CHAPTER ELEVEN: ANIMAL FARM
Some years ago George Orwell wrote a brilliant satire on twentieth-century collectivism entitled Animal Farm. It is the story of a revolution staged by the animals on Farmer Jones's place. The animals considered themselves workers being exploited by non-productive humans--the capitalists. They reasoned that once the entire farm was turned over to the workers they would all live better and not have to work so hard.
As with all revolutions, there were leaders and there were followers--mostly the latter. On Animal Farm, the leadership was cheerfully provided by the pigs who hastened to point out that they were, through no fault of the others, a little smarter than the rest.
One of the first official acts of the new regime was to draft a statement of seven great principles which were then painted on the back wall of the barn for all to see. These principles became the basis of the new order and were designed to protect the animals from any future injustice or infringement on their rights. There were such noble pronouncements as, "No animal shall drink alcoholic beverages"; "No animal shall sleep in a bed"; and "No animal shall kill another animal." But the greatest and wisest of all was the seventh great principle which read: "All animals are equal."
As the months slowly turned into years, however, things did not turn out quite the way the "workers" had expected. They were working twice as hard and eating half as well as they had when they were "exploited" by Farmer Jones. The one significant exception, of course, was the ruling clique of pigs who were now living very well indeed. In fact they had moved right into Jones's house where they had been seen drinking Jones's ale and sleeping in Jones's bed! When the puzzled workers went to the rear of the barn to see if there was not something in the seven great principles prohibiting this kind of conduct, they found that a few changes bad been made: "No animal shall drink alcoholic beverages . . . to excess"; "No animal shall sleep in a bed . . . with sheets." Even the important sixth principle now read, "No animal shall kill another animal . . . without cause." But by far the worst shock came when the poor creatures turned with hope to the seventh and greatest of all the principles, which now declared, "All animals are equal . . . but some animals are more equal than others"!
In this allegory, Orwell has exposed one of the universal devices of demagoguery--the use of high-sounding phrases to appeal to the noble aspirations of well-intentioned but unenlightened followers. It has been used with success from the very beginning of recorded history. But the device has been expanded and refined during recent years to the point where it is now perhaps the most important single item in the Communist bag of tricks. Without the appearance of being motivated by noble causes, the Communist conspiracy would have collapsed long ago.
For example, Article 4 of the Soviet constitution calls for the abolition of "exploitation of man by man." Nothing is said about the exploitation of man by government.
Communism is generally thought to be based on the doctrine "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." However, Article 12 of the Soviet constitution says:
Article 124 of the Soviet constitution speaks of freedom of religion; but Article 122 of the Soviet penal code makes it a crime to teach religion to small children. In other words, it is recognized that everyone has freedom of religion except as provided by law, and the Soviets have such a law.
Article 103 of the Soviet constitution states: "In all courts, cases are tried with the participation of peoples assessors [juries] except in cases specially provided for by law." Article 111 states: "In all courts of the USSR, cases are heard in public unless otherwise provided for by law. . . ." [Italics added.]
This "except as provided by law" gimmick is at the heart of practically all the high-sounding phrases which constitute UN declarations, covenants and conventions. If we read these phrases rapidly, listening to them only with our emotions, we will find in them expressions of man's noblest aspirations. But if we read them with just half as much care as we would a sales contract, they will fall apart under the sheer weight of their own demagoguery.
For example, Article 14 of the United Nations Covenant on Human Rights begins with the statement: "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression." A little further along, however, we find: ". . . but it carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . . and is, therefore, subject to certain penalties, liabilities and restrictions . . . as are provided by law. . . ."
Article 15, Section 3 says: "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law. . . ."
Article 19 promises liberty of opinion and then cancels it immediately by stating that it may be subject to certain unspecified restrictions "as provided by law. . . ."
Article 20 states: "The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restriction may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law. . . ."
In fact, every single right outlined in the United Nations Covenant on Human Rights may be legally denied if in the opinion of the politicians it is "necessary to protect national security, or public order, or public safety, or public health, or public morals, or the rights, freedoms or reputations of others." What better excuse could any tyrant hope for? Most wars and national crimes are committed in the name of one of these. In the Reign of Terror in France during the 1789 revolution, unspeakable atrocities were perpetrated in the name of the committee of public safety. Hitler did the same in the name of national security. The United Nations followed suit in Katanga in the name of restoring public order.
"No animal shall kill another animal . . . without cause"!
What a far cry this is from the American Constitution which says that Congress shall pass no law abridging the people's right of free speech, religion, peaceful assembly, and so forth. Not "except as provided by law," but "no law"! What a difference this makes.
According to Marxist doctrine, a human being is primarily an economic creature. In other words, his material well-being is all important; his privacy and his freedom are strictly secondary considerations. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights clearly reflects this philosophy in its emphasis on social security: food, clothing, housing, medical care, unemployment compensation. In this connection, the UN declaration closely parallels the Soviet constitution. The following comparison should be studied carefully:
There are a great many other similarities between the Soviet constitution and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, but the foregoing comparison is sufficient to reveal a common inspiration. The basic concept embodied in both of these documents is that the government has full responsibility for the welfare of the people and, in order to discharge that responsibility, must assume control of all their activities. How different this is from the traditional American concept of limited government.
It is significant that in actuality the Russian people have few of the rights guaranteed to them in their constitution while the American people have them in abundance even though they are not guaranteed. The reason, of course, is that material gain and economic security cannot be guaranteed by any government. They are the reward of hard work and industrious production. Unless the people produce one loaf of bread for each citizen, the government cannot guarantee that each will have one loaf to eat. Constitutions can be written and laws can be passed, but unless the bread is produced, it can never be distributed. As Benjamin Franklin put it, "An empty bag cannot stand upright."
Why, then, do Americans bake more bread, manufacture more shoes, and assemble more TV sets than Russians? They do so precisely because our government does not guarantee these things. If it did, there would be so many accompanying taxes, controls, regulations and political manipulations that the productive genius that is America's would soon be reduced to the floundering level of waste and inefficiency now found behind the iron curtain. If Americans ever reach the point where the government is powerful enough to drive them all they want, they will find that they also have a government powerful enough to take from them all that they have.
In 1801 Thomas Jefferson said:
The principle behind this American philosophy can be reduced to a rather simple formula:
On the surface, this may sound heartless and unmindful of the needs of those less fortunate individuals who are found in any society. What about the lame, the sick and the destitute? is an often-voiced question. Every other country in the world has confused real charity with the giving of other people's money, and has attempted to use the power of government to meet this need. Yet, in every one of these cases, the improvement has been marginal at best and has resulted in the long run in more misery, more poverty and certainly less freedom than when government first stepped in. By comparison, America has traditionally followed Jefferson's advice of relying on individual action and charity and of keeping the hand of government out of such matters. The result is that the United States has fewer cases of genuine hardship per capita than any other country in the entire world or throughout all history. Even during the depression of the 1930’s, Americans ate and lived better than most people in other countries do today.
In the United Nations concept, even those rights not related to material things, such as freedom of religion and speech, are presumed to be granted by government. In America, government cannot grant rights for the simple reason that they are presumed to be God-given. The Declaration of Independence says that men are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." [Italics added.] Our Bill of Rights does not pretend to grant rights; it is merely a list of restrictions and limitations on government to make sure that no future government officials will ever violate the God-given rights of each citizen. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights also refers to these as inalienable but the articles themselves clearly reveal that such words are quite meaningless and serve only as window dressing.
This is by no means an insignificant distinction. If we accept the premise that human rights are granted by government, then we must be willing to accept the corollary that they properly can be denied by government. Few Americans would be willing to accept this premise if they took the time to think it through. Yet, that is exactly the premise upon which the United Nations is building its world government and under which all Americans may someday have to live.
There is still another and even more important reason why the distinction between God-given and government-given rights is important. It lies at the very center of the present gigantic struggle between the forces of freedom and the forces of slavery. To overlook this factor is to miss the dominant meaning of the whole contest. Atheism is the basic tenet of Communism. If even the possibility of God is accepted, the entire superstructure of Communist ideology crashes into a heap of contradictions and absurdities. Conversely, an acknowledgment of dependence on God is the basic tenet of Americanism (recent Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding). As George Washington said in his farewell address in 1796:
It should be no comfort to Americans that the United Nations has elected to adopt the Communist approach to this most basic issue. During the final United Nations debates on the Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the representative from the Netherlands rose and said:
It is to our everlasting shame that the United States delegation remained silent on this matter.
The Communist master planners have seen to it that nowhere in the Charter, in the covenants, in the declarations, or anywhere else does the United Nations grant even the slightest acknowledgment of God. To create an acceptable public image, the meetings are opened each day, not with silent prayer, but with a "minute of silence." The choice of terms is precise and deliberate. In the legislative chambers in Washington one can find a chapel for the use of our elected representatives in seeking Divine guidance in their work. At United Nations headquarters we find instead a huge statue of the mythological Greek god Zeus, who was known for his ferocity and cruelty. Rather than a chapel, there is a "meditation" room, the inside of which resembles a nightmarish cross between an ancient pagan temple and a Picasso modern art exhibit. Completely devoid of religious symbols, there is only a lighted panel of bizarre geometric design, a few oriental benches, and a huge block of polished iron ore under a small shaft of light from the darkened ceiling.
There are two ways of "legally" denying the rights of citizens: One is to write into the law certain escape clauses, prolific qualifications and vague terminology, which can later be interpreted any way the politicians desire. The second way is far simpler: The assumption is merely that rights do not exist and no reference is made to them in the first place. The United Nations knows all about this second approach, as the following clearly reveals.
Abraham Lincoln said: "Property is the fruit of labor; property is desirable; it is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise." The Communist Manifesto on the other hand, says: "The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence, 'abolition of private property.’" It seems strange, then, that the Communist master planners should have allowed Article 17 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights to mention specifically the right to own property. Does it not seem likely that the Communists would delete this provision? The answer is that this is precisely what they have done.
Reference has been made to both the declaration and the covenants when talking about United Nations pronouncements on human rights. The declaration is a broad outline of principle, a public statement of general good intentions. It has no other meaning. The covenants, on the other hand, correspond to legislation and would, if ratified by the member nations, become legally binding upon us. They would completely override and replace our own Bill of Rights. It is not surprising, therefore, to discover that there is often quite a substantial difference between the wording of the Declaration of Human Rights and the draft covenants on human rights. The sweet-sounding, vague terminology of the declaration has been replaced by far more precise and enforceable language in the covenants. But in the case of the right to own property, the provision which appeared in the declaration, vanished altogether in the covenant!
Dr. Charles Malik of Lebanon was the chairman of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Writing in the United Nations Bulletin of September 1, 1952, be said:
He further stated that a "quiet revolution" had occurred with the emphasis shifting "with a vengeance" from personal liberty to "the adequate standard of living."
It was nine years later, after this trend had gone even further, that United States Ambassador Adlai Stevenson said:
That sound you just heard was George Washington and Thomas Jefferson turning over in their graves.
In 1948 the United Nations subcommittee on information and of the press issued a proposed international convention supposedly to protect the right "to seek, receive and impart" information by word of mouth and by publication. It then proceeded to state that government has the- right to impose "penalties, liabilities and restrictions" as well as the "right of correction" whenever it felt that news had been reported falsely.5 More recently the Preamble of the United Nations Convention on Freedom of Information was altered to contain this significant qualification: ". . . freedom of information and opinion accurate, objective and comprehensive."6 [Italics added.]
An excellent example of the kind of freedom of information the world could expect under future United Nations management was provided at a meeting of "psychiatrists and scientific authorities" held under the auspices of the UN World Health Organization (WHO) in November of 1957. This group discussed the "deplorable" free and public discussion among scientists of questions which are controversial. They declared: "The publicizing of disagreements and contradictions among scientists, for example, about polio vaccine, or the cancer-producing effects of tobacco" has contributed to public mistrust of scientists and has caused science to lose "the infallibility with which it was credited in the nineteenth century."7
What kind of information would United Nations officials decide is "accurate, objective and comprehensive?" Conor Cruise O'Brien gave us a hint when he wrote:
And, if there is any lingering doubt as to what the United Nations has in mind when it says it may impose "penalties, liabilities and restrictions" on the right to transmit information, ponder the following news item that appeared in the New York Times during the United Nations December 1961 attack on Katanga:
If it were not so tragically serious, the following extracts taken from a recent issue of the United Nations Review would certainly be good for a laugh:
Since the United Nations claims that one of its purposes is to put an end to aggression, it is interesting to note the United Nations' definition of aggression. At the fifth session of the General Assembly, in 1950, the International Law Commission inserted a paragraph into the draft code of offenses against the peace and security of mankind which declared the following as the UN definition of aggression: "The employment by the authorities of a state of armed force against another state, for any purpose other than national or collective self-defense or in pursuance of a decision or recommendation by a competent organ of the United Nations."10 In other words, if it is a UN military action, such as in Katanga, it simply cannot be considered aggression!
During the attempted Communist take-over of Greece in 1948, the Soviet satellites bordering on the north abducted approximately 25,000 Greek children. The children were never returned to their parents and they have since grown to adulthood, many of them not even aware of their national oriain.11 Yet a few years later, delegates from all over the world traveled to Communist Poland for a UN seminar on the rights of the child and, with the participation of representatives from Communist countries, they piously drafted the declaration of the rights of the child. Adopted by the General Assembly in 1960, the declaration provides that the child must be protected, not only from all forms of neglect, cruelty and exploitation, but also from practices which may foster "religious or other forms of discrimination." This would authorize the United Nations to dictate to parents everywhere, including America, how they may raise their own children. After all, any parent who inculcates in his child a reverence for a particular religion is discriminating against all other religions. The only way to avoid religious discrimination in rearing children is to teach them none at all.
And so it goes. The master planners and their unsuspecting helpers have been busy for years concocting poisonous pills with candy coating and offering them to the American public as the elixir for human suffering. They have covered every possible sphere of man's activities. There is a genocide convention, a declaration of the rights of women, and even proposals for legislation to protect the rights of animals! And lest anyone take these "great principles" too seriously and make the fatal mistake of believing that they are any different from the ones painted on the barn in Orwell's Animal Farm, let them examine the record.
The United Nations Charter says: "Membership in the United Nations is open to other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter, and in the judgement of the organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations." Yet, the greatest peace-destroying force the world has ever seen sits in its tribunals and commands the unquestioning acceptance and respect of all other members.
The Preamble to the Charter states: "We the peoples of the United Nations, determined . . . to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the applications arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained. . . ." But Russia continues to violate every agreement she enters into. When, in violation of one such treaty, she builds a wall through the center of Berlin, denies access to the western sector, and murders in cold blood scores of civilians trying to escape over the wall, the United Nations says nothing--nothing!
In 1952 the free trade union committee of the AFL brought to the attention of the UN the fact that the Communists in Red China had committed between fourteen- and twenty-million political murders. The United Nations listened but took no action. It was apparently too busy drafting the code of offenses against the peace and security of man to be much concerned with twenty million murders.
In 1953 the United Nations Economic and Social Council was asked to discuss the rise of slave labor in the USSR. The council would not discuss the matter and removed it from the agenda. When Red China conquered the independent nation of Tibet, set about systematically destroying its race and its culture, and proceeded to murder over fifty thousand Buddhists, the United Nations looked the other way. Years afterward it passed a vague resolution which started off by praising the principles of its own Charter and then called for "respect for the fundamental human rights of the Tibetan people and for their distinctive cultural and religious life." The resolution did not even mention the name of the aggressor!
When Soviet tanks moved in to crush the Hungarian Revolution, the UN suddenly ceased its talk about "self-determination," "anti-colonialism" and "the peace and security of man." As a matter of fact, throughout the blood bath, the Hungarian delegates from the Communist regime continued to attend United Nations meetings, to vote, and to enjoy all the respect and privileges of membership without one word of protest from the other countries. When the UN committee which had investigated the Communist suppression of freedom in Hungary finally submitted its report to the General Assembly, the United Nations was suddenly too busy to consider it. When the item came up on the 1960 agenda, we find the following official explanation of what happened: "The press of other business prevented the Assembly's consideration of the item on Hungary."12 As the Wall Street Journal editorialized on September 19, 1960: "Abdication of the UN's professed moral purpose is looming; it follows logically from the prevailing double standard at the UN which indicted the West for Suez and Lebanon, but was indifferent to the Communist rape of Tibet and Hungary."
The United Nations has always loudly professed the right of self-determination as a basic right. The Charter proclaims "respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination." In 1955 the social commission of UNESCO declared: "All peoples and all nations shall have the right of self-determination--namely, the right freely to determine their political, economic and cultural status." But when anti-Communist Katanga applied for some of that self-determination, the UN suddenly ran out--or did it? At the very time that it was denying this right to Katanga, the United Nations admitted Communist-controlled Outer Mongolia to the ranks of peace-loving nations. It recognized Syria's independence and admitted it to the UN when it seceded from the United Arab Republic. It did the same when Senegal broke away from the Mali Federation; Pakistan from India; Sudan from Egypt. While the United Nations was insisting that the Congo could not function economically without Katanga, it cut up an area about one tenth the size of Katanga and created two whole new nations; the Kingdom of Ruanda and the Republic of Burundi.
At the very time that the Security Council was condemning Portugal for defending its citizens against Communist-inspired atrocities in Portuguese Angola, it refused to take any action whatsoever in a clear cut case of unprovoked aggression against Portuguese Goa by pro-Communist Nehru of India.13 All animals may be equal, but some are obviously more equal than others.
The list is endless. The United Nations' actions speak so much louder than its words that one can only wonder in amazement at the number of otherwise observant Americans who have fallen for all its propagandizing about human rights. But the above item regarding Nehru suggests a good place to end this part of the story. The London Daily Telegraph a few years ago reported that a young recruit in India's army was asked during a written examination to define "fundamental rights." His answer? "Big rules done by the great people like Lenin, Nehru and Karl Marx."14
1. American Historical Documents (New York, Barnes & Noble, Inc., 1960), p. 152.
2. Ibid., p. 144.
3. Our Rights as Human Beings. A Discussion Guide on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN publication, third revision (1953), p. 18.
4. United Nations Guardian of Peace, Department of State publication #7225 (September 1961), p. 1.
5. Harold Courlander, Shaping Our Times (Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., Oceana Publications, Inc., 1962), p. 54. Also, Manly, pp. 119-120.
6. Ewell,. p. 34.
7. J. B. Matthews, "The World Health Organization," American Opinion (May 1958), p. 10. Dr. Matthews is a former chief investigator for the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
8. O’Brien, pp. 299-300.
9. United Nations Review (June 1963), pp. 33-34.
10. Issues Before the 12th General Assembly: International Conciliation (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Foundation, September 1957), p. 173.
11. Courlander, p. 78.
12. U.S. Participation in the UN: Report by the President to the Congress for the Year 1960, p. 68.
13. Nehru's representative at the UN was frank and defiant in his statement to the General Assembly that India would have her way "Charter or no Charter; Council or no Council!" In the Security Council, a resolution condemning India for her aggression was promptly vetoed by the Soviets; and in the General Assembly less than one third of the members (thirty-five, to be exact) were willing to go on record as opposing Nehru. Also, speech by former Secretary of State James F. Byrnes, entered in the Congressional Record by Congressman James B. Utt (May 1, 1962). Also, "Goa, UN and Nehru," Chicago Tribune (December 19, 1961), sec. 1, p. 20.
14. Ewell, p. 92.