Why the U.S. Must Leave the U.N.

Podcast: Download

Subscribe: RSS | More

Darrell Castle gives his reasons why he believes the United States must immediately withdraw from the United Nations.

Transcript

Today I am going to give an account of why I believe the United States should withdraw from membership in the United Nations. As a presidential candidate, I have made this one of the cornerstones of my campaign. I’ve said that this is one of the first things that I would do if I were elected – to withdraw the United States from the United Nations. These are my thoughts on why that should be done.

When the suggestion is made that the United States should regain its sovereignty and chart its own course, isolationism is usually the accusation. No one seriously maintains that the U.S. can remain isolated from the forces that agitate the world today, a world closely inter-related in trade, finance, instantaneous communications and so forth. The question is then how to deal with other nations while keeping our sovereignty, our freedom and our independence intact.

Can the U.S. keep its own laws, its own constitution, set its own policies, or do we have to surrender to the decisions and dictates of an international collective of nations? Many would love to see American nationhood fade into history. Unfortunately, our government today is riddled with such people. They fear not just the power of America, but the ideas that still make us the most powerful nation on earth. Those ideas serve as a contradiction to the way the rest of the world operates: American ideas, which would serve us even more if we were once again a free and independent nation.

The overwhelming success of the U.S. – politically, economically, culturally and so forth – depends upon a set of religious, political and legal ideas that have set us free to worship, to think, and to act as free Americans. Those ideas have never been replicated anywhere else on earth.

Material prosperity springs from that freedom, and it is a renewable resource as long as freedom remains. The ideas of America are not compatible with membership in the U.N. The U.N. is world headquarters for “the church of unbelieving humanism.” The fundamental doctrine of the U.N. is that the world should be a global collective, redistributing shares of material prosperity to every human on earth. That is a religious and not a political idea. Faith in God is replaced by faith in humanity. The U.N. is the sanctuary of the adultery of men.

To U.N. believers, its very name is sacred, inspiring all to devotion. The earth is the Great Mother and produces some product, but not enough. Rationing has to resolve the lack. Some have to be taxed so rationing can occur to provide equal shares. Injuring the earth is the “crime” of injuring the Great Mother. This thought process takes U.N. believers back to ancient pagan days of a god or gods thought to be mythical, which, in reality, are satanic.

When the U.N. headquarters was built in 1946, a meditation room was included in which the only object inside the room is a rectangular black rock, symbol of the underworld thrust up from the world below. Collective action is the U.N. global strategy to weaken and isolate America. We are therefore more isolated in the U.N. than we would be out of it. The U.S. is isolated a little bit at a time, lest we awaken from our slumber and withdraw. Little by little the “redistribution strands” are woven tighter and tighter around us.

Within the overall doctrine of redistribution is concealed a hidden teaching, the doctrine of rationing. U.N. believers are driven by a desperate conviction that some people have too much. It is not so much that they want to give more to the have-nots and have compassion. No, they just have the “knowing feeling” that everyone is using up too much of the earth’s resources, except for the other most primitive and backward tribes, already living on a subsistence level.

They say the advanced nations in their arrogance are injuring the earth, but the backward tribes are one with the earth. U.N. believers are essentially opposed to the central tenet of Western civilization – that man is rational – and that is why they have worked so hard to destroy that notion. They believe man is composed of body and soul: that there is no essential difference between man and the animals, or man and the trees, man and the birds, snakes and so forth.

Human beings and their unruly desires have to be subordinated to the needs of the earth. You see the earth is the Great Mother. The exterior of U.N. belief is a facade of the rational organization: impressive documents full of political programs; budgets for peacekeeping; scientific and statistical studies; debates.

The General Assembly votes in the Security Council, but there is an esoteric doctrine behind the rationalist exterior. U.N. belief is a mystery religion that reveals its true doctrine to trusted initiates step-by-step, with the innermost secret known only to a handful of very powerful men and women.

In conclusion, then, why do I believe that the existence of the United Nations is an affront to liberty and human dignity? I will get there by asking a series of ten questions. The answer to those questions will give us the answer as to why the existence of the United Nations is an affront to liberty and human dignity.

Question number one: Is it in the interest of the United States to adhere to the doctrine of the United Nations’ charter, that “the inherent right to self-defense is superseded by resolutions of the Security Council?”

Number two: Is it in the interest of the United States to support concepts of economic development that are based on social policy, rather than market principles?

Number three: Is it in the interest of the United States to channel humanitarian systems through multilateral agencies under the influence of global values, rather than through U.S. agencies and private volunteer organizations that are guided by Western concepts of human dignity?

Number four: Is it in the interest of the United States to participate in multilateral disarmament programs, rather than to deal directly with super powers and rogue nations that actually threaten the peace?

Number 5: Is it in the interest of the United States to support ideological formulations of human rights based on rationalist egalitarianism, rather than on the inherent rights endowed by God, the Creator?

Number six: Is it in the interest of the United States to adhere to multilateral treaties on trade, environment and human rights, that require our country to accept decisions made by international bureaucrats not responsible to the American people?

Number seven: Is it in the interest of the United States to support a system of world law that does not recognize the Common Law precincts and procedures that are the guarantee of our liberty?

Number eight: Is it in the interest of the United States to support international institutions that propose to tax U.S. citizens and corporations in their financial transactions in order to redistribute wealth from the developed world to the Third World?

Number nine: Is it in the interest of the United States to accept the burden of paying for U.N. peacekeeping not approved by Congress, and to turn over military personnel to UN command and control?

Number 10: Is it in the interest of the United States to agree to accept an obligation to pay U.N. Assessments, and accept schemes of funding that are independent of the daily financial will of member states who are unwilling to pay their share?

The answer to all these questions is “No.” A truthful answer to every one of these questions is “No.”

At least, that’s the way I see it, folks.