G. Edward Griffin - The Fearful Master - PDF Archive

We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last best hope of earth.
Abraham Lincoln
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN: OUR LAST BEST HOPE
Before proceeding with a discussion of possible solutions to this gigantic United Nations
dilemma, it seems appropriate to examine the principle arguments so often used by
sincere Americans to justify our continued support of the United Nations. These can be
the equivalents of mental short circuits in an otherwise logical thinking process--a preconditioned
substitute for rational thought. If repeated often enough without challenge,
these clichés gradually seep their way into the subconscious where they can then
command the emotions to their uncritical defense. For this reason, let us be sure that we
clearly understand the basic flaws and fallacies that lurk behind the most typical clichés.
It is our last best hope for peace. This is, without a doubt, the most universal cliché used
to defend the United Nations. It takes many forms and subtle variations. It is safe to say
that over ninety percent of all pro-UN speeches, magazine articles and books hinge
around this central theme. Unless we can spot the fallacies, we are completely at their
mercy.
The first fallacy is clear to anyone who has taken the trouble to follow the UN's action to
bring about peace in Katanga. There are two kinds of peace. One is the kind that most of
us think about when we hear the word--a peace that includes freedom. But, if we define
peace as merely the absence of war, then we could be talking about the peace that reigns
in a Communist slave labor camp. One thing is certain, the wretched souls imprisoned
there are not at war! But would they call it peace?
Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani expressed it well when he said:
While Cain can still massacre Abel without anyone's noticing it; while
entire nations are still held in slavery without anyone coming to the
assistance of the oppressed; while . . . years after the Hungarian revolt,
the bloodletting still continues with the condemnation to death of
students, peasants and workers guilty of having loved a freedom that
was stamped out by foreign tanks, without the world showing any horror
at so great a crime-- while such things persist, it is impossible to speak
of a true peace, but only of a consent to a massacre. 1
The second fallacy, however, is far more important. How on earth can an organization
promote peace in the world when strategically entrenched within it is the most aggressive
peace-destroying force the world has ever seen? International Communism recognizes
only the principle of brute force. When it was suggested at Teheran that the Pope request
Hitler to guarantee the humane treatment of prisoners, Stalin remarked, "The Pope? How
many divisions does he have?" 2 Having the Communists sitting in key spots within a socalled
peace-keeping force is as logical as having members of the Mafia on a police
commissioner's board to prevent crime in Chicago!