 23, 1954, Senator William Jenner told the story of a young married man working in a baby-carriage factory in Germany during, the early days of the Nazi regime. Since his wife was soon expecting their first child, the young man began to save his money to purchase one of the baby carriages he was helping to build. But for some reason the Nazi government refused to let anybody buy them. So he decided to collect secretly the parts-one from each department-and do the assembly himself at home. Finally, when all the parts had been gathered, he and his wife began to put them together. To their utter astonishment, they wound up with, not a baby carriage at all, but a machine gun! And, as Senator Jenner observed:

The pattern . . . was divided into separate parts, each of them as innocent, safe and familiar looking as possible. The leaders did not intend to assemble the parts until they needed machine guns. But let's keep in mind that when the parts of a design are carefully cut to exact size to fit other parts with a perfect fit in final assembly, the parts must be made according to a blueprint drawn up in exact detail. This does not happen by chance. The men who make the blueprints know exactly what the final product is to be. They have planned the final assembly years ahead. They do not think they are making baby carriages.1

The United Nations operation in the Congo was no accident. When all the component parts are put together and viewed in their entirety, they mesh so neatly and consistently over a period of time as to reveal a pattern far too obvious to ignore. Nor did this machine gun come into existence overnight. Actually the planners, who knew what the end product was to be, had been working feverishly for years. Their job was to get the individual pieces properly designed and then manufactured by as many unsuspecting souls as could be enticed to the assembly line. The baby carriages had been described to these workers with such appealing phrases as "peace," and "security," world brotherhood," and "international cooperation." But when the pieces were assembled in Katanga they brought death, destruction and Communism. The only people who were surprised at the final product were those who had taken the United Nations at face value and who had never closely examined either the blueprint or the planners who drafted it.

The first rough sketches for this blueprint were drawn up by Nikolai Lenin. They were expanded by Joseph Stalin and refined by Nikita Khrushchev. Subtle changes and variations are still added from time to time, but the basic plan remains essentially the same.

Stalin laid down five intermediate goals of Communism as necessary steps toward the ultimate goal of global conquest. Summarized, they are as follows:

1. Confuse, disorganize and destroy the forces of capitalism around the world.

2. Bring all nations together into a single world system of economy.

3.Force the advanced countries to pour prolonged financial aid into the underdeveloped countries.

4. Divide the world into regional groups as a transitional stage to total world government. Populations will more readily abandon their national loyalties to a vague regional loyalty than they will for a world authority. Later, the regionals [such as the present NATO, SEATO, and the Organization of American States] can be brought all the way into a single world dictatorship of the proletariat.2

For those who may be puzzled at why the Communists are concerned over raising the level of underdeveloped countries, it should be noted that this not only helps to "bring all nations together into a single world system of economy," but also serves to bleed dry the capitalist countries that will be paying the bill. In addition there is the fact that underdeveloped countries are more difficult for the Communists to take over than the more advanced ones. This will undoubtedly come as quite a shock to those who have been told that our massive giveaway program to foreign countries is keeping the Communists at bay. But, as Nikolai Lenin explained to his comrades:

The more backward the country . . . the more difficult it is for her to pass from the old capitalist relations to socialist relations. To the tasks of destruction are added new, incredibly difficult tasks, vis. organizational tasks . . . the organization of accounting, of the control of large enterprises, the transformation of the whole of the state economic mechanism into a single huge machine, into an economic organization that will work in such a way as to enable hundreds of millions of people to be guided by a single plan.3

In 1928 and again in 1936 the Communist International formally presented a three-stage plan for achieving world government:

1. Socialize the economies of all nations.

2. Bring about regional unions of various groupings of these socialized nations.

3. Amalgamate all of these regional groupings into a final worldwide union of socialist states.

The following is taken directly from the official 1936 program of the 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.4

The blueprint was further developed by William Z. Foster, national chairman of the Communist Party, U.S.A., from 1933 to 1957, when he wrote:

A Communist world will be a unified, organized world. The economic system will be one great organization, based upon the principle of planning now dawning in the USSR. The American Soviet government will be an important section in this world government. . . .

Once the power of the bourgeoisie is broken internationally and its States destroyed, the world Soviet Union will develop towards a scientific administration of things, as Engels describes. There will be no place for the present narrow patriotism, the bigoted nationalist chauvinism that serves so well the Capitalist warmakers.5

By 1945 the blueprint was being drafted into its final form. Delegates from countries all over the world were preparing to participate in a conference at San Francisco which was to mark the creation of something to be called the United Nations. Earl Browder, well known past leader of the United States Communist party, in his book Victory and After, stated: "The American Communists worked energetically and tirelessly to lay the foundations for the United Nations, which we were sure would come into existence." The April 1945 issue of the Communist periodical Political Affairs explained to its readers the importance of getting the capitalist countries committed to this international body. It pointed out that since Russia would be one of the dominant voices in the UN, it could be used to prevent other countries from acting independently against Communism. The magazine stated:

Victory means more than the military defeat of Nazi Germany. It means the collapse of anti-Soviet policies and programs as dominant tendencies within the capitalist sector of the world. It means that the policy predominant during the interwar years of attempting to solve the world crisis at the expense of the Soviet Union is replaced by the policy of attempting to solve the crisis through cooperation with the Soviet Union.6 [Italics added.]

Five months later the Communists printed a pamphlet entitled The United Nations which further explained what function they had in mind for the United Nations. To be sure, it was not the function of "peace" that Americans anticipated. The pamphlet said: "It [the San Francisco conference] met to outlaw war. But everyone knows that war cannot be abolished until imperialism [i.e. capitalism] is abolished." It went on to explain that there were four primary reasons why Communists should support the United Nations:

1. The veto will protect the USSR from the rest of the world.

2. The UN will frustrate an effective foreign policy of the major capitalist countries.

3. The UN will be an extremely helpful instrument in breaking up the colonial territories of non-Communist countries.

4. The UN will eventually bring about the amalgamation of all nations into a single Soviet svstem.7

In 1953 Colonel Jan Bukar, a former Czechoslovakian army intelligence officer, testified before the House Committee on Un-American Activities that a General Bondarenko delivered a lecture at the Frunze Military Academy in Moscow and 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 UN as no authority over the Soviet Union, but the United Nations serves to deflect the capitalists and warmongers in the Western World.8

One final and extremely revealing glimpse of the blueprint was offered by Dr. Marek Stanislaw Korowicz, a member of the United Nations delegation from Communist Poland who defected in 1953 and sought political asylum in this country. Testifying before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, Dr. Korowicz said:

We were all indoctrinated strongly with the Russian master plan to reach the working masses of the various countries in the Western World over the heads of their governments. . . . The organization of the UN is considered as one of the most important platforms for Soviet propaganda in the world. I wish to underline the following comment: Not only Russia, but its satellites attach a primary importance that the members of their bloc of satellite powers maintain their relations with the Western World. It is emphasized at all times that, in the acts of real democracy, socialist democracy, they should seek a direct channel over the heads of their governments to the great popular masses of the U.S. and the other western countries. The UN organization offers a parliamentary platform to the Soviet politicians, and from this platform, they may preach to the populations of the entire world and do their subversive propaganda.9

It is no mere coincidence that the United Nations headquarters was located in the United States. Most Americans think that this was a victory for us in the cold war. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only has this made it much easier for the Communists in the United Nations to "reach directly to the American masses" with their propaganda, but their spies and espionage agents posing as delegates and staff can gain entry into this country under full diplomatic immunity. Matt Cvetic, former undercover agent for the FBI, has testified that

. . . representatives of the Soviet bloc governments in the UN do not only operate as propaganda ministers in the UN, but also, whenever possible, carry on in this country to further the revolutionary aims of the Communist International by working in close proximity with members of the American Communist party and alien Soviet agents.10

In confirmation of Cvetic's testimony, J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI, stated that Communist diplomats assigned to the United Nations "represent the backbone of Russian intelligence operations in this country."11

A former employee of the Czechoslovakian consulate testified before a committee of the United States Senate in 1951 that UN officials from her country routinely took large amounts of baggage with them on their frequent trips home. She said that this meant usually less than 30 large bags per person, but on at least one occasion to her knowledge a returning UN official took 97 bags. She said that this baggage, which has diplomatic immunity and cannot be inspected, contained electronic devices, "equipment which was very secret," literature and secret communications.12

It should not come as a surprise, therefore, to learn that it was the Soviet Union, not the United States, that insisted that UN headquarters be located on our soil. Trygve Lie, the first secretary-general of the United Nations, revealed this fact in his book In the Cause of Peace. Describing the debates over the future location of the permanent headquarters, Lie said:

The Americans declared their neutrality as soon as the Preparatory Commission opened its deliberation. The Russians disappointed most Western Europeans by coming out at once for a site in America. . . .

Andrei Gromyko, of the USSR, had come out flatly for the United States. As to where in the United States, let the American Government decide, he had blandly told his colleagues. Later, the Soviet Union modified its stand to support the East Coast.13

Let us now put these scattered pieces of the master plan together and see what it looks like in its entirety. Briefly summarized, the Communist blueprint for world conquest via the United Nations is as follows:

1. Consolidate total working control of the United Nations into Communist hands as rapidly as possible.

2. Use the United Nations to break up the colonial territories of non-Communist countries.

3. Use the United Nations as a vehicle for subversion, espionage and propaganda within the non-Communist member nations.

4. Induce the non-Communist member nations to abandon any strong independent foreign policy of their own by turning over this function to the United Nations.

5. Maneuver the non-Communist member nations into establishing socialism at home as the necessary transition stage to Communism and to become dependent economically on the overall international socialist control and direction of the UN.

6. Induce the stronger non-Communist member nations to transfer full control of their military forces to the United Nations. After this, no resistance will be possible. The world will be Communist.

Since the United States is, at the present time, the only nation on earth that offers the potential of real resistance to the Communist plan of world conquest, the UN blueprint has been primarily designed for us. The Communists know that if they can just get America to step completely into the cage the rest of the world will be theirs. And so, in practical terms, the master plan can be further simplified and condensed into just one simple objective: to gain full working control of the UN and, at the same time, to entice the United States to gradually surrender its sovereignty to this world government.

With the blueprint clearly before them, the Communists next launched a massive propaganda campaign to sell the UN to the American people. The April 1945 issue of the Communist periodical Political Affairs set the pace with the following directive:

The major question for us in connection with the San Francisco Conference is to assure the adherence of the United States to the World Security Organization, in the spirit of the policies formulated in the Crimea Declaration [at which time it was decided to form the UN]. We have come a long way along this path. But the final battle has not yet been won, although we are in an extremely favorable position to destroy the remaining bridgeheads of opposition. In his address to the National Committee of the Communist Political Association in March 1945, Earl Browder [head of the Communist party in the U.S.] signalized the struggle for complete national adherence to the Crimea policies as "America's decisive battle." At the time of the Moscow Conference in October 1943, the Senate voted 85 to 5 in favor of United States participation in a World Security Organization, even changing the phraseology of its resolution to accord with the Moscow Declaration. Only the diehard obstructionists voted against the resolution. . . . Building up vast popular support of the Crimea policy would create the best atmosphere for the United Nations meeting and for routing the opposition. After the Charter is passed at San Francisco, it will have to be approved by two thirds of the Senate, and this action will establish a weighty precedent for other treaties and agreements still to come. But the victory cannot be won in the Senate alone; it must emanate from the organized and broadening national support built up for the President's policy, on the eve of the San Francisco gathering and after. . . . Great popular support and enthusiasm for the United Nations policies should be built up, well organized and fully articulate. But it is also necessary to do more than that. The opposition must be rendered so impotent that it will be unable to gather any significant support in the Senate against the United Nations Charter and the treaties which will follow.14

Elsewhere in the same issue of Political Affairs, the Communists received detailed instructions on how to capture this great popular support.

It is necessary to show convincingly that, in criticizing or directly opposing the decisions of Crimea, these elements are opposing not only London and Moscow, but also, and in the first place, Washington--our Nation's foreign policy; that they are jeopardizing and obstructing America's national interests. . . . In fact, around this single proposition, it is now possible to enlist the active and coordinated support of every major organization and group in the United States, ranging from national, state, and local governmental bodies, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Farm Bureau, and the American Legion, to the AFL, the CIO, and all other people's organizations. . . . This will be achieved if this vital battle is fought out in an uncompromising manner so as to reject all amendments and reservations, and if it is waged in behalf and on terms of America's national interests, as well as those of the common needs and the unity of action of all of the United Nations.15

That this campaign was overwhelmingly successful hardly needs mentioning. The opposition was, indeed, rendered so impotent that it was unable to gather any significant support in the Senate against the United Nations Charter. Americans, jubilant at the idea of a peace organization which was in their national interest, unhesitatingly pledged their unlimited cooperation and support.

By 1954, however, the United Nations began to lose some of its initial luster in American circles. A rising tide of opposition was clearly on the horizon. Once again, the Communists went into high gear, this time to throw up a wall of protection around their pet creation. For instance, the July 1954 issue of the Communist Daily Worker, in an article headed "U.S. Labor and the UN," said:

Both AFL and CIO have consistently given verbal support to the UN. Their conventions unfailingly adopted resolutions to this effect since the establishment of the world organization in 1945. Now the time has come when it is more than ever necessary to match the words with deeds. For the UN is in danger of going the way of the old League of Nations.16

A few months later, the same newspaper offered its Communist readers several tips on what arguments to use to overcome any criticism of the United Nations' dismal record. It answered the critics this way:

So you see, its not the UN that merits your scorn and active opposition, but the policies that have undermined the UN and turned it into the opposite kind of an organization than was envisioned in San Francisco and provided in the Charter.17

A further indication of the Communists' interest in maintaining the United Nations can be found in the Preamble to the constitution of the Communist party:

The Communist party of the United States . . . fights uncompromisingly against . . . all forms of chauvinism. . . . It holds further that the true national interest of our country and the cause of peace and progress require . . . the strengthening of the United Nations as a universal instrument of peace.

This, then, is the "baby carriage" that has been sold to the American people--sold, but not yet delivered. When the day comes that the planners feel ready to assemble the parts on our soil, our innocence and good intentions will be of small comfort.

The plan is both simple and brilliant. But have the Communists succeeded in conquering one third of the world through stupidity? Did they do it with brute force? Was it luck? The answers to these questions are obvious. One thing for which the Communists must be given credit is that they are master strategists. They know full well that they could never hope to conquer the world through military might alone. But through trickery and deception, they have developed a formula whereby they can take over America, and thus the rest of the world, without firing a single shot. Khrushchev has said that when the Red flag flies over America, it will be Americans who will put it there. And in that simple boast lies the key to everything the Communists and their allies are trying to accomplish through the United Nations.

As Abraham Lincoln predicted, "If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

<<Chapter 6


Chapter 8>>


1. Senator William Jenner, Congressional Record (February 23, 1954).

2. Joseph Stalin, Marxism and the National Question (New York, International Publishers, 1942).

3. Nikolai Lenin, Selected Works, vol. 7, pp. 285-287. As quoted by Joseph Stalin, Problems of Leninism (Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1947), pp. 130-131.

4. Hearings before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (July 11, 1956), p. 196.

5. William Z. Foster, Toward Soviet America (Balboa Island, Calif., Elgin Publications, 1961), pp. 326-327.

6. "The World Assembly at San Francisco," Political Affairs (April 1945), pp. 293, 295.

7. Mohan Kumaramangalam, The United Nations (Bombay, India, Peoples Publishing House, 1945), pp. 3-14.

8. Testimony of Jan Bukar before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (May 13, 1953), committee report entitled Soviet Schedule for War--1955, p. 15.

9. Hearings before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (September 24, 1953), pp. 2596, 2607.

10. SISS hearings (July 9, 1951).

11. "FBI Chief Finds Red Spies 'Potent Danger,"' Los Angeles Times (May 4, 1963).

12. SISS hearings (July 9, 1951).

13. Trygve Lie, In the Cause of Peace (New York, The Macmillan Company, 1954), pp. 58-60.

14. "The World Assembly at San Francisco," Political Affairs (April 1945), pp. 289-300.

15. "Yalta and America's National Unity," Political Affairs (April 1945), pp. 304-305.

16. "U.S. Labor and the UN," Daily Worker (July 15, 1954), p. 5.

17. "Policies that Undermine the UN," Daily Worker (December 21, 1954), p. 5.
<<Chapter 6


Chapter 8>>