Thursday, 25 May 2017

The UN Founding and Founders

Written by 

Most people believe that the United Nations was started with the high ideal of preventing war, but it was started as a seed that could be grown into world government.


On April 25, 1945, an extraordinary gathering of politicians and diplomats from 46 nations convened in San Francisco. Over the next two months, they completed the formal negotiations for a project that had been under way (both secretly and publicly) for several years. Their project, ostensibly, envisioned a world organization that would put an end to war. The Second World War was all but over. The German army was in retreat everywhere, and on April 27, Berlin was completely encircled. Italian dictator Benito Mussolini was captured on April 28 and summarily shot and hanged in Milan. Adolf Hitler and his longtime mistress, Eva Braun, committed suicide on April 30. On May 8, Germany unconditionally surrendered and Victory in Europe, V-E Day, was declared.

Fierce fighting continued to rage in the Pacific as the “peace conference” got under way in San Francisco, but Japan was also in retreat. Victory over Japan (V-J Day) was declared on August 14, following the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki (August 9).

The war’s devastation had left much of Europe in ruins. Millions of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and civilians had been killed. Millions more were sick and wounded. There were millions of homeless refugees. Across Asia, the carnage of war had likewise cut an incredible swath of human desolation and economic destruction.

Amid the jubilant celebrations of V-E Day/V-J Day and the somber reflections on colossal war-born misery, thinking people of humane conscience everywhere were asking questions and looking for answers. How did this happen? Why all the needless death and destruction? If another war were to break out — one utilizing the terrifying new power of atomic weapons — could humanity even survive? Is there no way to put an end to war? Could something like the failed League of Nations, or some other proposal for “collective security,” have prevented World War II? Must we not strive mightily, think differently, and take extraordinary measures to avert any possibility of a World War III?


This article appears in the June 5, 2017, issue of The New American. To download the issue and continue reading this story, or to subscribe, click here.


For hope and answers, the attention of our troubled world was directed toward the “noble undertaking” on America’s west coast. A front-page story on the San Francisco conference in the New York Times for April 24 carried the headline “46 Nations Ready to Organize Peace.”

The subhead for the story, referring to U.S. Secretary of State Edward R. Stetti­nius, read: “Stettinius, Arriving for Opening Today, Sets Keynote for Forming World Agency.”

“Now the deepest hope and highest purpose of all mankind — enduring peace — is here committed to our hands,” Secretary Stettinius told the august assemblage. “With that image of the aspiration of mankind before us, with the conviction that the work we have to do is good and that our purpose can be brought to pass, let us unite with confidence and hope in our common labor.”

The conference that Secretary Stettinius addressed was, of course, the Charter Conference of the United Nations, regarded as the founding gathering of the world body. For two months — April 25-June 26 — representatives of 50 nations, four of which were invited after the conference began, debated and negotiated relatively inconsequential details of two foundational documents that had already been written and presented to them: the United Nations Charter and the Statute of the International Court of Justice. (There were to have been 51 nations at the conference, but the Polish contingent was unable to attend because the Soviet Union and its communist puppets in Poland were making a freely elected, democratic government — which Stalin agreed to at the Yalta Conference — impossible.)

In the seven decades since that United Nations Charter Conference, countless editorials, textbooks, and speeches have reverentially extolled the virtuous “aspirations,” “vision,” and “ideals” of the UN founders. Even many conservatives who detest the UN because they recognize it to be a corrupt and murderous dictators club nevertheless feel compelled to genuflect in homage to the men whose “noble ideals” supposedly guided the framing of the world body. After all, the UN is “Mankind’s last, best hope for peace,” is it not? And who could be opposed to world peace?

It is our purpose here to show that, contrary to popular myth, the UN was never intended to be a “peace organization.” It was intended from the beginning to be the nascent organization that would be used incrementally — year by year, step by step — to create an all-powerful world government.

John Foster Dulles, one of the behind-the-scenes UN architects (and, subsequently, President Truman’s secretary of state) underscored this developmental nature of the UN in his 1950 book War or Peace, in which he wrote: “The United Nations represents not a final stage in the development of world order, but only a primitive stage. Therefore its primary task is to create the conditions which will make possible a more highly developed organization.” Dulles, who was a founder of the Council on Foreign Relations and an avid world-government devotee, also wrote, in the same book, “I have never seen any proposal for collective security with ‘teeth’ in it, or for ‘world government’ or for ‘world federation,’ which could not be carried out either by the United Nations or under the United Nations Charter.” It is important to note that Dulles, a top political and financial insider, was stating this claim not as a criticism, but as an endorsement of the UN.

The deplorable record of the UN over the past 72 years is not due to the organization’s failure to follow the exalted aims attributed to its framers; it has followed, and is following, precisely the trajectory of those who designed it. As we detail below, the UN founders were a motley collection of globalists, socialists, and communists who shared a vision of global, centralized collectivism, with all of humanity and all human activity ruled by an oligarchical elite. Thus, one has fallen into a dangerous trap if he proposes, as many do today, to “reform” the UN, to bring it back in line with the vision of its founders, as if doing so would render it benign.

The House That Hiss Built

The official UN website says regarding the glittering San Francisco confab: “There were 850 delegates, and their advisers and staff together with the conference secretariat brought the total to 3,500. In addition, there were more than 2,500 press, radio and newsreel representatives and observers from many societies and organizations. In all, the San Francisco Conference was not only one of the most important in history but, perhaps, the largest international gathering ever to take place.”

The same UN web page on the Charter Conference lists a number of the important personages who participated in the monumental effort, but conspicuously fails to mention the individual who was, arguably, the most significant: Alger Hiss. As acting secretary-general of the United Nations Charter Conference, Hiss wielded unparalleled power and influence among the attendees. Not only was he in charge of day-to-day scheduling and the one who functioned as the overall guide for the conference negotiations, but he had been responsible for selecting the U.S. staff that would hugely affect the final outcome of the conference and the character of the organization that was being created.

Time magazine, reporting about Hiss and the upcoming conference, stated in its April 16, 1945 issue: “As secretary-general, managing the agenda, he will have a lot to say behind the scenes about who gets the breaks.” Hiss also served on the steering and executive committees, which put the finishing touches on the UN Charter. Then, at the conclusion of the conference, Hiss personally carried the new charter back to Washington, D.C., for Senate ratification. He rose to become director of the State Department’s Office of Special Political Affairs, but his official titles did not begin to do justice to the special access he enjoyed to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (and his successor, Harry Truman), or his special status as a top White House advisor. It was Alger Hiss who was Roosevelt’s right hand at the fateful Yalta Conference that gave Joseph Stalin a free hand to carve up Asia and Eastern Europe and consigned much of humanity to communist torture, death, and tyranny.

Although his name is not familiar to most Gen-Xers and Millennials, for several dec­ades following World War II, Alger Hiss was infamous as one of the most despicable traitors in history. Hundreds of communists had penetrated our government for Stalin’s intelligence agencies, but Hiss (who worked for the GRU, Soviet military intelligence) was one of the most important Soviet agents in America. Although he declared his innocence until the end (he died in 1996) and had legions of defenders among the literati, glitterati, and illuminati of the worlds of academia, media, and entertainment, the evidence confirming his treachery, lying, and treason became cumulatively more overwhelming with each passing year. Today, only the most willfully blind ideologues and fellow communists proclaim his innocence.

Anti-communist Americans (which included most Americans) of the 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s were not fooled by Hiss’s denials, nor did they buy the arguments and propaganda of his defenders. However, what all too few Americans realized is that in addition to being a dedicated Soviet agent, Hiss was also a member of another organization that is equally treacherous and treasonous, and arguably more dangerous: the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

The U.S. delegation was completely dominated by officials who were communists and globalists, both of whom detest national sovereignty. In addition to Hiss and Stettinius, the CFR contingent to the San Francisco Conference numbered over 40, including Nelson Rockefeller, Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Isaiah Bowman, Ralph Bunche, John Foster Dulles, Harold Stassen, and John J. McCloy. Besides Hiss, there were at least 16 high-level communists in the U.S. delegation, among whom were Harry Dexter White, Victor Perlo, Viginius Frank Coe, Lauchlin Currie, and Nathan Silvermaster. At least three — Hiss, Currie, and Lawrence Duggan — were agents for both the USSR and the CFR. The communists have repeatedly stated their goal of a socialist world government. As early as 1915, Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin wrote (in the Sotsial-Demokrat) of the essential need for “the victory of socialism in a single country” as prelude for a socialist “United States of Europe” and a “United States of the World.”

The CFR globalists are no less committed to the same objective, even though they don’t stress the socialist goals espoused by Lenin & Company, and even pretend to support some form of free-market “capitalist” economics. However, as far as domestic policies go, the CFR brain trust has ever provided the leading voices for the choir promoting Big Government policies that destroy entrepreneurial opportunity and property rights, and that concentrate more power and wealth in the hands of the financial elites. The organization’s most distinguishing characteristic is its relentless and overriding promotion of world government, usually under euphemistic terms such as “global governance,” “collective security,” “interdependence,” and “sustainable development.”

According to the late Admiral Chester Ward, a former judge advocate general of the Navy, the CFR had been formed for the purpose of “promoting disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful, one-world government.” He had arrived at that conclusion from intensive study of the council’s members, publications, and activities, as well as — most importantly — his own experience as a member of the council for 16 years. This experience led him to write, together with co-author Phyllis Schlafly, that the most influential clique within the CFR “is composed of the one-world-global-government ideologists — more respectfully referred to as the organ­ized internationalists. They are the ones who carry on the tradition of the [CFR’s] founders.” Although not every council member is infected with this globalist virus (as his own example proved), he nevertheless charged that “this lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership.... The majority visualize the utopian submergence of the United States as a subsidiary administrative unit of a global government.”

Admiral Ward wrote that condemnation of the CFR in 1975; the subsequent four-plus decades of the organization’s activities and propaganda have more than validated his assessment.

Genesis of the UN

World War II was launched on September 1, 1939, with the joint German and Soviet invasion and division of Poland. The Nazi-communist rape of Poland had been secretly agreed upon in August 1939, with the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, also known as the Stalin-Hitler Pact. As this enormous crime was unfolding, Walter H. Mallory, executive director of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Hamilton Fish Armstrong, editor of the CFR’s journal Foreign Affairs, paid a visit to the Department of State to arrange the council’s covert takeover of American diplomacy and foreign policy. Mallory and Armstrong had in mind the re-creation of the Inquiry, the name given to the secret brain trust hatched at the end of World War I by President Woodrow Wilson’s advisor and “alter ego,” Colonel Edward Mandell House. The Inquiry was the germ that, in 1921, became the Council on Foreign Relations.

Here’s the CFR’s own in-house account of the event, as published in Continuing the Inquiry: The Council on Foreign Relations from 1921 to 1996 by Peter Grose:

More than two years before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the research staff of the Council on Foreign Relations had started to envision a venture that would dominate the life of the institution for the demanding years ahead. With the memory of the Inquiry in focus, they conceived a role for the Council in the formulation of national policy. On September 12, 1939, as Nazi Germany invaded Poland, Armstrong and Mallory entrained to Washington to meet with Assistant Secretary of State George S. Messersmith.... The men from the Council proposed a discreet venture reminiscent of the Inquiry: a program of independent analysis and study that would guide American foreign policy in the coming years of war and the challenging new world that would emerge after. The project became known as the War and Peace Studies.

“The matter is strictly confidential,” wrote CFR leader Isaiah Bowman, “because the whole plan would be ‘ditched’ if it became generally known that the State Department is working in collaboration with any outside group.” Dr. Bowman, president of Johns Hopkins University, was speaking from experience. As a member of Colonel House’s Inquiry and a CFR founder, he had seen firsthand the resistance to their outside, private group taking over official policymaking two decades earlier.

“Over the coming five years, almost 100 men participated in the War and Peace Studies, divided into four functional topic groups: economic and financial, security and armaments, territorial, and political,” CFR member Peter Grose, a former New York Times correspondent and editor, writes in Continuing the Inquiry. “These groups met more than 250 times, usually in New York, over dinner and late into the night,” he notes. “They produced 682 memoranda for the State Department, which marked them classified and circulated them among the appropriate government departments.” This massive effort was underwritten by the Rockefeller Foundation, Grose notes.

Grose writes that “On March 17, 1940, the Council submitted a memo, ‘The Strategic Importance of Greenland,’” which was immediately adopted as official policy.

Continuing the Inquiry reports that “Once the United States entered the war, most of the guiding spirits of the War and Peace Studies accepted mobilization into government service, in uniform, in the State Department, or in the fledgling intelligence agency, the Office of Strategic Services.”

“Allen Dulles, for instance, became a pivotal figure in the OSS from a clandestine base in neutral Switzerland, where he had an influential role in implementing the idea he had presented to the Council for an American occupation force in defeated Germany,” notes Grose. “His brother, John Foster, remained at his New York law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell, throughout the war, but he was active in assisting State Department planning for the future United Nations.” The Dulles brothers were, of course, acolytes of Colonel House, members of the Inquiry, and founders of the CFR.

Council members followed Isaiah Bowman’s advice to keep their growing control of the American government secret, even from fellow CFR members who were not explicitly involved. “The primary function of the Council on Foreign Relations during World War II,” write Grose, “proceeded in rigid secrecy, remote from the slightest awareness of most of the council’s 663 members, who were not themselves personally involved.”

However, the council’s hijacking of official government functions did not go unnoticed. Harley Notter, assistant chief of the division of special research in the State Department, for instance, resigned in protest over the CFR coup. Notter wrote a letter of resignation to his superior, Leo Pasvolsky, explaining that his dissatisfaction stemmed from the State Department’s “relations with the Council on Foreign Relations. I have consistently opposed every move tending to give it increasing control of the research of this Division, and, though you have also consistently stated that such a policy was far from your objectives, the actual facts already visibly show that Departmental control is fast losing ground.”

What Dr. Notter perhaps didn’t realize at the time was that Dr. Pasvolsky, to whom he was complaining, was also a CFR member, as was Assistant Secretary of State George S. Messersmith, the official with whom Mallory and Armstrong had met to arrange the CFR’s War and Peace Studies Group secret alliance with the State Department. Although FDR’s Secretary of State Cordell Hull was not a formal council member, he was closely associated with the council and, essentially, implemented its policies. And he was succeeded by Edward Stettinius, who was a CFR member.

In a very telling move and a revealing speech, Secretary Stettinius displayed his allegiance to the council and its goals with an address to the organization on April 6, 1945. He opened his speech with these comments:

In speaking here in New York this afternoon at the dedication of the building which is henceforth to be the headquarters of the Council on Foreign Relations, I come to bear witness, as has every Secretary of State during the past quarter of a century, to the great services and influence of this organization in spreading knowledge and understanding of the issues of United States foreign policy.

He was speaking to the council 20 days before he would journey to San Francisco to deliver his speech at the UN Charter Conference, from which we quoted above. In doing so, he was paying obeisance to the powers that be, as well as rallying the troops for the epic new battle for global government. He reminded his CFR audience: “Eight years ago my great predecessor, Cordell Hull, when speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations, called for ‘a world organized for peace and advancing civilization, rather than for war and degrading savagery.’”

“First of all, let us keep the San Francisco Conference in its proper perspective,” Stettinius told his CFR confreres. “It is not a peace conference.... Its purpose is to prepare a charter of a world organization to preserve the peace in the future.”

“What we must do there is to create the framework for the world organization that can command the support of the great majority of the peoples of the world,” Stettinius said.

The death of President Roosevelt on April 12, 1945, vaulted Vice President Harry S. Truman into the Oval Office. His administration continued the Pratt House takeover of the State Department (as well as other departments) that was already going full bore under FDR. Besides Stettinius, Pasvolsky, and Messersmith, his State Department’s CFR hacks included Dean Acheson, Robert Lovett, David Bruce, Dean Rusk, Nelson Rockefeller, W. Averell Harriman, George Kennan, and Walter Bedell Smith — to name a few. President Truman was channeling the CFR brain trust’s message when he delivered his address to the closing session of the San Francisco UN Conference on June 26, 1945.

“What you have accomplished in San Francisco shows how well these lessons of military and economic cooperation have been learned,” Truman declared. “You have created a great instrument for peace and security and human progress in the world. The world must now use it! If we fail to use it, we shall betray all those who have died in order that we might meet here in freedom and safety to create it.”

Grose’s book Continuing the Inquiry proudly displays (on page 25) a photograph of President Truman at the CFR headquarters. The photo caption reads: “President Truman (center) at the Harold Pratt House accompanied by John J. McCloy (at right).”

John J. McCloy, known as the “chairman of the American establishment,” was an insiders’ insider. He was chairman of the CFR (from 1953-1970), chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank, chairman of the Ford Foundation, assistant secretary of war, U.S. high commissioner for Germany, and president of the World Bank, as well as being friend and advisor to nine U.S. presidents, from Franklin Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan.

And yet McCloy, the quintessential wealthy Wall Streeter, was, like so many others among the CFR elites, strangely friendly with communist dictators and supportive of communists and communist movements here in the United States. Max Holland, contributing editor to The Wilson Quarterly, reported in the Autumn 1991 issue of that journal that “In a May [1946] memo, FBI head J. Edgar Hoover warned the Truman Administration of an ‘enormous Soviet espionage ring in Washington … with reference to atomic energy,’ and identified McCloy along with Dean Acheson and Alger Hiss, as worrisome for ‘their pro-Soviet leanings.’”

After all, it was McCloy who, two years earlier, as assistant secretary of war, approved an order permitting Communist Party members to become officers in the U.S. Army. He defended identified communist John Carter Vincent and supported J. Robert Oppenheimer after the scientist was denied a top security clearance. It was also McCloy who organized the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency for President Kennedy and who, together with Soviet counterpart Valerian Zorin, drew up the 1961 Freedom From War surrender plan that proposed to transfer all U.S. armaments, including the private arms of American civilians, to the United Nations.

However, McCloy, who was well versed in the dark arts of deception, learned early on that he could use anti-communist rhetoric to sell pro-communist schemes. He observed that a good way to assure a viewpoint gets noticed and wins approval is to cast it in terms of resisting the spread of communism. “People sat up and listened when the Soviet threat was mentioned,” he once remarked. Allen and John Foster Dulles, Dean Acheson, Dean Rusk, Averell Harriman, Robert McNamara, and many other CFR “wise men” learned this lesson well, and regularly claimed their policies were aimed at fighting communism, when they were instead helping the communists.

During the war, McCloy and his fellow CFR globalists paved the way and drew up the plans for the organization that would become the United Nations. And in the postwar years they carried their scheme to fruition. What was the result? The United Nations became one of the most important vehicles for promoting communism and socialism worldwide.

We have space here for only one example that demonstrates, only seven years after its founding, where the UN was going. In 1952, Senator James O. Eastland summed up the findings of an investigation by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary into “Activities of U.S. Citizens Employed by the UN.” Senator Eastland stated:

I am appalled at the extensive evidence indicating that there is today in the UN among the American employees there, the greatest concentration of Communists that this Committee has ever encountered.... These people occupy high positions. They have very high salaries and almost all of these people have, in the past, been employees in the U.S. government in high and sensitive positions.

How did all of those communist agents and subversives get into those “high and sensitive positions?” Recalling his official government service, McCloy once remarked: “Whenever we needed a man we thumbed through the roll of the Council members and put through a call to New York.”

Those council members not only designed the UN, but made it into what it is today. As our cover story for this issue demonstrates, the United Nations is not only a sinkhole of crime, corruption, and degeneracy, but also a dictators club of some of the most tyrannical and murderous regimes in history. The UN’s appalling record over the past seven decades abundantly demonstrates that the UN has become the paramount threat to world peace, not the bringer of peace its promoters promised. And with their recent “World Government Summit,” the UN globalists have now come out into the open with their agenda to transform the UN into a world government with legislative, executive, and judicial powers, backed up by a world military force. It is worse than vain to propose putative reforms with the alleged aim of reorienting the UN toward the “wisdom,” “ideals,” and “hopes” of its founders. Such proposals are based on either abject ignorance or conscious deceit. The UN is rotten to the core and incapable of reform because its founders and its founding documents and principles were intentionally subversive. The United Nations is irredeemable. For those truly committed to peace and liberty, the necessary course of action should be clear: Get the United States out of the United Nations, and get the UN out of the United States!

Photo: AP Images

Please review our Comment Policy before posting a comment

Whatfinger Featured Videos:


Affiliates and Friends

Social Media