Nearly all the delegates of the various nations to the U.N., at present do not actually represent their people, but simply the holders of monopoly in their own countries. As a matter of fact, our own people have had practically nothing to say about who should represent them either.

As a result of that policy, special privilege overhelmingly dominates even our own delegation. Give that aggregation sole military power and they will surely make certain that they and their kind keep those monopolistic privileges.

Another thing to be considered is, what if Russia or Argentina or Spain, etc. , won't come into the project and surrender their sovereign power; is it planned to attack them and compel them to do so? This would insure the Bloody struggle which the U.N., is supposed to avert.

I don't believe for an instant that Russia or Argentina or Spain would keep a promise not to make atomic bombs; and I am not too certain that our own militarists could be trusted either.

Suppose Russia actually has atomic bombs right now; attempts of the U.N., to coerce that country, under circumstances would bring on a struggle too horrible to contemplate.

Then too, it is altogether probable that the atomic energy may be secured from matter other than uranium, plutonium, etc., such as is known now, and by simpler methods.

While we are dealing with matter of arbitrary power usurpation, I want to call attention to some brazen statements by Emery Peves in his recent book, "The Anatomy of Peace". This man and his book have been acclaimed from the housetops by a horde of self-styled scholars and alleged 200% Americans.

This attitude demonstrates the worst phase of the present mental state of those who aspire to be leaders: it is the blind leading the blind.

What the worst brand of Nazis and Facists have been condemned for, these American counterparts are unthinkingly praised for.

Reves after repeating in various ways, what any thinking person recognizes as fascism, finally abandons caution and says outright, what Fitz Kuhn would have been sent to a federal prison, if not hanged for: especially if uttered during the war. All thru' the boook, he by innuendo urges scrappping our constitutional safeguards, to set up fascist mchinery here in the United States. However, before he finishes, he throws caution to the winds and says right out loud, what really on his mind.

Listen: (page 269) "If we cannot attain universalism and create union by common consent, and by democratic methods, as a result of rational thinking, --rather than retard the process, let us precipitate unification by conquest."

Did Hitler ever state his case for nazism with any greater brutal frankness statement than that? Even this revoltingly frank statement hardly creates a rippple with those who have spent their whole lifes and careers sloppily affecting to worship the american constitution. This whole aggregation has gone overboard 100% for Baruch's atomic supervision plan.