G. Edward Griffin - The Fearful Master - PDF Archive

common. The second advantage, and the most important of the two, was that they formed
their union under a constitution which was designed to prevent any of them, or a majority
of them, from forcefully intervening in the affairs of the others. The original federal
government was authorized to provide mutual defense, run a post office, and that was
about all. As previously mentioned, however, even though we had these powerful forces
working in our favor, full scale war did break out at one tragic point in our history.
The peace that followed, of course, was no peace at all, but was only the smoldering
resentment and hatred that falls in the wake of any armed conflict. Fortunately, the
common ties between North and South, the cultural similarities and the common heritage,
have proved through the intervening years to overbalance the differences. And with the
gradual passing away of the (veneration that carried the battle scars, the Union has
healed.
In the United Nations, there are precious few common bonds that could help overcome
the clash of cross-purposes that inevitably must arise between groups with such divergent
ethnic, linguistic, legal, religious, cultural and political environments. To add fuel to the fire,
the UN concept is one of unlimited governmental power to impose by force a monolithic
set of values and conduct on all groups and individuals whether they like it or not. Far from
insuring peace, such conditions can only enhance the chances of war.
There is nothing wrong with the basic argument for a world society or a world union of
nations. But not just any world federation will do. Otherwise, we should have let Hitler
conquer us all; that is precisely what he was working toward. In order to work, such a oneworld
system will have to be based on the same rules of conduct, the same principles of
limited government that we have just outlined. The system will have to be one which,
instead of using the police-backed force of government decree to cram every human
being into a single mold, will set out systematically to reduce even the existing
government restrictions on man's freedom.
When speaking about the United Nations, however, we are not talking about a United
Nations, or some United Nations, or the idea of a United Nations; we are talking about the
existing United Nations. And any thought that the existing United Nations will bring peace
and happiness to this earth is merely the temporary triumph of hope over reason.
We don't want to turn back the clock to a period of isolationism, do we? This is two clichés
wrapped into one. The first assumes that all change is progress. In other words, today is
better than yesterday and tomorrow will be better than today. That is implied in the phrase
"turn back the clock." In the realm of material things--inventions, gadgets, consumer
products, etc.--this is often a valid observation. But when it comes to human relationships,
there can be no such presumption. Change may or may not be an improvement. Each
case must stand on its own merits.
The word isolationism is the basis of the second cliché; it has become a scare word to
intimidate all critics of the United Nations. The so-called isolationism of the United States
in past years is basically a myth. We have never been totally isolated from the world,
either in diplomatic affairs or commerce. On the contrary, American influence and trade
have been felt in every region of the globe. Private groups and individuals spread
knowledge, business, prosperity, religion and good will throughout every foreign continent.
It was not necessary then for America to give up her independence to have contact with
other countries. It is not necessary now. Yet, in the summer of 1963 a Gallup Poll asked