United Nations-Friend or Foe?
The United Nations is praised by the media, the public school system, and the Federal government as "the last, best hope of mankind", an institution that will bestow upon humanity "freedom -from war"i. But a look beneath the surface reveals something entirely different-—a tyrannical, grasping and anti-human creature that seeks to largely depopulate the earth and permit the survivors to live only in restricted areas. Strong words perhaps. Let's examine the charges one by one—then you decide.
Tyrannical? The UN's Covenant on Human Rights is merely a list of privileges. Art. 13 permits freedom of religion "subject to limitations prescribed by law." Art. 14 grants the privilege to impart ideas "subject to certain penalties, liabilities and restrictions". Thus the concept of rights is foreign to the UN, which was deliberately designed so as to concentrate all power in an omnipotent government "for the good of humanity". Unfortunately unchecked power has been shown to result in fatal consequences, in accordance with the "Power Principle: power kills and absolute power kills absolutely."ii
Grasping? The UN has already laid claim to 43.6 million acres in the U.S. under the Biosphere Reserve Program. It has also designated the Wildlands Project as the model for "biological diversity"iii That project, promoted by a board member of the Sierra Club, is working to return "at least 50 percent" of America to "core wilderness areas" where human activity is barred. Core wilderness areas are to be connected by miles-wide corridors surrounded by "buffer zones" in which limited human activity may be permitted. In both the core areas and buffer zones "the collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans." Thus human habitat will be mainly confined to 25 percent of the land. For now the UN is content with the other 75 percent.
Anti-human? In 1947 Julian Huxley, the first Director-General of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, wrote, "Thus even though...any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that... the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable."iv In other words the "educational" arm of UNESCO must condition the public to accept the idea that life and death decisions should be made by the UN.
In a 1994 UNESCO publication Jacques Cousteau stated: "It's terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn't even say it."v-Thus authoritarian people hiding behind an environmental mask wish to reduce the population by 125,000,000 per year. To put this in perspective governments in this century have murdered 169 million peoplevi, exclusive of battle dead, or 1.7 million per year on average. The UN's "scientific" arm is promoting the elimination of sixty-five times that number for an indefinite period! Will our families be among them?
An indication of the UN's pitilessness was its 1990-96 ban on Iraqi oil sales. Denied the money with which to purchase food and medicine an estimated 30,000 Iraqi children died per month. Not quite Cousteau's 350,000 a day, but a start.
Who will protect the people from this monstrosity?
The Federal government? You decide: the Department of the Interior, USAID, the IMF and World Bank (both US-funded) all work hand in glove with the UN; the State Department alone has transferred $95.3 billion to that body, as of 1993.—The armed forces, won't they protect the people? No, for they are to be disarmed and replaced by a UN Peace Force [standing army]vii; in fact U.S. soldiers are taking orders today from a Finnish UN general in Macedonia.-The National Guard? Totally federalized, it has been used against the people, as at Kent State where guardsmen killed four students.-The police? Federal police have remorselessly killed scores of peaceable Americans; local police can be federalized, as were the Texas Rangers during the Waco incident.
If the government, the armed forces, the National Guard and the police either will not or cannot protect the people, who will?
Sources:
iiR.J. Rummel, Death by Government, xvi
iiiUN Environmental Programme, Global Biodiversity Assessment, Sect. 10.4
ivWilliam F. Jasper, Global Tyranny... Step by Step, 165
vUNESCO Courier, Nov. 1994, 13