RE: Kofi and U.N. 'Ideals'
The UN was a bad idea when Wilson tried to sell it as The League of Nations. We were right to have rejected it then, we were foolish to have accepted it later.
Even assuming it was not a purely Marxist or Bolshevik organization when it was formed, no one with a shred of intelligence or honesty would try to assert that it is anything else today. Global socialist forces have used the idiocy of democracy upon which it is founded to create an organization whose stated goal is the end of nations. To them, "united" means "absorbed."
The inevitable North American Union will certainly make the job of globalization easier. When China and Russia unite to form the Asian Socialist Union, absorbing all the Asian proto-Nations left behind by the British Empire, membership in the UN should quickly dwindle to seven, representatives of the seven nation-continents. Seven is an easily manageable oligarchy and makes a workable size for a politburo.
It is almost amusing to look back at ourselves and our silly notion that we had defeated soviet socialism. Some of us even thought we put lie to Vladimir Ilyanovich's notion that communism is a global inevitability.
On the day that "we the people" handed over the party of Reagan to the forces of global socialism, in the form of the Bush dynasty, our inevitable course was laid down. Now, I doubt it can be changed short of revolution.
Even assuming it was not a purely Marxist or Bolshevik organization when it was formed, no one with a shred of intelligence or honesty would try to assert that it is anything else today. Global socialist forces have used the idiocy of democracy upon which it is founded to create an organization whose stated goal is the end of nations. To them, "united" means "absorbed."
The inevitable North American Union will certainly make the job of globalization easier. When China and Russia unite to form the Asian Socialist Union, absorbing all the Asian proto-Nations left behind by the British Empire, membership in the UN should quickly dwindle to seven, representatives of the seven nation-continents. Seven is an easily manageable oligarchy and makes a workable size for a politburo.
It is almost amusing to look back at ourselves and our silly notion that we had defeated soviet socialism. Some of us even thought we put lie to Vladimir Ilyanovich's notion that communism is a global inevitability.
On the day that "we the people" handed over the party of Reagan to the forces of global socialism, in the form of the Bush dynasty, our inevitable course was laid down. Now, I doubt it can be changed short of revolution.
posted by Anonymous | 7:43 AM
2 Comments:
1. OK, I’ll bite
2. The purpose of the UN is to mediate disputes between nations. An important characteristic of mediation is that it preserves the sovereignty of all parties. The mediator is there to (dare I use this lingo) to facilitate discussion, not mandate solutions.
3. The great mistake of the US dominated Security Council leading up to the current war in Iraq was the adoption of the role of enforcer. That is not its purpose nor can it ever be successful in that role.
4. To read Mr Brennis' thoughts, it appears that he sees no value in any alliances. That to enter into mutual agreements is to head down the proverbial slippery slope towards some form of world communism. Obviously in his view, the only way to maintain order is for the one with the biggest stick to dictate terms to everyone else. The current state of affairs shows how well this idea works. Not to mention it simply is uncivilized.
5. The recognition that differences in perspective and competing interests exist, that mutually acceptable compromises can be negotiated, and that this is an evolutionary process, is the basis for having the U.N.
Brennis apparently rejects each of these premises and is resigned to a world of war and distrust. That is his sour prerogative. I prefer to live with a greater level of optimism and hope for a world in which wars like the current one do not occur.
-----Original Message-----
1. OK, I’ll bite
2. The purpose of the UN is to mediate disputes between nations. An important characteristic of mediation is that it preserves the sovereignty of all parties. The mediator is there to (dare I use this lingo) to facilitate discussion, not mandate solutions.
3. The great mistake of the US dominated Security Council leading up to the current war in Iraq was the adoption of the role of enforcer. That is not its purpose nor can it ever be successful in that role.
4. To read Mr Brenneis' thoughts, it appears that he sees no value in any alliances. That to enter into mutual agreements is to head down the proverbial slippery slope towards some form of world communism. Obviously in his view, the only way to maintain order is for the one with the biggest stick to dictate terms to everyone else. The current state of affairs shows how well this idea works. Not to mention it simply is uncivilized.
5. The recognition that differences in perspective and competing interests exist, that mutually acceptable compromises can be negotiated, and that this is an evolutionary process, is the basis for having the U.N.
Brenneis apparently rejects each of these premises and is resigned to a world of war and distrust. That is his sour prerogative. I prefer to live with a greater level of optimism and hope for a world in which wars like the current one do not occur.
Post a Comment
<< Home