Appearing to stem from an April 1963 issue of The American Mercury magazine, this single-page, typed broadside purports to expose a web of Communist influence infiltrating the United Nations and its agencies—particularly through UNESCO and the UN Secretariat.
Titled “Who Runs the United Nations?” it lists individuals from various countries (predominantly the Soviet Union) in key UN roles. Boldly declaring Burmese Secretary-General U Thant a “self-avowed Marxist” and characterizing UNESCO as rife with USSR-aligned personnel, the document concludes with a dramatic warning: “IT WOULD SEEM WE ARE SELLING OURSELVES INTO SLAVERY!!!!!!!!! ALERT PEOPLE.”
Historical Context
By 1963, Cold War tensions were deeply entrenched, and the United States had weathered more than a decade of fierce anti-Communist sentiment. Organizations like the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee had heavily scrutinized international institutions, claiming subversive elements threatened American sovereignty. Publications such as The American Mercury—founded originally as a literary magazine but later shifting into a more conservative, conspiratorial stance—often ran articles that portrayed the UN as a Trojan horse for global Communist infiltration.
Within the broader U.S. political climate, suspicion of “one-world government” and UN treaties dovetailed with nationalist fears that an international body could override American law. This typed handout, consisting of a bullet-point list of names with corresponding USSR or “Red China” designations, succinctly captures this nativist brand of paranoia.
Strategy and Content
- Name-and-Shame Approach
The text follows a method similar to “red-baiting” lists: it itemizes individuals allegedly linked to Communist countries, implying guilt by association. By enumerating each person’s role, it constructs an impression of infiltration and near-total control by the Soviet bloc. - Alarmist Language
Headings such as “World Police Force” and the final invocation, “IT WOULD SEEM WE ARE SELLING OURSELVES INTO SLAVERY,” feed into populist anxieties. The call to “ALERT PEOPLE” suggests an urgent civic duty to reject the UN. - Use of Official Acronyms and Positions
Positions like Director General, Assistant Director General, Chief of Secondary Education, or Program Assistant sound authoritative, lending a veneer of legitimacy. The piece exploits the average reader’s unfamiliarity with international bureaucratic structures, making these roles seem ominous. - Leaning on the American Mercury Reputation
By citing The American Mercury, once an influential publication, the document attempts to cloak itself in the authority of a recognized periodical—even though the magazine’s editorial line by 1963 had veered into sensationalism and far-right commentary.
Language, Imagery, and Symbolism
- Blunt Allegations of “Marxist”
Branding Secretary-General U Thant a “self-avowed Marxist” with no substantiation is a rhetorical sledgehammer. Such a stark label precludes nuance, painting diplomacy as subversion. - Associating “USSR” or “Red China” With Each Name
The repeated listing of national affiliations—especially the USSR—functions as shorthand for “Communist infiltration.” This repetition cements a sense of conspiracy and infiltration in the reader’s mind. - Rhetorical Frenzy
The excessive punctuation (multiple exclamation points, repeated hashtags) magnifies the sense of a dire emergency. It also underscores the sensational tone that such propaganda thrives upon.
Efficacy and Impact
While documents like this appealed to segments of the American public entrenched in Cold War panic, they ultimately did little to dismantle the UN. The condemnation of the UN and UNESCO as “Communist fronts” was a recurring trope among ultra-conservative factions, yet mainstream American policy remained ambivalent but generally supportive of the UN framework. Over time, these accusations helped galvanize a small but vocal wing of anti-globalist sentiment—a precursor to modern forms of skepticism and conspiracy theories about international governance.
The flyer serves as a historical artifact of the Cold War’s propaganda wars. Its alarmist style, reliance on guilt-by-association tactics, and appeal to patriotic fear speak volumes about how charged rhetoric can overshadow nuanced diplomatic realities. For anyone studying the U.S. Right’s critique of international institutions, “Who Runs the United Nations?” is emblematic of the period’s intense paranoia and the roots of ongoing sovereignty debates.
Special thanks to the USC Digital Imaging Lab for their support in digitizing this item.
