Archbishop Hughes of New York declared, during a sermon delivered at his cathedral in 1850, “Everybody should know that we have as our mission to convert the world — including the inhabitants of the United States — the people of the cities and the people of the country, the officers of the Navy and the Marines, the commanders of the Army, the Legislators, the Senate, the Cabinet, the President, and all.”
Archbishop Hughes and his episcopal contemporaries were agreed that, if the conversion of America were not soon forthcoming, they might perhaps blame their own lack of zeal, or the Protestants’ lack of good will, but in no case could they complain of a lack of authorized, un-hampered opportunity. For at its very outset, the United States of America had provided that if men like Archbishop Hughes should come along, they must be left free to say what they have to say — free, that is, to go out and convince the whole nation that the Catholic Church is the only true one.
Thus far, 109 years after its dedication to Our Lady, the United States has not been notably convinced. That it still can be, and will be, is The Point ’s confident purpose. And to facilitate our designs upon the American people (to help us to help them become Children of Mary) we are anxious to keep that same missionizing privilege which Archbishop Hughes enjoyed in the days when America was a young assertive republic, jealous of its independence, sacrificing its sovereignty to no one.
This, very briefly, is our self-interested motive in joining the current battle against the United Nations, an organization which demands the scrapping of our country’s sovereignty, the undermining of our Constitution, and the “ultimate halting of all sectarian proselytism,” a recently coined phrase, of Semitic origin, which means that once the U. N. fully takes over, Catholic priests will have to stop insisting to their neighbors that Baptism, the Blessed Sacrament, Our Lady, and the Pope are necessary salvational concerns.
Though the U. N. demands are Jewish ones, patently and exclusively of benefit to those of the Jewish community, promotion of the U. N. is not an end in itself to the Jews. It is a means of helping them to arrive at that “Messianic Age” which has now, in all Jewish anticipation, taken the place of a personal “Messias.” The Jews are no longer waiting for the birth of a Jewish Savior. They are sighing after and plotting for the day when the Jewish race will at last come into its own, lording it over the world from the new world-capital, Jerusalem. It is as an Instrument toward achieving this Zionistic goal that the Jews promote both the U. N. and its complementary international movement, Communism.
The founding of the United Nations was an objective sought in common by those two most agreeable of companions — those admitted Zionists — Premier Josef Stalin and President Franklin Roosevelt. It was this compatible pair who selected Stalin’s American lieutenant, Alger Hiss, to preside over the preliminary drafting of the U. N. Charter at Dumbarton Oaks, and to have charge of the Charter’s completion during the conference in San Francisco. At this latter meeting it was decided that by 1955 the Hiss Charter might need “revising” to make it stronger and more binding, and so provision was made for a future “Charter review conference.”
Accordingly, within a very few months, the U. N. will decide whether it should give the Charter more teeth. And this pending vote has revived, all over the nation, the pro and con U. N. arguments. On the side of Charter revision — aiming at just one federal government for the whole world — there can be found every Semitic organization in the land, from the Central Conference of American Rabbis to the National Council of Jewish Women. Opposed to a stronger Charter, and so any movement that will lead to the swallowing up of our country, are a growing number of patriotic groups (like the American Legion), religious groups (like the Diocese of Brooklyn’s International Catholic Truth Society), and political groups (like the numerous pushers of the Bricker Amendment).
Because the battle-lines are thus so clearly drawn, there is an immediate temptation to conclude that all we must do is defeat the strengthening of the U. N. Charter and everything will be fine — our national sovereignty and our individual rights will be secure. Unhappily, this is not the case. For without any deviation from its original wording, the U. N. Charter contains right now sufficient powers to scuttle us forever as a nation, to silence the message of the Christian Faith, and to see the Jews well along the road to their dream of world domination.
If Charter revision fails, the Jews will, therefore, continue their present, more roundabout, but no less deadly U. N. maneuverings — the variety and current extent of which are indicated by what follows.
As this point, you imagine that you have it all straightened out: a Genocide Convention must be a race-killing agreement. But, no. A quick glance at the text of the Genocide Convention will establish that it is an anti-race-killing agreement. It is something therefore to stop the killing-off of a race. But once again you have not really grasped it, because the Genocide Convention does not prohibit just the killing of a man on account of his race, it forbids “any action,” or any “incitement” to any action, or any “complicity” in any action which will in any way cause a man of a particular race the least bit of anxiety or discomfort because of his race.
Finally, therefore, it becomes clear what the U. N.’s Genocide Convention is all about. It is an international pact, which the U. N. wants every nation to sign, saying that anyone who criticizes a Jew in public — in fact, anyone who calls a Jew, a Jew — will be guilty of Genocide and punishable by law.
And the Jews do not plan to use Genocide solely as a negative protection. They are counting on it as a positive weapon in their continual struggle against the Church. For by means of Genocide restrictions, the Jews will be able to get rid of much that is essential Christianity, on the score that it leads to, or is openly, “anti-semitism.” For example: Crucifixes, with their reminder to Christians that the Jews were responsible for the death of Christ, will be done away with as “incitements” to Genocide. Classed as even more offensive will be the New Testament, which records such overt anti-semitic sentiments as those of Our Lord when He calls the Jews the children of the devil (Jn. 8:44), and of Saint Paul when he says about the Jews that they are not pleasing to God and are the enemies of all men (I Thess. 2:15).
If these seem to be remote eventualities, witness what the Jews are doing right now about such things. From the American Jewish Yearbook, Vol. 52, we learn that the Jews are presently worried about, “the need for revising certain elements of the Crucifixion story ... The evangelists distorted the original Gospel account of the Crucifixion.” And from the University of British Columbia, in Canada, we learn how all the current Jewish lobbying against “discrimination” has lately been pushed to its fantastic but logical extreme. The University’s Newman Club, a religious and social group for Catholic students, was actually forced to suspend operations because of its “bigoted” policy of allowing membership to Catholics only!
Measures called for by this blatantly Talmudic program include “population planning” (a scheme whereby birth-control will be encouraged in some locales, fecundity rewarded in others); mass inoculations (shots for all, whether the people want them or not, whether the disease is prevalent or not, and whether the serum is harmful or not); the inducing of “painless death” in incurables and the aged; and a vast plan for conducting Jewish investigations and prescribing Jewish remedies, with a view to attaining a Jewish conception of “mental health.”
A characteristic U. N. queerness, arising from its Semitic background, is the fact that the International Labor Organization is pushing a plan for universal health, while the World Health Organization, another U. N. agency, is busying itself with financial affairs.
By a provision in its by-laws, to which our government is committed, the World Health Organization has the right to assess member-nations for whatever funds it may need. A recent exercise of this prerogative is reported in the Congressional Record for May 25, 1954.
At a plenary session of the World Health Organization in Geneva, delegates from the various nations decided that the United States had not been sufficiently generous in financing WHO activities during the preceding year; the delegates voted, therefore, that besides the nearly two million dollars our government had already contributed to the Organization, there would be an additional assessment on the U. S. of 350 thousand dollars.
Thus, as the fruit of our U. N. involvement, an international assembly now has the power to appropriate the money of American taxpayers — a power which the authors of our Constitution, in Gentile innocence, thought they had reserved to Congress.
Here is the significant story of the U. N.’s war in Korea.
Communist Russia could have vetoed U. N. military action against Communist Korea when that action was first proposed in the U. N. Security Council. Russia deliberately chose to withhold her veto. Russia wanted the U. N. to fight in Korea.
By an arrangement made shortly after the San Francisco Conference, the assistant secretary-general in charge of United Nations military affairs must always be a Soviet citizen. This post has been held successively by Arkady Sobolev, Konstantin Zinchenko, and Ilya Tchernychev. Thus, Russia was confident that the U. N.’s fight against Communists in Korea would be under the constant and watchful control of a Communist at U. N. headquarters in New York.
It was to Communist Arkady Sobolev that General Douglas MacArthur, the U. N. field commander in Korea, had to submit his plans for defeating the Korean Communists. General MacArthur was finally relieved of his post for consistently refusing to go full way with the suicidal course of action advocated by the U. N. in the Korean engagement.
Although government spokesmen, particularly our U. N. Ambassador, Mr. Lodge, have done their best to minimize the military control which was exercised by Sobolev, and his successor Zinchenko, none of them has attempted to explain why the Korean war was such a colossal defeat. Ostensibly, a fight between one remote corner of Asia and all of the free world, the Communist-run U. N. war in Korea resulted in:
1. the depletion and demoralization of the American Army, which provided nearly the entire U. N. fighting force in Korea. and which suffered 150,000 casualties, with 500 American prisoners still in foreign hands;
2. the crippling of U. S. prestige by involving us in “the first war America ever lost”; and
3. the confirmation of all of Asia as prey for the forces of Communism.