G. Edward Griffin - The Fearful Master - PDF Archive

certainly eradicated by Secretary-General U Thant. Speaking on April 5, 1963, at
Columbia University, he said:
Not so long ago, there were quite divergent views in the membership of
the UN about the desirability and wisdom for governments to set targets
and adopt national plans or programs. Today . . . there is a broad
measure of agreement about the usefulness of projections, planning
and programing as practical tools for economic and social development,
while the controversy about the relative merits of private enterprise and
public undertakings is transcended by the realization that the most
important aim of development is to bring about expansion and change
for the benefit of all. 12
Translated into simple, understandable English, Thant said that everyone in the UN
agrees that socialism is more practical and desirable than free enterprise.
The socialistic bias of the UN is clearly revealed on nearly every page of the monthly
United Nations Review. One can find reports on UN proceedings dealing with setting
prices, production quotas, inventories, stockpiles of raw materials, labor standards, wages
and monetary policies. Every conceivable sphere of human economic activity is being
analyzed and then planned for so that it will come under the ultimate control of the United
Nations.
As the months slip by and as we enter into thousands of additional treaties, executive
orders, and international agreements, the silken thread continues to be spun around the
sleeping giant. The job is so near completion that already there are a multitude of United
Nations regulations that reach right down to the daily lives of American citizens. An
example is the International Wheat Conference which actually decrees how much wheat
our farmers may sell in foreign countries and sets the price to be paid for it. The Federal
Government enforces these decrees by the authority derived from an international
treaty. 13
The International Materials Conference is another example. Set up in 1951, its purpose
was to clamp down import and export quotas for certain strategic materials such as
sulphur, copper, zinc and tungsten. During the Korean War, we found that these quotas
severely hampered the production of critical war materials and resulted in costly layoffs in
some industries. When a subcommittee of the United States Senate looked into the
matter, it reported:
. . . in effect, the International Materials Conference, an unauthorized
group of persons in other countries, dictated to the United States how
much of such critical materials could be allocated to the United States
stockpile.
The so-called "entitlements of consumption" established by the
International Materials Conference created a shortage of critical
materials in this country for the benefit of foreign powers. . . .
When the Senate received this report, it immediately withdrew authorization for the use of
funds to be used in support of the IMC. The executive department under President
Eisenhower, however, completely ignored the action and merely diverted the funds from
other sources for this purpose. The justification used was that the IMC derived its authority