By Stefan Matias Kløvning

On September 19, 2017, President of the United States Donald Trump held his first speech for the countries of the United Nations. In the speech, he made a clear position on the expected tasks of the United Nations: “This institution was founded in the aftermath of two world wars, to help shape this better future. It was based on the vision, that diverse nations could cooperate to protect their sovereignty, preserve their security, and promote their prosperity.” He advocated that the United Nations should be used as a tool for cooperation, rather than as a supranational entity.

A common theme in the political debate today has been on the topic of Globalism and Nationalism. The United Nations and the European Union has been argued as prime examples of a growing “Globalism” in the world. Globalism can be defined as the centralization of worldwide power to a single entity, while Nationalism is state control of their local nations. This is the definitions in regards of state control, but they can also be defined in terms of identity. “Globalists” believe themselves to be citizens of the world, Nationalists, citizens of their respective countries. In this article, I will focus on power centralization as followed by the definitions in the former.

Should people be worried that the establishment of the United Nations could turn into worldwide centralization of power? Alex Jones of Infowars is known as the reporter who speaks most out about Globalism, and is by many outlets labeled a conspiracy theorist. The claims that an evil clique could have worldwide power in the 21st century is unthinkable for many today, but could the tyranny of the 20th century return to our time if we’re not careful? Let’s take a look at how the United Nations first got established, how their political system works today, and whether or not it could be misused for tyrants to get global power, the dream of every tyrant throughout history.

William J. Murray presents his case against the UN in Chapter 9 of his 2016 book Utopian Road to Hell. He quotes G. Edward Griffin to supposedly have revealed that “dozens of Americans in our government who were involved in creating the United Nations were actually secret Communist agents!” The Post-War Foreign Policy Preparation, 1939-45 is mentioned for listing the main founders of the UN. This document is mostly unavailable, and thus it is difficult to fact-check that the names mentioned are linked to the creation of the UN, so I will link other sources to look for connections. Mr. Murray claims that 16 out of 17 of the founders of the UN were connected to the Communist movement, all except of Dean Acheson, who was a far-left liberal.

Dean Acheson:
“Acheson supported the containment of communism”
“In the 1940s, Acheson also represented the United States in negotiations that led to the creation of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the International Monetary Fund.”
Solomon Adler:
Though it is clear he was an economist in the U.S. Treasury Department, their website has no info about him.
“Adler had been one of the subjects of a large-scale FBI investigation of pro-Soviet espionage activities in the United States for more than two years.”
“[T]he FBI had first heard allegations of Adler’s Communist party membership more than two years earlier.”
“United States Treasury Department representative in Chungking, China, was making information available to this Soviet espionage parallel for transmittal to the Soviet Union.”
“This admitted Soviet agent [Bentley] advised also that Adler was a member of the Communist Party, USA, and that party dues were collected from him by Nathan Gregory Silvermaster and turned over to this Soviet agent”
“He reportedly continued consulting the Chinese leadership in the period of China’s economic transition.”
His link to the United Nations is unknown or not mentioned in available sources outside said document.
Virginus Frank Coe:
“Coe was accused by WHITTAKER CHAMBERS and ELIZABETH T. BENTLEY, admitted former Espionage Agent, as being a Communist in the mid-1930’s and in the early 1940’s, was a member of the Nathan Gregory Silvermaster Group engaged in Soviet Espionage in Washington, D.C.”
“[H]e was also Technical Secretary at the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire in 1944. In the fall of 1945, he became Secretary of the newly established, inter-agency National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Problems.”
Laurence Duggan:
«The NKVD, the Soviet intelligence service, had 221 agents operating in the United States. Within the upper ranks of the U.S. Government, these agents included Alger Hiss; Laurence Duggan, Chief of the Division of American Republics at the Department of State; Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; Lauchlin Currie, administrative assistant to the President; and Duncan Chaplin Lee, personal assistant to General William Donovan, head of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS).
“Duggan moved to the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA), where he became a deputy of the Assistant Secretary General.”
Noel Field:
“Field was an internationalist who was disappointed that the United States had not joined the League of Nations, a fact which resulted in America’s declining international responsibility.”
“He chose instead to leave the State Department for a job at the League of Nations.”
“Field had several years of service to the Communist cause behind him.”
“Field befriended another State Department official, Laurence Duggan, whom he later described as his ‘best and almost only friend.’”
Harold Glasser:
«Harold Glasser (1905 to 1992) was an economist employed by the US Department of Treasury and later worked for the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration. FBI investigation and subsequently identified Russian records identified Glasser as a spy.
Alger Hiss:
Connections to the NKVD proven under Laurence Duggan.
«Alger Hiss, a well-educated and well-connected former government lawyer and State Department official who helped create the United Nations in the aftermath of World War II, was headed to prison in Atlanta for lying to a federal grand jury.
Irving Kaplan:
No other source than Wikipedia states anything specific about Irving Kaplan.
“In 1945, former NKVD courier Elizabeth Bentley told investigators of the Federal Bureau of Investigation that Kaplan was “a dues-paying Communist Party member” who had formerly been associated with the Perlo group of Soviet spies, later moving to the Silvermaster group. She said she learned from Nathan Gregory Silvermaster that Kaplan was a source of Information in the War Production Board.
His link to the United Nations is unknown or not mentioned in available sources outside said document.
Victor Perlo:
“Victor Perlo, a Marxist economist, [had his] career damaged by accusations during the Red scare of the late 1940’s and early 1950’s that he spied for the Soviet Union in Washington during World War II.”
«The Perlo group of spies, which he headed, included a Senate staff director, and supplied the Soviet Union with United States aircraft production figures and shipments to various fronts.
His link to the United Nations is unknown or not mentioned in available sources outside said document.
Abraham George Silverman:
«Like many of his young American contemporaries, particularly among New Deal economists, he was also interested in the Soviet model of central planning and growth.»
«In 1946, Silverman had already been the subject of an FBI investigation of Soviet espionage in the United States.
His link to the United Nations is unknown or not mentioned in available sources outside said document.
Nathan Gregory Silvermaster:
«A U.S. government economist whom Soviet intelligence documents identify as a leader of a Communist Party “informational group” from 1941 to 1945.»
His link to the United Nations is unknown or not mentioned in available sources outside said document.
William Taylor:
Not enough available information.
William L. Ullman:
«William Ludwig Ullmann (August 14, 1908 – February 3, 1993) was an American official accused of spying for the Soviet Union.»
«Ullmann was a United States delegate to the United Nations Charter meeting at San Francisco and to the Bretton Woods Conference as Harry Dexter White’s assistant.»
John Carter Vincent:
“John Carter Vincent has been identified as a member; Harry Dexter White as a member of an espionage ring; Owen Lattimore as a member of the Communist organization; Len DeCaux as a member of the Communist Party; Alger Hiss as a member of the Communist Party; Joseph Barnes as a member of the Communist Party; Frederick V. Field as a member of the Communist Party; and Frank Coe as a member of the Communist Party.”
“Over a period of years, John Carter Vincent was the principal fulcrum of IPR pressure and influence in the State Department. … The IPR was a vehicle used by the Communists to orientate American far eastern policies toward Communist objectives.”
“[H]e was consul at Shanghai, Embassy counselor in Chungking and member fot [sic] eh [sic] American delegation to the United Nations conference in San Fransisco [sic] in 1945.”
Henry Julian Wadleigh:
“… was named by Whittaker Chambers as one of a small group of people who ‘actually turned over information’ to him for Soviet intelligence.”
“He moved to the Department of Agriculture at the end of the war and then, in May 1946, to the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA.)”
“Wadleigh had never been a member of the Communist Party, but in 1935 he volunteered ‘to collaborate with the Communist Party’ alarmed by ‘the failure of the Social Democrats in Germany to offer effective resistance against Hitler, the growing power of the Nazis in Germany [and] of the ruling group in Japan, and the Fascists in Italy.’”
David Weintraub:
No other source than Wikipedia states anything specific about David Weintraub.
«He joined the professional staff of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) and United Nations Division of Economic Stability and Development.»
Harry Dexter White:
NKVD ties proven under Laurence Duggan.
Espionage proven under John Carter Vincent.
“He was arguably the most influential figure at the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire in July 1944, where the Allied nations met to hammer out the shape of global economy after the Second World War.”
If we are to trust the premises presented above, what does this all amount to? Again, Mr. Murray claimed 17 people to be influential in creating the United Nations, and 16 of them to be Communists and/or Soviet spies, according to The Post-War Foreign Policy Preparation, 1939-45. The document is hardly available, so the results from the third-party sources I mentioned above is this: (1) All except William Taylor was public information about, (2) Of the people found information about, were all except David Weintraub found to be Communist and/or Soviet spies, (3) at least 11 of 16 of the people found information about, had links to the United Nations, and, (4) at least 6 of 11 of the people with links to the UN were very influential to its creation and/or development.
But what is the relevance of the ideological roots of the United Nations? And why are Mr. Murray and others taking such issue with it? In his book, he refers to the people he calls “Watermelons” as people who appear and claim to be environmentalists (green), but have a Marxist ideology on the inside (red). Said Murray, “The United Nations was designed by Communists from the beginning of its existence to be a tool used by the Soviets to create a one-world government, where every person on earth was to be enslaved by Marxist dictators.” As reasoning he mentioned the similarity between the Soviet Constitution and the UN Declaration on Human Rights, and Stalin’s Marxism and the National Question, where his plan was “to confuse, disorganize, and neutralize the forces of capitalism around the world; bring all nations into a single economic system; force advanced nations to send millions in aid to underdeveloped countries; and divide the world into regional groups of nations that would eventually be brought into a one-world system.”

I’ve by this point more or less described some key members in the creation of the United Nations, but how is it today? Trump suggested it be a platform for cooperation, but is it, or can it today, be used in the way Stalin suggested? The best argument for a world-wide centralization of power today is global warming. If an organization like the UN could make everyone stop emitting so much carbon dioxide, what is then the problem? The problem is the means of which to stop it, and the power it gets to solve the problem.
The World Heritage Foundation is called a “land confiscation scheme” for claiming land to be under their “protection”. Here the Yellowstone National Park is mentioned, which was established a “buffer zone” around by UNESCO in 1995 to prevent the New World Mining Corporation to conduct a mining operation which would have brought an estimated $650 million in gold, three miles from the park. The Clinton Administration enforced the zone. UNESCO have 669 reserves in 120 countries today.

The International Criminal Court is supposedly the “primary tool used to undermine national sovereignty around the globe.” It would place countries under international law if signed. Former president Clinton signed its founding document, but George W. Bush later unsigned it. Murray noted the potential consequences of American citizens being subject to the ICC: “…we will have lost our national sovereignty to the United Nations—a collection of anti-American nations the majority of which are ruled by dictators and monarchs.” I will not here list all the cases of potential UN threats to national sovereignty, but I will mention the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The Law of The Sea Treaty (now Law of The Sea Convention) would allow UN to control 71% of the earth’s surface, and 97% of the world’s water. This would allow them control over some crucial parts of coastal areas and they could potentially regulate them to the extent that would affect individual nations’ GDPs. Norway’s prosperity is in large part built on findings of oil in the ocean, and a third of the United States’ GDP originates in coastal areas. Murray also notes that it doesn’t just count for the oceans of the world, but also for “all the sources of water that flow into it.” In 2012, it was ruled by the Supreme Court that the federal Environmental Protection Agency could forbid a couple from building on their own bought land under the Clean Waters Act for “the discharge of any pollutant by any person into navigable waters.” The same could happen worldwide for countries signed under the Law of The Sea Convention. According to a senate report on the document written in 2004, it could also regulate “navigation and overflight of the oceans.” Said Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), “LOST would trade in our Constitution for a vague two-hundred-page compact drafted by foreign diplomats. It would swap our Founding Fathers for the United Nations, and ‘we the people’ for ‘you the foreign secretaries we’ve never heard of and didn’t elect.” Reagan rejected the document, and thus far the United States has not signed the treaty.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has supposedly been “exposed” by Donna Laframboise in her book The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, according to Murray. Murray lists her key findings:
• IPCC authors are frequently not reputable scientists at all, but graduate students.
• Sources cited in IPCC documents are frequently from radical green groups, not objective scientists.
• The IPCC is pursuing a leftist, globalist political agenda, not a scientific one.
• The “peer review” process used in determining what articles get published by the IPCC is a charade. Only radical green viewpoints get favorable treatment.
• The IPCC seeks out articles with predetermined conclusions to fit the IPCC agenda.
She allegedly used two years on the research. According to her, the IPCC is so hopeless that it can’t simply be reformed, it must be shut down.

I could go over more of the branches of the UN, but let’s now look at the goals they have. Their Sustainable Development Goals include 17 goals:
Sounds all well and good, right? But how are they planning to reach them?
• No poverty:
• Cost: “To end extreme poverty worldwide in 20 years, economist Jeffrey Sachs calculated that the total cost per year would be about $175 billion.”
• Policy makers: “Governments can help create an enabling environment to generate productive employment and job opportunities for the poor and the marginalized. They can formulate strategies and fiscal policies that stimulate pro-poor growth, and reduce poverty. [emphases added].
• Private sector: “It can promote economic opportunities for the poor, focusing on segments of the economy where most of the poor are active, namely on micro and small enterprises and those operating in the informal sector.”
It certainly doesn’t say much about where the money will come from, or how they will get used, just that the market should be more favorable to poor people, though they have lower competence because of lack of education, which I hope they will go over in Goal 4.
• Zero hunger:
• Cost: “We will need an estimated additional $267 billion per year on average to end world hunger by 2030.”
• Use of money: “There will need to be investments in rural and urban areas and in social protection, so poor people have access to food and can improve their livelihoods.”
• What can I do 1: “…[S]upporting local farmers or markets and making sustainable food choices, supporting good nutrition for all, and fighting food waste.”
• What can I do 2: “… [U]se your power as a consumer and voter, demanding businesses and governments make the choices and changes that will make Zero Hunger a reality.”
There is no mention of the source of money here either, but more details on how they could get used. I don’t see how the “What can I do” points would significantly help, since they have no “food distribution” plan presented for how the extra food would get used to “eradicate hunger.”
• Good Health and Well-Being:
• Cost 1: “[I]f we spent $1 billion in expanding immunization coverage against influenza, pneumonia and other preventable diseases, we could save 1 million children’s lives each year.”
• Cost 2: “Noncommunicable diseases alone will cost low- and middle-income countries more than $7 trillion in the next 15 years.”
• What can I do to help 1: “[P]romoting and protecting your own health and the health of those around you, by making well-informed choices, practicing safe sex and vaccinating your children.”
• What can I do to help 2: “[R]aise awareness in your community.”
• What can I do to help 3: “Take action through schools, clubs, teams and organizations to promote better health for all, especially for the most vulnerable such as women and children.”
• What can I do to help 4: “[H]old your government, local leaders and other decision-makers accountable to their commitments to improve people’s access to health and health care.»
No source of money mentioned in the first one, but the second one states “low- and middle-income countries” would have to pay $7 trillion for it in the next 15 years. I’m starting to get a feeling that the UN wants to act as a one-world government here, controlling a massive amount of the world economy. Let’s look back to two of the points in Stalin’s plan: (1) bring all nations into a single economic system, (2) force advanced nations to send millions in aid to underdeveloped countries. Sounds awfully familiar.
• Quality education :
• Here the UN actually doesn’t claim to require any money, it just advocates for people to ask and lobby their governments to place education as a priority. Though it advocates for “free primary schools”, which, whether you agree with it or not, is up to the stability of the economies of the individual nations on whether they can afford it. For instance, I doubt Venezuela or Zimbabwe at this point can afford free primary schools.
• Gender equality:
• Merely advocating empowering women.
• What Can We Do: “If you are a woman, you can address unconscious biases and implicit associations that can form an unintended and often an invisible barrier to equal opportunity. [emphases added]”
• What Can We Do 2: “You can fund education campaigns to curb cultural practices like female genital mutilation and change harmful laws that limit the rights of women and girls and prevent them from achieving their full potential.»
Note that it doesn’t state anything against male genital mutilation. This is clearly sided towards feminism rather than egalitarianism.
• Clean water and sanitation:
• Cost: “US$28.4 billion per year from 2015 to 2030, or 0.10 per cent of the global product of the 140 countries included.”
• Use of money: “[E]xtending basic water and sanitation services to the unserved”
• What Can We do: “[K]eep governments accountable,» «generating awareness» and «get involved in the World Water Day and World Toilet Day campaigns.»
Source of money still unknown.
• Affordable and clean energy
• Cost: “The world needs to triple its investment in sustainable energy infrastructure per year, from around $400 billion now to $1.25 trillion by 2030. [emphasis added]”
• What Can We Do, Countries: “… can accelerate the transition to an affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy system by investing in renewable energy resources, prioritizing energy efficient practices, and adopting clean energy technologies and infrastructure.”
• What Can We Do, Businesses: “… can maintain and protect ecosystems to be able to use and further develop hydropower sources of electricity and bioenergy, and commit to sourcing 100% of operational electricity needs from renewable sources.”
It sounds suspicious that “the world” would need to triple its investment in sustainable energy, as if it were a single entity rather than many nation states, and it would be up for interpretation whether this “investment” would be used by the individual governments for said uses, or sent to the UN to let them take care of it. In the “what can we do” section however, it merely proposes advocacy for individual states to do their part in reducing emissions.
• Decent work and economic growth:
• Decent Work: “… opportunities for everyone to get work that is productive and delivers a fair income, security in the workplace and social protection for families, better prospects for personal development and social integration. [emphases added]”
• “[I]nvesting in education and training of the highest possible quality, providing youth with skills that match labour market demands”
• Advocates governments and local authorities to work on it, but doesn’t provide any budget for themselves to do anything about it.
UN advocates for everyone getting a “fair income”, but what is a fair income? Democrats and Socialists like presidential nominee Bernie Sanders for instance have been advocating for a $15 minimum wage for a long time, which would prevent employers from hiring people for labor worth less than that wage, which would only provide less jobs and/or force employers to reduce employee work hours and/or turn up the prices of the products.
• Industry, innovation and infrastructure:
• Cost: “The price is steep.”
• How can we help: “Establish standards and promote regulations that ensure company projects are sustainably managed”, “collaborate with NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations)”, and “use social media to push policymakers to prioritize the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals).”
“Sustainably managed” is not given further elaboration for regulation on company projects.
• Reduced inequalities:
• What can we do: “We can ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of income if we eliminate discriminatory laws, policies and practices.”
• What can we do 2: “Governments and other stakeholders can also promote safe, regular and responsible migration, including through planned and well-managed policies”
If by “we”, they mean the bureaucrats in the UN, it is up to them to determine which laws, policies and practices are “discriminatory” and they can eliminate. They can also decide what “responsible migration” and “planned and well-managed policies” mean.
• Sustainable cities and communities:
• Cost: “The cost is minimal in comparison with the benefits.”
• The rest is merely advocacy for caring about your city.
• Responsible consumption and production:
• Claiming that businesses “needs to address” the 1.3 billion tonnes of food “ends up rotting in the bins of consumers and retainers.”
• Advocating individuals to reduce their waste and to choose sustainable options.61
All fair and well. For the Business Case for Reducing Food Loss and Waste, click here.62
• Climate Action:
• Cost: “The way to think about it is not in terms of how expensive it will be, but how much it will cost if we don’t take action.” “In total, public and private sector investment in clean energy needs to reach at least US$1 trillion per year by 2030, and more to build climate resilience.” “Investments of only $6 billion for disaster risk reduction over the next 15 years would result in total benefits of $360 billion in terms of avoided losses over the lifetime of the investment.”
As I argued earlier, Climate Change, whether the reports are true or not, is the best argument today for a one-world government. Donald Trump signed the US out of the Paris Agreement earlier this year, for the sake of it supposedly being unfair for the U.S. taxpayers. He stated that he wanted to negotiate “a better deal for the United States”, but leaders of France, Germany and Italy issued a joint statement saying the climate accord was “irreversible.” For a proposed plan to transition to clean energy worldwide, click here.
• Life below water:
• Cost: “[T]o sustain the global ocean [sic] require a US$32 billion one-time public cost and US$21 billion dollars a year for recurring costs.»
• What Can We Do: “[S]ustainability can be achieved only through increased international cooperation to protect vulnerable habitats.”
As long as it is cooperation it won’t be a threat to national sovereignty, if UN law could regulate the choices of individual nation states on this issue (for instance through LOST) however, that would be a significant one.
• Life on land:
• Cost: “[A]chieving sustainable forest management on a global scale would cost US$70-$160 billion per year.” “US$150-$440 billion per year is required to halt the loss of biodiversity at a global level by the middle of this century.”
• What can we do: “Well-managed protected areas support healthy ecosystems, which in turn keep people healthy.” (See: UNESCO Biosphere zones)
• Peace, justice and strong institutions:
• Merely advocates awareness to government policies, upholding checks and balances, etc.
• Partnership for the goals:
• Advocates governments and individuals to work on the goals presented in the other goals.

As other philosophies, the goals of the United Nations could give the individual good suggestions for self-improvements to help themselves, their communities, and their environment, while the philosophy may not work as well on the governmental level. This is presented throughout history with people like Lycurgus, Maximilien de Robespierre, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, etc. They all had a vision of the perfect world, without misery, and with total equality, but what they ended up with was an increase of exactly what they sought to eradicate. The UN have good potentialities as a platform for cooperation among nations, and Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Accord proved that the United Nations has yet to have supranational powers and that nations themselves can choose to go in and opt out of agreements as they see fit. Before the nations of the UN, he said, “As long as I hold this office, I will defend America’s interests, above all else. But in fulfilling our obligations to our own nations, we also realize that it’s in everyone’s interest to seek the future, where all nations can be sovereign, prosperous, and secure.” He said that he will “put America first” and to other leaders, “you should put your countries first.” He stated that “the nation state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition”, and in accordance with the Founding Fathers, they would likely have concurred, as they advocated for local power, hence why they implemented the electoral system. The UN can either be used as a great platform for cooperation among nations, or it can be used as a one-world government in the way Stalin proposed. From what I have presented in this article, there are in fact reasons to fear that the UN could be a threat to national sovereignty, especially from branches of the UN yet to be ratified like LOST, ICC, but also established ones like UNESCO. They have potentialities to be used as supranational entities. For reaching the goals the UN suggested in their Sustainable Development Goals, cooperation among the nations might work fantastically to solve these, but an important question is to what degree it could potentially be enforced if some nations would refuse.

• William J. Murray, Utopian Road to Hell, p. 178-9”search”%3A%5B”yellowstone+mining+deal”%5D%7D&r=2