Chapter 10.

The United Nations

From the general review already covered it has become apparent that the organization known as the United Nations is playing some important part in what is going on in our world today. It has been charged by various people with being the motivating force behind political treason and has also been charged with having plans for genocide. In relation to this last it is instructive to read the U.N's own definition of genocide. From the Crime of Genocide OP1/489:

"Genocide is the committing of certain acts with intent to destroy—wholly or in part—a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group." Emphasis added.

As we shall see, between what the U.N. says and the fruit it bears, there is no relation one to the other.

We must not forget that socialism is a disguise for a planned deceit. U.N. programs never present material that is obviously obnoxious. It is not what they say but how they behave, that exposes their planning. Human rights legislation promotes social anarchy and moral subversion while, at the same time, restricting the human right of freedom of speech where it would expose these abuses.

The U.N. aim is national destruction. 'Human Rights' is used to promote depravities among children while denying parents the right to understand or protest. Human Rights promotes multiculturalism (knowing full well that this is the most common cause of mass violence in multicultural communities) while at the same time denying the human right to challenge the concept.

As Lenin wrote:

"The dictatorship of the proletariat is the rule—unrestricted by law and based on force ..".

That a foreign ideology has largely taken over control of the Australian party political system and undermined constitutional government, is beyond reasonable doubt. It would be impossible for this to happen if such subversion were confined to Australia alone.

Bryton Barron, former head of the Treaty Staff, State Department, U.S.A., makes this remark:

"The U.N. has made no serious effort to enforce peace ... It is merely the sounding board for communism and already exists as a form of world government ... The attempt is being made now to destroy the [American] constitution. The danger lies in the legislative process of the U.N. ... Socialist and communistically inclined professors in our colleges and universities even speak of 'international government' as an accomplished fact. The exponents of 'World Government' now visualize a proposed International Court of Human Rights ... the membership of which will be predominantly composed of communists ..."*

So we see that the same sickness is also eating into United States culture and it is not difficult to find that it is a world-wide sickness in nations based on Christian European democratic concepts. This sickness in democratic countries is not directly the result of the democratic process other than that our democracies have been too democratic in allowing our enemies free access to the bloodstream of our intellect.

It is clearly evident that the poison administered at first through the education system is now followed up by the United Nations organization for high pressure political injection. This situation was also exposed by Dr. Abraham Yeselson, Chairman of Political Science Department at Rutgers University U.S.A., when testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (8/5/1975):

"It will be extraordinarily difficult now to rationalize continued involvement in an organization [the U.N.] which sponsors wars, passes one-sided or unenforceable resolutions, provides forums for international insult instead of diplomacy, and is guilty of the most outrageous examples of selective justice."*

However despite these and many other equally revealing warnings, the U.S.A. and Western Nations still remain in the United Nations, and worse, still pay the bulk of its costs. The hold communism now has is partly revealed in the following statement by Senator Eastland, Committee Chairman of a U.S. Senate Committee investigating communist penetration of the American staff of the U.N. He said:

"I am appalled at the extensive evidence indicating that there is today in the U.N. among the American employees there, the greatest concentration of communists that this Committee has ever encountered [and that] these people occupy high positions .."*

Others have made the same discovery; Reynold & Peter Lanzon in their study of the United Nations say:

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights serves only as a broad outline of principle ... The Covenants are proposals of how the human rights proclaimed in the Declaration are to be applied ... The Soviet influence in the covenants is unmistakable. A large part of the [Russian] Constitution, in fact, is almost textually embodied in one of the Covenants."*

They also describe the U.N. breaks its own charter, and its harsh sanctions on innocent, peaceful countries for no other reason than that these nations are pro-Christian, pro-western, anti-communist and/or anti-World Government.

Nevertheless we must remember that the U.N. comes into the picture only as executor of policies formulated elsewhere. It does not represent a new force in world culture but is the tool of an old force that is completing a program.

Lord Bury, Lord Chief Justice of England, in "The New Despotism" said:

"There is .. a persistent influence at work which ... undoubtedly has the effect of placing a large and increasing field of departmental authority and activity beyond the reach of the ordinary law ..."*

It is interesting that laws now being introduced to Australia do exactly that. On the pretext of defending our human rights they place citizens under the authority of people who have every encouragement to become tyrants and zealots as they seek out what they consider to be the 'evils' of society, and they do this protected by, not restrained by, the rules of law.

*The last five quotations were taken from a paper distributed by The Australian Constitution and Common Law Defence Association.

Two Faces of Democracy

The forces arrayed against us and their ancient origin, have been outlined in these pages, but it may also be well to remind ourselves of more conventional views. In "The Dilemma of Democracy" (1978) Lord Hailsham comments:

"Our troubles derive from the fact that we are halting between two inconsistent opinions about the nature of democracy ...Both opinions claim to be democratic ... Both claim to rest upon the interest of people. Yet each is wholly inconsistent with the other ... The two theories are the theory of centralized democracy, known to me as elective dictatorship, and the theory of limited government, in my language the doctrine of freedom under law.".

" will assert the right of a bare majority ... to assert its will over a whole people whatever that will may be. It will end in a rigid economic plan, and, I believe, in a siege economy, a curbed and subservient judiciary, and a regulated press. It will impose uniformity on the whole nation in the interest of what it claims to be social justice. It will insist on equality. .. It will crush local autonomy. It will dictate the structure, form, and content of education. ... It will worship material values. .. When its policies fail, it will rely strongly on class divisiveness or scapegoats to distract attention .."

Does that sound all too familiar? This Hailsham book was printed in 1978 and yet his description of 'centralized democracy' seems almost to be an on-the-spot description of the developing scene in Australia, (1988). But let us look at his description of his alternative concept of democracy. Quote:

"It is the old doctrine inherent .. in English Law that those in a position of political authority may not rule absolutely, that .. even kings may not place themselves above the law, and may not make laws which affront the instructed conscience of the commonality."

"The theory of limited government offers precisely what the dominant theory denies. In place of uniformity it offers diversity. In place of equality it offers justice. In place of the common good, it protects the rights of minorities and the individual. As an alternative to regulation it offers the rule of law ... it prescribes limits beyond which governments and Parliaments must not go, and it suggests means by which they can be compelled to observe those limits ... It offers protection against the oppressiveness of unions and corporations.

"Above all it corresponds with the general conscience of mankind ... Agamemnon was wrong to sacrifice Iphigenia to give a fair wind to the fleet. He would not have done right had he been authorized to do so by popular acclaim, as no doubt he was. Caiaphas spoke falsehood when he asserted that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. He would not have spoken true even had he ... the full approval of the majority, as perhaps he did when the crowd yelled for the release of the guilty Barabbas ..."

The division between the concept of democratic socialism and the concept of Christian democracy is well put by Lord Hailsham. His description expresses well the conventional view of the essence of the difference between these two ideas.

In the takeover of our culture it is observable that the socialist form of democracy now being imposed on countries of European Christian culture appears to be excessively concerned to not just protect the rights of minorities but to give them a greatly magnified voice. This apparently to create some impression of equality with the majority. Thus the rights of the child become superior to the rights of the parents; the rights of singles, superior to the rights of the family; the rights of the twisted, superior to the rights of the straight; the rights of the malcontent, superior to the rights of the community; the rights of the criminal, superior to the rights of victims, and so on.

This leads to a superficial impression of equality that is denied by the fact that only selected minorities are catered for. There is a certain division between those minorities which serve disruption and those soothing. We are all leveled down to equality with the minority at the bottom, not up to the minority at the top; we are forced to equality with the sick while perfection is abused.

Deformity of limited government is designed to create artificial divisions so that from the resulting conflict will come the opportunity for democracy by dictate of overseas masters, which is no democracy at all.

There is no 'Constitution' or 'Bill of Rights' that can protect the people. Only when a good constitution is backed by people who understand how that constitution is supposed to work, and are prepared to do their duty to see that it does work, can democracy and justice survive.

We can only retain our rights if we accept our obligations. Once an alien force gains power in our parliament then all our constitutional safeguards will not save us. This is one reason why the alien in control today is treading softly; he is not yet prepared to fully exercise the legal powers he has contrived to secure because he fears to awaken a community that may not yet have lost entirely that understanding and self respect which gives people the courage to stand in self defence. avoid10.htm

.../Next Page

.../Back to Contents Page