The View From 1776

§ American Traditions

§ People and Ideas

§ Decline of Western Civilization: a Snapshot

§ Books to Read


Liberal_Jihad_Cover.jpg Forward USA

Friday, December 10, 2004

The Socialist Doctrinal Foundations of the UN

Why the UN is, in effect, the Socialist 5th Internationale.

Some of you have challenged my opposition to the UN, expressed, for example, in The UN and our Articles of Confederation, The UN and Public Opinion, and The UN: The Liberals’ Road to Utopia.

Let me provide a more complete background for my assertion that the UN is, in effect, the Socialist 5th Internationale.

As with all of the political evils of the modern world, the UN can be traced to the French Revolution of 1789.  The Revolution?s slogan ? Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood ? is a fairly good summary of its underlying philosophical fictions, and can serve equally well as a motto for the hypocrisy of the UN.  Note that the Revolution’s Liberty, Equality, and Brotherhood meant, in practice, Napoleon’s imperial conquest of Europe and subjugation of local governments under Parisian ministers.

The French Revolution, the religion of socialism it produced, and today’s UN rest upon a foundation of shifting sand. There is no there there.

The Revolution?s starting point was Jean-Jacques Rousseau?s fairy tale that, before somebody invented private property, all of humanity lived in a Garden of Eden, with plenty for all, in peace and harmony.  The advent of private property, per Rousseau, necessitated the formation of governments for the purpose of protecting private property, which created greed, avarice, aggression, crime, and war. 

This is really what the UN is all about, a high-flown rhetorical declaration without substance.  Follow us, and we’ll lead you back to the Garden of Eden!

Without American support, nothing like the UN could have come into existence.  To a degree that few people know today, socialism was highly regarded here during the 1920s and 1930s in academia, among nearly all politicians after the advent of the New Deal, and in the media, including popular magazines like The Saturday Evening Post, The Ladies Home Journal, Cosmopolitan, Red Book and many other family magazines. 

There was a popular movement called Christian Socialism, and even today many people say that socialism represents the true, original nature of Christianity.  This, however, reflects abysmal ignorance about the nature of socialism.  Christianity, based on the concept of the individual spiritual soul guided by morality, is irreconcilable with amoral, collectivist, and secular socialism, which is based on the idea that technocrats have superceded God and can create heaven-on-earth.

Franklin Roosevelt had campaigned in 1932 on the pledge to implement Soviet and Fascist-style state-planning here.  The New Deal was largely an exercise in unconstitutionally transferring 9th and 10th Amendment powers from the people and from the states to a collectivized behemoth in Washington.  The NRA, the first major program under the New Deal, was frankly and explicitly modeled upon Mussolini?s brand of socialism, Fascist State Corporatism, with corporations, labor unions, and government agencies collectively deciding production quotas, wage rates, and selling prices, industry by industry.

The general public in 1932, and again in 1945, knew next to nothing about the potential reality of life under socialism.  But they were believers in modern science, and social scientists had preached since the 1880s that life could become vastly better for everyone, if we just put intellectuals in charge.  It was simply a matter of redistributing property equitably and establishing planning councils.  Only the opposition of greedy capitalists stood between the public and a paradise of perfection.

It was this unfortunate naivete that enabled the socialist intellectuals to sell a Depression-weary and war-weary American people a bill-of-goods called the UN.  If life really could be made into sweetness and light, if social-engineers really could restructure the world and end the use of force in international relations, why not give it a try?

Nominally the UN was intended to use collective, international military force to stop wars.  But, aside from Korea, it has done nothing of the sort.  Instead the UN has stood on the sidelines while the United States led necessary military actions to stop aggression.  The UN’s role has been whittled away to that of “peacekeeper” after the United States has done the necessary hard labor.

The UN’s most influential member states, including the United States, are committed in one degree or another to the religion of socialism.  Continental European states, Russia, China, and India are fairly typical of the forthrightly technocratic and socialistic members.  It is hardly surprising that they endeavor to project their domestic ideology into the international scene via the UN.  In short, the UN is a socialistic institution, because its members are socialistic.

Their doctrinal catechism is the polar opposite of the individualism of the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God expressed in our Declaration of Independence.  Socialist societies are atheistic, which means that they believe worldly affairs are affected solely by materialistic causes, such as humans’ living and working conditions.  If one accepts this doctrine, then obviously it is within the power of collectivized governments to make of human behavior and the human condition whatever the socialist state decrees. 

Accepting this leads one to the conviction that it is possible for intellectuals, if they are politically empowered, to right all wrongs and erase all inequalities.  This is what American liberal-socialists are talking about when they rail against Christians and damn them as standing in the way of science and social justice. 

Theoretically this will create paradise on earth.  In fact, it has created the hell on earth of the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror, the Soviet Union’s mass murders, National Socialist Germany’s Holocaust, and Maoist China’s liquidations of yet more millions of innocent humans.

The secular and materialist faith of the socialist religion teaches that evil and incivility are not part of human nature; they?re produced by the unfair structure of society, i.e., the existence of private property, religion, and morality.  Criminals are thus the victims of capitalist society.  By extension, today’s Islamic terrorists are victims of the Western societies that continue to permit unequal distribution of property ownership; Palestinians are victims of Israel, because Israel has more wealth than the Palestinians.  Hence the UN’s lead-footed “support” of the United States, as well as its rampant anti-semitism. 

To bring about social justice, liberal-socialists must destroy the existing political order and the institutions of spiritual, individualistic religion.  The process of destruction originally was expected to be one of violent revolution, as in France and Russia.  Cooler heads among the British Fabian Socialists led the movement down a more moderate, long-term path: gradualist penetration of education, the legislative process, and the judiciary.  The UN was to be the last step in socialism’s penetration of the world order.

The UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights is, in particulars and in spirit, a restatement of the French Revolution’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. What is to be noted is that both of these documents declare all sorts of material conditions to be individual rights and proclaim these materialistic rights to be the responsibility of collective government to provide.  In contrast, the English and American Bills of Rights set forth limits on arbitrary use of government power, with the intent of allowing the maximum personal liberty consistent with decent social order.

Brotherhood, in French Revolutionary and UN usage, conjures for intellectuals a fuzzy, romantic, and dangerous faith that animosities and patriotism are just a thin veneer under which there is a deep love of every human for every other, without regard to race, nationality, or creed, or to family, tribal, or national interests.  Liberals have to believe this if they are to have faith that state planners can perfect humanity by eliminating private property and redistributing wealth.  They must believe it in order to have faith that UN planning conferences can insure international peace without having to fight for it.

Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao understood that collectivized planning, without the constraints of spiritual religion, personal morality, and social traditions, leads straight to the extremes of totalitarian terror.  They understood that liberal-socialists’ fuzzy ideas about brotherhood are nonsense.  In no society have successful and wealthy people ever voluntarily and happily handed over the fruits of a lifetime’s work to the state.  Some measure of compulsion always is necessary.  To paraphrase Lenin, social justice comes out of the business end of a gun barrel.

Liberal-socialists’ fuzzy-minded variety of brotherhood assumes that there are no such things as national interests that will be irreconcilably in conflict with interests of other nations.  All of human history demonstrates, to the contrary, that conflicts between nations sometimes can be resolved only by war, because they involve vital interests for nations on both sides of a conflict.  Everywhere in the world, throughout history, human desires for water, land, hunting and fishing territories, natural resources, etc. have always been greater than availabilities. 

Iraq under Saddam, for example, wanted to dominate the entire Middle East.  Success in that endeavor would have allowed Iraq to blackmail the remainder of the modern world by the simple expedient of threatening to withhold oil unless the threatened nation agreed to whatever demand Iraq placed on the table that day.  Threatened nations could not survive as independent entities if they acceded to this blackmail.

Liberal-socialists of the New York Times?s editorial variety, nonetheless, continue to believe that Rousseau was right, that if we just get rid of private property and talk nice to these other people, they will be nice to us. 

The political realists among UN members, however, see clearly that propaganda is an effective weapon and cynically employ the UN to further their liberal-socialist aims to influence, and ultimately to dominate, large areas of the world.  Socialist France’s Chirac government perceives its foreign interests to be best served by creating an international power bloc to counter the United States.  France therefore uses the UN for that purpose.

Karl Marx added an important corollary to the doctrine of brotherhood when he said that, by its internal logic, socialism is compelled to expand to every nation in the world.  A “peace-loving” socialist nation, because it is dedicated to perfecting humanity, cannot live with capitalistic nations at its borders.  By Marxian definition, capitalist nations are aggressive and imperialistic and will take advantage of the peace-loving socialists.  A more practical problem is that people living under socialism can see that non-socialist nations are vastly more prosperous and freer than they are, as we saw when the East Germans were compelled to build the Berlin Wall.

This was the rationalization for the Soviets? creation of the East bloc Comintern behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War.  It also explains the Soviets? backing for the UN, which they recognized could be the diplomatic arm of socialist expansionism, to propagandize for state-planning and to obstruct any actions intended to stop Soviet aggressions.  If the United States took Senator Kerry’s position that we can legitimately deploy troops overseas only with the UN’s approval, the Soviets had only to stalemate UN resolutions, just as France, Germany, Russia, and China do today.

From the Soviet Union’s vantage point, the UN became the Socialist 5th Internationale.

After the UN sponsored American-led military action in Korea, the Soviets saw the necessity to block future military actions that would frustrate their imperial expansion.  Thus, almost from its inception, the UN veered away from its original mission of using collective military force to stop military aggression.  The UN began to concentrate on dispensing the secular, socialistic, material artifacts of human well-being. 

The end product of this volt-face was the greatest financial crime in world history, the UN’s Oil-for-Blood scam to enrich Saddam Hussein and member states who were secretly breaking UN sanctions to sell high-tech arms and ammunition to Iraq under the facade of humanitarian aid for the Iraqi people.  This unprecedented scandal reveals the true, corrupt nature of the UN and of liberal-socialism.