G. Edward Griffin - The Fearful Master - PDF Archive

It is curious to observe how so many people apparently grasp this fact when applied to
Red China, but fail to apply the same principle to Soviet Russia. They become excited
over the possibility of admitting Red China to the United Nations, but never advocate
throwing out the other Communist countries. Former UN Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge,
as a typical example, once argued that Red China should not be admitted to the United
Nations because the organization "is not a place where the virtuous and the criminal sit
side by side." 3 Yet, we do sit side by side with the Soviets. According to this kind of logic,
either the U.S. is criminal or the Soviets are virtuous!
Obviously there can be no peace without order; there can be no order without justice; and
there can be no justice when the criminal directs the police and judges his own trial. This
is why, since the UN was created supposedly to prevent the rise of another world-grasping
tyrannical power like Nazism, the equally ruthless and bloodthirsty regime of international
Communism has spread at a fantastic pace and has massacred and enslaved more
people, broken more families, destroyed more homes and conquered more land than
Hitler even came close to doing. If that is our last best hope for peace, we have lost all
semblance of sanity.
The UN must be hurting the Communists, otherwise why would they rant and rave against
it so much? The answer to that one is very simple. They do not oppose the UN at all. The
only time they appear to is when it is a public performance before news cameras or at
press conferences. These dramatic performances are obviously for propaganda purposes
only. What the Communists really think about the United Nations can be seen quite clearly
from the glowing praise it receives in the Communist press which is aimed, not at the
general public, but at the party members, themselves. But, to answer the question of why
they pretend to oppose the UN, one of the best explanations was provided, unintentionally
no doubt, by Adlai Stevenson when he said:
The Soviet Union has attacked the UN, has refused to pay its share of
the Congo expenses, and has laid siege to the institution of the
Secretary-General. Thus, as often before, the Soviets have pressed
their attack at a moment when the (UN] Community seems most divided
against itself. But, once again, that very attack makes the members
realize more keenly that they are members of a Community and causes
them to draw together. 4 [Italics added.]
At least while we're talking we're not shooting. This is really only an extension of the
peace cliché. But it is so widely used that it deserves special consideration. In addition to
all the observations previously made, it should be further noted that this argument
presumes an either-or situation that does not exist. It assumes that we either talk with the
Communists or shoot them. Nothing could be further from reality. The best way to get
yourself into a barroom brawl with a bunch of thugs is to go into the bar and start talking
with them. The smart thing to do is to stay out and mind your own business!
The theory that as long as nations are talking over their problems there will not be war
sounds fine. Unfortunately, it does not work that way. Americans surely remember what
happened on a December morning some years ago while Emperor Hiro Hito's envoys
were in Washington--talking.
The UN is merely doing between nations what we did so successfully with our thirteen
colonies. This, in essence, is the plea for federalism, and is based on the idea that the
mere act of joining separate political units together into a larger federal entity will