Access granted to Truth Devotees only.

One resolution after another protesting new colonialist trends which America's rulers support and the racist practices they endorse, emerges from the Human Rights Commission… Notice must be taken of this historic fact, for herein lies an international bond of the liberation movements of progressive mankind.
The author begins this chapter by pointing out that, while things seem to be going well for the Communists, they know they can't just go around killing everyone, as they have done in much smaller countries; there are too many Americans who will fight back. So, where can they turn for support? The UN, of course.

The Communists started appealing to the United Nations to intercede in American affairs. Why? Because it is filled with representatives from Socialist and Communist nations.

The author points out that the UN opposed "self-determination" when the nation of Katanga seceded from Congo. This, however, was because they were led by an anti-Communist, Moïse Kapend Tshombe. It wasn't one of their "war[s] of national liberation." We are reminded of the emphasis Lenin and Stalin placed on using this tactic only when is was expedient to further global Communist.

If, in short, a Communist faction secedes from a non-Communist country, that is a war of national liberation. But if a non-Communist province secedes from a Communist country, that's morally wrong, that's fascist exploitation of the laboring masses.

A quotation from a Communist pamphlet here discusses how much better off Blacks would be if they were allowed to separate from the United States, and this is "shown by the position enjoyed by the formerly subject nationalities in the Soviet Union."

The author here points out that what this is all leading to: using "national liberation" to break up the United States so that it would become "more manageable."

We learn that an organization called the National Negro Congress petitioned the UN in May 1947 "on behalf of 13 million oppressed Negro citizens of the United States of America." They claimed the UN Charter gave the UN jurisdiction to act within the United States. The article referenced contains the Communist phrase "self-determination." The staff and petitioners are all Communists.

The author clarifies that "since the UN has jurisdiction only over international disputes, it is implicit… that the dispute is between the Negro 'nation' and the United States."

Next, the author teaches us about The Genocide Convention, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, which redefines "genocide" to no longer mean just the destruction of an entire race, but "any killings on the basis of race, or… 'killing members of the group.' Thus… 'causing serious bodily harm or mental harm to members of the group' is genocide."

The petition points out that the Convention on Genocide is part of United States law since the US has accepted the "Covenant of the United Nations." This gives them the right to intercede in America.

W.E.B. DuBois wrote, on behalf of the NAACP, that depriving Blacks "of their rights as men and citizens… makes the functioning of the United Nations more difficult, if not in many cases impossible."

Similarly, Malcolm X threatened to take the plight of the Blacks to the UN, and Jesse Gray, who organized one of the riots in New York, also organized a rally at the UN building, to demand UN intervention.

Of course, says the author, just because someone asks for something doesn't mean they'll get it. But in this case, they did.

The United Stated assigned one Morris B. Abram to a "UN subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities," which drafted a "treaty to ban all forms of racial bias."

The sinister fact is that "the treaty and the international civil rights court are part of a backstage State Department plan to link the racial problem in the U.S. with that in Africa, and then put final jurisdiction under the UN."
This chapter opens with a quotation from someone in the Communist Party of Canada, wherein he refers to "the socialist revolution in a massive struggle for democracy." We have made this point before, but it cannot be stressed enough that the United States is a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy, as we have all been taught in public school. Democracy is being pushed precisely because it is a necessary step towards Communism, which itself always claims to be a movement of the people.

Perhaps this will clarify what is meant when U.S. presidents speak of "making the world safe for democracy" through their ongoing wars.

Also in the opening paragraphs, the author mentions the Communists being successful in "setting every sort of person against every other sort of person: Jews against Christians, Negroes against whites, Mississippians against New Yorkers, women against men." It is important to keep this in mind as you consider the world as you understand it. Today, in fact, we would add to this list gays against straights, Christians against Muslims, right-wingers against left-wingers, and on and on.

Divide and conquer is a successful tactic. If we are to fight it, however, we must do a few things: first, stop believing that other people are the cause of our problems, and second, stop trying to force everyone else to conform to our own opinions. In other words, we must take responsibility for our own actions, and allow all people the freedom to believe as they will.

But what about people who believe bad things? For starters, who gets to quantify what constitutes a bad thing? And what do we do when, inevitably, a currently popular view suddenly becomes unacceptable? Do we allow someone else to constantly dictate what we can and cannot believe? And if we would not be dictated to, we must likewise not dictate.

Imagine our surprise when, in reading this chapter, we discovered the name of Albert Kahn in the list of petitioners from the Communist "Civil Rights Congress" to the United Nations. You may recall him from the analysis section of Chapter 4, and his recorded conversation with Jim Jones' People's Temple.

One of the tricks employed by The Powers That Be is to redefine words, and to use words as weapons. The redefinition of genocide to mean physical or mental harm to a member of a group is clearly a fine example. More recently, we have seen DNA-modifying gene editing procedures become "vaccines," and a peaceful protest at the Capitol Building become "a violent assault." These definitions and redefinitions have a subconscious effect on uncritical hearers.

A "treaty to end all racial bias" is nothing but a thought crimes law, no matter your own prejudice or lack thereof.

The Mormon Angle

When King Mosiah died, he left behind a righteous legacy, including righteous and just laws. One of them was that "the law could have no power on any man for his belief." (Alma 1:17) There is a firm distinction between thoughts and actions, and although we will be held responsible to God for our thoughts, words, and deeds (Mosiah 4:30), the criminalization of thoughts and beliefs interferes with the ability to repent, since we all have mistaken beliefs; we spend all our lives learning, maturing, and growing.
Bonus Content

Access granted to Truth Devotees only.

© 2022