The End The End The End You're listening to the Hour of the Time. I'm William Cooper. And I'm Carolyn Nelson. Ladies and gentlemen, in the 1800s, in a letter to Giuseppe Mazzini, Christopher Albert Pike, a southern Confederate general, also 33rd degree Freemason of the Scottish Rite. In fact, he's the one who founded the Supreme Council of the 33rd degree of the Scottish Rite, which stands just 13 blocks from the Oval Office. In a letter to Giuseppe Mazzini, Giuseppe Mazzini is the man who was the titular head of the Illuminati, the secret societies in Europe, and the man, by the way, who founded the mafia as a branch of the Illuminati from youth street gangs in Sicily. Ladies and gentlemen, in this letter, Christopher Albert Pike outlined the plan to bring into existence a one world government, ruled by the collective brotherhood in a, what they call, benevolent despotism, which would be brought about by the instigation of three global wars. The first war, as we all know, was World War I. That war resulted in a weak organization known as the League of Nations. World War II was brought about, which resulted in a more stronger United Nations. The United Nations was being planned as the war progressed by the three major superpower leaders, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin, and, of course, Mr. Churchill. They had already divided up the spoils before they even knew that they had won. They created a plan to bring about a Cold War in order to fuel the funds to develop the technology and the military organizations to police the world. Ladies and gentlemen, I have in front of me the results of many years of research on my part, and many months of research, and, in some cases, a couple of years of research, of some of our best CAGI members, some of our best researchers. A great deal of credit goes to Mr. Paul Kitzman, one of our very best researchers. And I could probably say, judging by the work that he has done to deliver this information into my hands, probably makes him one of the foremost researchers existing upon the face of this earth. I have in front of me the documentation that proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the situation that we find ourselves in today is the result of a well-thought-out and well-carried-out plan by the three major powers emerging from World War II, and that the United States, England, and the Soviet Union were operating in concert to create the Cold War and bring about a new world order. There is no conjecture. This is not guesswork. It is documented. And for those of you bringing this about, who fear that this will get into the hands of the people of the United States of America and of the world, coming out here to get it won't help you. For as we always do with sensitive documents, we have made 100 copies and placed it into the hands of 100 of our best intelligence operatives around the world. There is no way that you will stop this information from being carried to the American people and the people of the world. It is too late for you. It is what will convict you. Beginning tonight, I'm going to read every page of this all the way through until it's finished, and it's going to take a long time. We're in the process of publishing the entire documentation of the treason of almost every single politician who has occupied any office in the federal government of the United States of America since World War II. So, folks, make sure you have your pad of paper and your pen or pencil by your side. You are going to hear information tonight and in the following programs until we have relayed every single piece of this information to the world that is going to leave you gasping for breath. At first, you will pull down the curtain of denial and you will not want to listen or believe a thing that you're hearing. And as progressive episodes of the hour of the time pass, you will find yourself beginning to realize that we have been betrayed. That Senator Joseph McCarthy was right. Ladies and gentlemen, he just didn't know what to call it. Don't go away. I'll be right back. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Tonight, ladies and gentlemen, part one, I accuse and I will prove during this hour that President Harry Truman, 33rd degree Freemason of the Scottish Rite, Grand Master of the Missouri Lodge of the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, is a traitor. I now accuse all those who we entrusted with the government of the United States of America with treason. And during the following episodes, I will prove it and document it and give you, the American public and the people of the world, the names and numbers of these documents and of our research. I here now declare to the United States government and to the world that in view of this evidence I have piled before me, I will no longer support the new world order. I will not support the treasonous government of the United States of America, which has subverted the Constitution of the United States of America, as has in fact relegated it to the trash can. We have the documents to prove that also. We have the confession of Congress in Congress, in both the House and the Senate, in the congressional record that the United Nations Charter has superseded the Constitution of the United States of America. Tonight I read to you verbatim, with nothing edited, nothing left out and nothing skipped, from the publication entitled Our Foreign Policy. It is the Department of State Publication 3972. General Foreign Policy Series 26. Released September 1950. Division of Publications, Office of Public Affairs. The author of this document is Harry Truman. To my fellow Americans, at a time when the duties of citizenship fall heavily on thousands of young Americans, there is a duty that all of us can and should impose on ourselves. To be well informed about the problems that face our country. To weigh the facts. To understand the issues. And to form our own opinions and judgments. This is not an easy undertaking, but it is necessary if we Americans, as a people, are to exert our full influence for peace and freedom and justice. The following brief survey of American aims and policies was prepared at my suggestion. I think it is sometimes useful to sum up and set down as simply and clearly as possible what we are after in our relations with other governments and their peoples. It is not possible, of course, to tell the whole story of American foreign relations in these few pages. But if the part of the story that is told here contributes something to your understanding, if it leads you to other sources of information, and if it helps you to form sound judgment, then it will have served its purpose. Our foreign policy, its roots. There is no longer any real distinction between domestic and foreign affairs. Practically everything we do, the way we test and spend our national income, the way we run our public and private business, the way we settle the differences among ourselves and with other nations, what we say in our newspapers, over the air, and on public platforms, our attitudes toward each other and toward other peoples, all these things affect not only our security and well-being at home, but also our influence abroad. All these things go into the making of the character, the personality, and the reputation of the United States. Out of all these things grow the foreign policies of the United States. Policies are an expression of the national interests. That is the way of saying that our policies reflect what we are and what we want. During the 175 years since we became a nation, our national interests have changed in some ways, but their general character has remained constant. Here are some of the values that have persisted all through our history. We are an independent nation, and we want to keep our independence. We attach the highest importance to individual freedom, and we mean to keep our freedom. We are a peaceful people, and we want to get rid of wars and the threat of wars. We have a comparatively high standard of living. We want to raise the standards so that everyone in the United States will eventually have a chance to earn a decent and secure living. We are friendly people. We have no traditional enemies, and we want to be on good terms with every other people. These are the things on which Americans, with all their different points of view, are most likely to agree. It is the job of the government, as the agent of the people, to promote these national interests. The federal government, as the agent of the people, continually has hard choices to make. It is the job of the government, as the agent of all the people, to try to harmonize group and sectional interests on the one hand, with national interests on the other. There has never been a time in our history when we could go about the business of promoting our national interests free from the threat of destructive forces. Some of these forces are inside the country. They stem from groups that oppose the national interests. Some Americans have a view of life that conflicts with the basic propositions on which our democracy was founded. Some try to profit at the expense of the freedom or well-being of others. Some hostile forces have been outside our country. A great deal more needs to be done. Succeeding chapters will discuss what has been done and what needs to be done in concrete terms. The policy of creating situations of strength happens to be the best response to the problem of Soviet expansion, but it is much more than that. It is part of a broad new policy that grew out of the experience of the American people in the Second World War. That experience destroyed the last comfortable illusion of geographical security. It discredited once and for all the doctrine of isolationism. In the light of that experience, Americans made a radical adjustment in their thinking. They came gradually to realize and to accept the fact that far-off events could affect their safety and well-being. A crop failure in India, a famine or flood in China, an election in Finland, a murder in Bosnia. All kinds of events and trends, good or bad, might eventually come to roost on the American housetop. Americans, they knew at last, live and will continue to live in an exposed position. Having made that radical adjustment in their thinking, the American people began to consider in earnest this problem. How to make their exposed position comfortable and safe for their free society. To that end, they began to plan and build an international community in which people could live in peace under the protection of law. The building of such a community is the most ambitious, the most difficult, the most hopeful, and the most exciting enterprise on which the American people have ever embarked. It is big enough and hard enough to engage all our energies. If it were not for the threat of aggression, we could concentrate all our energies on that job. We could say that it was, in fact, the substance of our foreign policy. But unfortunately, that is not possible. The Soviet power drive has cut across the course that we and other peace-minded peoples have chartered for ourselves as a hurricane cuts across the path of a ship. It has blown us all miles off our course. It has been a tragic interruption to our progress, a wasteful diversion of our energies. Nevertheless, we are plowing ahead, resting the hurricane as we go, holding on to our main purposes. What does it mean to build an international community? It means, first, organizing the members to deal collectively with their problems and to defend themselves collectively against anyone who may threaten the peace and tranquility of the community. So we took the lead in organizing the United Nations and its various specialized agencies. It means, second, repairing the damage of war so that members in good standing can play their full part in the life of the community. To this end, we took the lead in organizing the Marshall Plan and the relief programs which preceded it. It means, third, bringing the outlaws back into the community as decent working members. So we undertook the occupation of Germany and Japan and the education of their peoples in the ways of democracy. It means, fourth, helping the people of the underdeveloped regions of the world to pull their standards of living up to a level that modern science and technology have brought within reach of all people. So we have embarked on the four-point program of technical cooperation with people who want and can profit by our aid. It means, fifth, developing a sensible system of trade so that all members of the community can expect that their work will contribute to a healthy and expanding economic life for themselves. To this end, we have helped to write an international charter of fair trade practices and to create an international trade organization called GATT, where the nations can settle their disputes across a conference table. Through reciprocal trade and tariff agreements, we are gradually opening up the channels of world trade that have been clogged for a generation. All this is only the bare outline of an international community. Nobody can predict where the experiment will lead or how long it will take. It may in time lead to the international control of all armament, which is essential. It may lead eventually to a form of world government, which is a possibility that excites the imagination of some adventurous people. For the immediate future, at least, we must reconcile ourselves to the need, to divert a large part of our thought and our resources to the defense of the free world. We must give our attention to meeting and preventing aggression by creating situations of strength. As we go about this immediate and urgent job, we find ourselves doing many things that we would have to be doing even if there were no aggressors in the world. We find ourselves doing many things that contribute to the larger objective of building a community of nations. This is not to suggest that the threat of tyranny is a blessing in disguise. Far from it. It is an evil thing, and its evil effects will remain to plague the world long after the threat of Soviet power is passed. No nation can go through an ordeal of this kind unscathed, but we, at least, can emerge from it self-disciplined and more deeply aware of our national interests in freedom and peace. In that context, let us consider the method by which we arrive at our foreign policies. Who makes it? Many people would like to know how and where a foreign policy is made. Is it made in the White House, in the State Department, in the Congress, in Middletown, Ohio, or Iowa? Or does it, like Topsy, just grow? The answer to all these questions is yes. This is not as confusing as it seems. The Constitution gives the President of the United States full authority for making foreign policies and carrying them out. As the elected representative of the people, he has the responsibility of translating the will of the people into foreign policy and of promoting the national interests in terms of foreign policies. The Constitution gives the Senate the job of approving or rejecting treaties and major appointments made by the President. Both houses of Congress hold the purse strings, which gives them considerable power over foreign policies, for which they also are directly responsible to the people. The Congress may also give the President advice about foreign policies through joint resolutions. In 1789, President Washington appointed the first Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, as his agent and advisor in carrying out foreign policies. And today, the Secretary of State and the Department of State are still the right arm of the President in the conduct of international relations. In practice, most of the agencies of the federal government, 43 at the last count, are now concerned in one way or another with foreign relations. These agencies work together through some 33 joint committees with 142 subcommittees that study and advise on foreign policy matters. Secretary Acheson once described the situation in these words, The President lays down what the policy shall be. In many cases, the Congress lays down what the policy shall be. The President may propose and the Congress disposes, but the State Department has the job of foreseeing a problem before it arises. It gets all the other agencies in the executive branch together to make a proposal. It gets the President's approval, or modification, and then takes it up with the Congress through the House and Senate committees. It moves it forward to some final action in the government. Therefore, the State Department is a sort of activator in the center of the government. The State Department, with its 300 missions in 75 countries, is also the eyes and ears of the government. Reports coming in regularly from the trained observers in these missions help the State Department and other agencies to foresee problems and make plans to meet them. Where does Middletown, Iowa come into the picture? Our policies reflect what we are and what we want, but at first glance it might seem almost impossible that a country as large as ours, with a population as numerous and as varied as ours, could give a clear-cut, understandable idea of what it is and what it wants. Most foreigners find it hard to make sense out of what sounds to them like a babble of voices, what looks to them like a scene of headlong confusion in the United States. As they come to know us, the sound tends to become a voice. The confusion takes on a certain order. Actually, the American people are better equipped than most other people to form and express their ideas and to arrive at something approximating a national purpose. That is because our lines of communication are many and strong. It is also because the atmosphere of the American community, a legacy of the New England town meeting, encourages everyone to have an opinion and to speak his mind freely. The American people speak their minds daily in a thousand ways. They communicate directly with their government by letters and telegrams. They communicate indirectly through the press, the radio, and through the leaders of their churches, clubs, labor unions, and other organizations. The lines of communication are good, but they could be even better. In recent years, the government has made a prodigious effort to establish closer relations with the people to develop a two-way traffic of facts and ideas. Examples of this effort showed up in the preparation of the United Nations and the Marshall Plan. Here were two major policy decisions in the making, of which the people of the government really cooperated with some success. Both decisions precipitated great national discussions. Both involved long public hearings before the committees of the Congress, to which citizens came and presented their ideas. Both led to the creation of citizens' committees, which studied the problem and reported. There is no simple prescription for the making of a democratic foreign policy. Because of the great size and diversity of our country, our policies will always be a blend of many ideas and interests. The blend will grow richer and stronger as the people and their government become more deeply conscious of their responsibilities toward each other and toward the democratic principles which have made us strong and free. That's the end of that chapter, folks, and I want to bring a few things to your attention. I wrote about this in my book and was severely criticized, and everybody is hailing Harry Truman as a hero now. And you can see that he is the one who planted the seeds of world government in the public eye during his administration post-World War II. He is the man, he is the man who signed the United Nations Treaty and pushed through the UN Participation Act and created the National Security Act of 1947. which allowed them to operate, to bring this about, behind a veil of secrecy. A veil of secrecy. I continue. Chapter 2, Toward National Security. Every government has a primary responsibility for the security of the people it serves. Every people has a duty to protect itself and to prepare a secure future for its children. But in our natural and necessary concern with security, it is important to know and agree on what we are after. This chapter will explore the needs of American security and take a look at what we are doing to meet them. We talk about American security, realizing that there is no definition of the word security that would satisfy all nations. Each people looks out on the world from its own window and therefore calculates the need of its own security from its own point of view. Like democracy, the word security has been used and misused for many purposes to justify a variety of national policies. Terrible crimes have been committed in its name. Hitler annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia and invaded Poland in the name of German security. Stalin forged a ring of satellite puppets claiming that the Soviet Union needs friendly neighbors to be safe from invasion. After the experience of two German invasions, France built a Maginot Line and manned it with a large standing army. Both Hitler and Stalin wanted in the name of security to divide the world into two spheres of influence. Let's draw a line, they said. On our side of the line, we'll do as we like, and on your side of the line, you can have complete freedom of action. There are, in fact, some people who still believe that kind of settlement would contribute to American security. The American idea of security has little or nothing in common with any of these traditional uses of power. We find it fantastic to think, as Hitler apparently thought, that invasion and conquest can enhance the security of any nation, including the conqueror. The desire of the Russian people, the victims of Hitler's invasion for friendly neighbors, is not hard to understand. But the Soviet system of puppet satellites, built around a master nation, offers little hope of security to anyone, least of all the people who live under that system. We made a costly escape via Pearl Harbor from our own brand of Maginot Line mentality, the belief that two broad oceans could save us from foreign wars. Most Americans now know that the modern world offers no complete immunity from accident, disaster, and the mistakes of human beings. We are aware, also, that security is not the same thing as superior military power or the possession of a super weapon. Finally, we have never been interested in the suggestion that a world divided into spheres of influence offers us security. We find that suggestion impractical, unrealistic, and morally indefensible, and don't go away. I'll be right back. I'll be right back. I'll be right back. I'll be right back. I'll be right back. I'll be right back. I'll be right back. Ladies and gentlemen, after you hear several episodes of this series, I won't have to urge you to call Swiss America Trading. You'll be doing that on your own. You're going to learn that we are approaching the end of Phase 2 in the disarmament of the nations and the peoples of the world. We are approaching the end of Phase 2. When Phase 3 begins, when Phase 3 begins, Patriot leaders will be rounded up. There will be house-to-house searches for arms. Many Patriots will go to ground, and there will be a civil war in this country. If you are not prepared, ladies and gentlemen, you had better begin to get prepared now. I am not saying this to scare you. I'm saying this because it is fact. I am an American. I know patriots. I know patriot groups. I know members of the real unorganized militia in this country. I know what is going to happen. I know what has happened in the past. I know what this is all leading to. I know that it has been planned. I know that we have been duped, and we have been asleep for many years, and I have documented every single bit of it with the help of the members of my organization, the Citizens Agency for Joint Intelligence, the largest and most successful civilian intelligence-gathering organization in the entire world. Now, if you are smart, you will take steps to protect the value of the assets that you have. If you study history even, even cursorily, you will find that there's only one thing in the history of the world that's ever been able to do that satisfactorily. And, ladies and gentlemen, that's precious metals in its various forms. I call Swiss America Trading. They're the only company that I can personally vouch for their honesty. I know them. I have dealt with them and their customers. We get letters from our listeners all the time who have dealt with other companies and who have dealt with Swiss America Trading. And while I'm on the subject, last night, the gentleman from Viking International who followed this broadcast told one of the biggest lies I've ever heard in my life about me. I don't know about Tom Donahue, but I suspect they also lied about him. They insinuated that we were bought. They insinuated that somehow Craig Smith and Swiss America Trading had bought us to do that show last night. And while they refused to elaborate on the air, they told you to call them and they would be glad to tell you how those types of things are arranged. I'm going to tell you now that those two gentlemen are both scumbag liars. And I am presently talking with legal counsel to bring suit against them for what they said. Anyone is free at any time to examine my financial records. We're a poor family. Every penny we get goes into equipment, goes into research, goes into what we need to do to present this broadcast. I have never taken one single penny from Swiss America Trading in my life and never would or never will. And that was part of the agreement that I made with them when I took them on as a sponsor. It was an agreement that I insisted upon. Because to be able to have your confidence and your ear, I must also have your trust. Even though I admonish you not to believe anything that you hear unless you check it out yourself. So these two gentlemen, these two gentlemen who had done such a terrible thing to Tom Donahue and who for the last several months have been slandering Craig Smith and Swiss America Trading then last night decided to slander me and they made a big mistake. A big mistake. I have now requested an investigation into that company and all of the backgrounds of all of the members of that company. We are at the present time running National Crime Information Computer requests. We are digging into the complaints made to the Arizona State's Attorney General. And I'm going to tell you right now and unless they make a public apology on the air to me personally, I will disclose every single bit of our findings on this broadcast. Now, if you would like to deal with an honest company that will treat you right and help you survive what is coming, call Swiss America Trading right now. 1-800-289-2646. That's 1-800-289-2646. They're good people. They're Christian people. They care about you. And I vouch for them 100%. You'll be glad, ladies and gentlemen, that you called. We'll be back. Thank you. Bye. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. build now if we want a safer, more livable world for our children. As we go along, we will see the relation of every one of our policies to either the short-term or long-term effort to build security. The short-term problem, in plain and brutal terms, is to survive as a free nation in a pioneer world society. Our situation today is something like that of the early settler of the West. In those days, before law and order were established, before families enjoyed the community safeguards that we now take for granted, every settler had to carry arms to protect himself and his family against marauders. Today each nation has to arm itself, and the lone nation is often at the mercy of an unscrupulous outlaw. In self-defense, the orderly and farsighted men among the early settlers joined forces for common protection. A rough system of law and order developed in which each settler could get on with his job of clearing the land and plowing it, but always with one ear cocked for danger. So today, the peaceful nations have organized for a degree of security, without giving up their basic individual sovereignty. In the present phase of pioneer international society nations, have to live with the danger that an outlaw may precipitate a war by accident or design. For the past 35 years, the Americans have been feeling the effects of that danger in our personal lives. We have watched international criminals at work. We have seen people pushed around, humiliated, terrorized, undermined, and finally attacked one by one in Europe and Asia. We have learned some simple rules for survival in a society that permits criminals to defy the law. We learned that there are no longer any foreign wars. There are no more sidelines for a nation to sit on. We learned that the only way to avoid being drawn into war is to prevent war. We learned further that you cannot prevent war in a pioneer society by agreeing to disarm, since the peaceful nations honor their agreements, and those that are planning aggressions ignore them. We became convinced that for the present, peaceful nations can best serve themselves and their society by arming well and joining forces for common defense. These lessons, the product of bitter and costly experience, shaped the new American attitude toward national security. A conviction that the earth was round sent Columbus on his westward adventure. Our conviction that the peoples of the earth were interdependent sent us on an equally bold adventure, an adventure in collective security. We had always been ready to help peaceful nations, but we had never, except in time of war, been willing to team up with them. Now we are ready and willing to do both, and we are doing both because we know that our national interest demands it. The long-range problem. To transform the pioneer international society of today into an orderly community of free nations, that is our long-range purpose. The community idea is thousands of years old in the mind of man, but it is just being born in the minds of nations. To bring an international community into existence may be the work of generations, but we have made a beginning. Sheer necessity might hurry up the process. A community has to have both a political and an economic basis. Even more important, it has to have a moral basis. Certain fundamental standards of decency and behavior have to be understood and accepted by the majority of its members before you can have a successful community. The majority must not only uphold those standards, but insist upon their being upheld. What has been called a consensus of moral judgment is the foundation of law and order and the beginning of real community life. Five years ago, we helped to create a great testing ground for the community idea, the United Nations. The United Nations. The American people took the lead in demanding and creating a United Nations and thereby reversed a traditional attitude. They had become convinced that all nations were interdependent. They saw no prospect of future peace and security except through international cooperation. And I break here, ladies and gentlemen, because everything that Harry Truman is stating in this 1950 State Department document is a total lie. At the time that he did these things, he was called a traitor, and he is a traitor. This is treason. The United States, the American people, did not call for the United Nations. They did not call for interdependence. In fact, they were very angry at what Harry Truman did. It wasn't until the socialists have recently come into power that Harry Truman has begun to be hailed as a hero. He's well versed in the socialist double speak. He sprinkles throughout this document interdependence. He sprinkles throughout this document. He's well versed in the socialist democracy, which is just a code word for socialism. A consensus of moral judgment. Standards of decency. Double speak. Meaningless promises that have never been and never will be granted to the people of the United States part of the world. And I'll continue. Security was uppermost in the minds of those who wrote the charter of the United Nations. To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war was the universal hope of the 51 peoples represented at the San Francisco conference. All of them were engaged in a terrible war, and they centered their hopes for peace in the United Nations. Because the world is not at peace, because the threat of war is still very much with us, the United Nations is blamed for not doing its job of maintaining the peace and security of its members. The five-year record of the United Nations shows that it can discourage aggression. It can promote peaceful relations. But its power to prevent war and impose peace is still seriously limited. And here comes the part, folks, where we're to give up our sovereignty. I continue. The United Nations has no lawmaking powers. It has no enforcement powers. The charter did not contemplate an international police force, but it did provide that the Security Council should have military forces in the form of national contingents at its disposal. All United Nations members said the charter were to contribute contingents by agreement with the Security Council. Air power was to be ready to go into immediate action against an aggressor on instruction from the Council. These provisions of the charter were not carried out because the Soviet Union blocked every attempt to get agreement on the size, composition, and location of the forces. The story of the United Nations plan for effective control of atomic energy and its rejection by the Soviet bloc will be told in a later section. Against this background of failure to arm the Security Council and failure to control the most deadly of all weapons, it is not surprising that the United Nations has made no real progress toward regulating other kinds of military weapons and forces known as conventional armaments. In other words, folks, what you have in your closets. Continuing. These failures to carry out the provisions of the charter have handicapped the work of the Security Council and damaged the prestige of the United Nations. But far more damaging to the United Nations has been the open, repeated violation of the letter and spirit of the charter by one of its most powerful members of the Soviet Union. Every nation that signed the charter promised solemnly to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. With that pledge ringing in its ears, the United Nations has watched more than 500 million free people lose their political independence through the threat or use of force. Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Eastern Germany, and finally Czechoslovakia became puppet police states. The same Soviet purpose is at work in China. He fails to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that the United States was instrumental in allowing the Soviet Union to do those things. Continuing. The United Nations has helped other nations resist that threat, Iran, Turkey, and Greece, and it is witnessing Yugoslavia's struggle to remain alive within the communist family. Finally, the United Nations stood by while the Soviet Union shook off its charter obligations and walked out of almost every United Nations meeting because it could not impose its will to seek communist China. The United Nations was not built to withstand the attacks of a great power. In fact, its members knew from the beginning that its peacekeeping machinery could not work successfully unless the great powers made a sincere and responsible effort to cooperate. Yet the United Nations survived and in surviving has shown that what power it has lies in the very consensus of moral judgment, which is the basis of a community. It is that massed moral force of world opinion which accounts for every United Nations victory. The power of world opinion deflected the Soviet threat from Iran in 1946. It was an important factor in maintaining the independence of Greece. It played a considerable part in helping Korea, Indonesia, and Israel to establish their national independence. In all these difficult tests of its strength, the United Nations has been fortified by the full, consistent support of the United States. It has enjoyed the solid moral backing of American public opinion. However, American backing has been only one of the plus factors. On every clear issue, a solid, phalanx of public opinion of the whole free world has stood by the United Nations. The Soviet propaganda engine interprets this as proof that the capitalist world is in league against the communist democracies. The truth is that the free peoples are against aggression. They are against the use of threat and terror. They are against the old power game. The moral consensus rose to a new level of power with the reaction of the United Nations to the invasion of South Korea in June 1950. Within 24 hours of the communist attack, the Security Council had called upon the North Koreans to cease hostilities and withdraw their forces. Within three days, the Security Council had recommended the United Nations members help South Korea repel the attack. Within two weeks of the communist attack, 47 member nations and 12 non-members had declared their full support of United Nations action against the aggressive. In the same period, seven nations came forward with military contingents to make the fighting force in Korea a United Nations force under a United Nations flag. Within two months, offers of concrete help had come from 30 nations. In some cases, these offers represented a hard and courageous choice. It meant that small nations living in the shadow of Soviet power decided to stand up and be counted for the rule of law. In the light of all this experience, with all its discouraging and sobering aspects, the United States continues to put its long-range hopes for a peaceful and secure world order in the United Nations. We center our hopes in the United Nations not only because its social and economic bodies are doing valuable pioneer work in international cooperation, not only because its related agencies such as the World Health and the Food and Agricultural Organizations have a tremendous humanitarian job to do, not only because we are interested in promoting human rights and freedom of information. The United States supports the United Nations for all these reasons and also for practical security reasons. We realize that our security consists in a combination of many things. It consists in having superior military and economic power on the side of law and order. It depends on strong and free allies, and it depends also on the goodwill, the respect, the confidence, and the moral support of decent people everywhere. We know of no better way of informing world opinions, of arousing and mobilizing it in defense of peace than through the United Nations. That is why the United Nations is necessary to our security, just as our support is necessary to its healthy development. The problem of the atom. The charter of the United Nations was signed on June 26, 1945. Hardly six weeks later, something happened that created an urgent need for new patterns of international cooperation, a need that the signers of the charter did not and could not have taken into account. The atomic bomb exploded on Hiroshima. The full meaning of that event was not understood at the time and is still not universally realized. The bomb was not the first weapon of mass destruction, or the last. It did not change the basic facts of life in a pioneer international society. It did not make war either more or less probable, but it made the effects of war more terrible. Therefore, those who thought deeply and calmly about the meaning of the bomb came to two simple conclusions. Prevent war and find an effective way to outlaw the bomb and develop atomic energy for peaceful purposes only. Ever since 1945, American policy has proceeded from these two conclusions. Actual documents, ladies and gentlemen, indicate that the atomic bomb was used only to make warfare more terrible and then create a cry from the peoples of the world for world government and control. And that's the real truth of the matter. Ever since 1945, American policy has proceeded from these two conclusions. To prevent war was already our major interest and concern. The use of atomic energy presented us with a new and baffling problem. Now let's consider the nature of the problem. The technical details of atomic energy and of the weapons we have developed from its devastating power are very complex indeed, but the principle of the atomic bomb is very simple. All you have to do to blow a city off the map is to get together enough plutonium, or a rare form of uranium, in one lump. There is nothing more to it than that. A lump of metal of a certain size. Anyone can do it if he has a way of getting the stuff, knows how to protect himself against the poisonous radiations, and can delay the explosion until he is ready for it. The principle of the hydrogen bomb is also simple enough. Whether it can, in fact, be developed is not yet known. All you will need is a very high degree of heat, a degree so high that probably only a uranium or plutonium bomb could supply it. The horror of this situation is that literally anyone with access to the refined materials could bring about an atomic explosion. What other course is there but to keep this dangerous stuff away from irresponsible men and nations? Within a year after the bomb exploded on Hiroshima, the United States had devised plans and proposals for doing just that, keeping the dangerous stuff out of irresponsible hands. The facts are, ladies and gentlemen, is that documents prove that the United States furnished the Soviet Union with the technology to build and detonate their first atomic bomb. And that is a fact. He continues, We decided to put domestic control and development of atomic energy under the authority of a civilian commission. This decision became law on August 1, 1946, when the President signed the McMahon Bill. We decided to put the problem of international control of atomic energy squarely up to the United Nations. Canada, China, France, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union agreed to this plan. And in January 1946, the First General Assembly of the United Nations created a commission on atomic energy with instructions to work out a plan of effective international control. By June 1946, the United States was ready with preliminary proposals for such a plan. And Bernard Baruch, the American representative, put them before the Atomic Energy Commission of the United Nations. The proposals were based on the report of a group appointed by the President early in January to study the problem of atomic control from the point of view of national security and international peace. The report of this group, known as the Acheson-Lelenthal Committee, came to the following conclusion. That effective, workable international control was possible. That international inspection of national atomic activities was not by itself good enough to safeguard the security of individual nations. That therefore a new kind of international authority had to be created which would itself own all the raw materials and carry on all the dangerous operations in the field of atomic development. The non-dangerous aspects of development could be in national hands. But these national activities would have to be licensed and inspected by the international authority. The United States offered to give up its monopoly of atomic weapons and turn over its technical knowledge for an effective international system of this kind. When such an adequate system of control had been approved and had come into effect step by step, then we proposed the manufacture of atomic bombs would stop. Existing bombs would be disposed of by agreement, and a worldwide atomic authority would be in possession of all information about the production of atomic energy for both peaceful and military purposes. These are the main provisions of the United Nations plan, which was approved by an overwhelming vote of the General Assembly in 1948. It is an honest plan aimed at genuine control and promising a high degree of security to all nations. No other method has yet been found that offers genuine control or security. This plan has been rejected and fought by the Soviet Union and its satellites. The Soviet Union stands on its wreck. And ladies and gentlemen, I am not finished with this document, and may not get finished in the next show later at 10 p.m. Mountain Standard Time. Don't forget, if you're on the Pacific Coast, 9 p.m. Mountain, 10 p.m. Central, 11 p.m. And Eastern Standard Time is midnight. Don't miss it. I'm not going to repeat anything, and I'm not going to stop until I have read the contents of every single one of these documents. If anything happens to me, 100 of our most trusted intelligence operatives are in possession of these documents, and they will continue where I left off. Good night, and God bless you all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. » Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.