My reactions to reading this book in 1996.

Given the small press origins (Huntington House) and title of this book, I expected a conspiracy mongering tract on secret UN armies infiltrating the US to do nefarious deeds. What I got was a fairly straightforward non-conspiratorial, well-documented tract on the UN’s not so secret attempts to insinuate themselves into the culture of the US and ensnare the US into legally recognizing UN prerogative and supremacy. Since my eyes tend to glaze over articles on UN conferences, it was good to get a description of UN scandals and corruptions, specifics on KGB use of the UN for agent cover and propaganda; UN attempts (successfully countered by the Vatican) to expand abortion internationally by recognizing it as a right, the Clinton administration’s persistent efforts to weaken US security, defense, and sovereignty.

To be sure, I’ve heard the stated desires of one-worlders before. It’s an old notion going back at least a century. And Kincaid does get somewhat off track in crediting UN policies with moving the US toward less penalties for drug use (I doubt that’s true and don’t view it as an evil necessarily. The biggest problem is that I think the ultimate danger Kincaid sees, an America occupied by UN troops carrying out the dictates of a global government, is very improbable for reasons Kincaid documents. Yes, countries like Russia, Japan, and Germany may be willing to lend their armies to the UN, but I doubt they could effectively enforce UN dictates in our country without our consent (obviously, a problem would exist if enough Americans buy into the notion of a global government.). Events in Chechnya show how hard it is for even a modern superpower to enforce its will on an unwilling populace. I don’t think many countries in the world are up to the task of trying to dominate the US in the name of the UN in terms of money, force, and will.

Also, as Kincaid himself points out, UN bureaucrats seem less sincere in forming a global government then preserving their jobs, perks, and corrupt, private schemes. The real danger I think of paying such homage and obedience to the UN is moral, legal, and psychological. By signing on to various treaties that weaken US sovereignty and advance the idea of a global government legally powered to use force and coercion to discipline countries straying from its edicts, we look bad when we need to break these treaties for our interest or ideals. We could follow what seems to be the French example and simply do what we deem necessary regardless of public opinion or international law. However, it’s a lot harder to appeal to international law and treaties when you break them. Or we could break UN laws and say, as we did with the Declaration of Independence, that we are rebelling against a government to preserve higher rights.

Like Kincaid, I think the UN can serve a useful function as a place where nations in conflict can meet and make agreements amongst themselves for mutual benefit. However, I don’t think the UN should be the nucleus to a world state. ( )