September 09, 2011

UN subverts democracy?

Decca works with an activist organization pressuring the government on several issues and explains how the group subverts democracy by using the United Nations to give authority to their demands.

“The United Nations is the source of all progressive policies in human rights, health and environment since WWII,” says Decca. “The idea of anthropogenic climate change, for instance, came from the UN and through emissions trading it will redistribute wealth and dictate how every citizen of the world will lead their day-to-day lives.”

“The United Nations, itself founded upon a movement for world peace after WWII, is now the means by which activists can attempt to subvert the democratic process and force their beliefs upon recalcitrant home governments by virtue of those governments being members of the UN and signatories to UN Human Rights, Environment and Health directives.”

“UN members are not elected, they are appointed; there is much corruption in their ranks – as there is in home governments; and while UN directives are not yet enforceable (the USA as well as many other home governments have defaulted), there is every possibility that one day will become enforceable by virtue of the UN’s aspiration to be the only government in the world.”

“Once activists gain the ear of an unelected UN member – and convince them of the worth of their cause, as well as the possible enormous wealth to be generated by it in view of the global nature of the activity, the UN makes policy directives and publishes reports and recommendations which it sends to home governments urging adoption of a standard set of legislative control/uncontrol measures.”

“With respect to controlling wealthy industries, measures start small with education in schools (which most industries agree is the 'proper' sort of government response),” explains Decca. “UN directives may then recommend discouraging exposure in schools and public places; and then suggests legal and economic measures to prohibit exposure in both public and private places, to force disclosure of chemical additives in the manufacturing process, to ban advertising and promotion, and, of course, to impose punitive taxes on users and industry – but never, ever, the banning of the product (because the object is to control it, and spread the wealth from its use by citizens to the controlling bodies, as well as its manufacturing and taxing bodies).”

“Because home governments are democratically elected to represent the wishes of the people being governed, most of whom would be engaging in the ‘disgusting activity’, including the politicians themselves,” explains Decca, “the UN’s recommended legislative control measures are seldom enacted, and this is where my group does its real work.”

“As activists, we engineer public support by gaining media attention and in doing so we shame politicians into enacting the UN recommendations.”

Read more by Decca on this issue:



  • student activism



  • Media driven social policy



  • A career as an activist



  • misuse of 'war' for other issues?



  • Education and activism



  • Welfare funding for activists



  • activist cults and sin taxes





  • Labels: , , , , , , ,

       October 04, 2007

    globalized murder

    Like most Christians, if not most people of any faith, Adrienne -- a working wife and mom -- was raised to negotiate her way through conflict, to turn the other cheek if necessary and to focus her charity at home. She is totally against war of any kind and believes globalization -- other than spreading Christianity -- is evil.

    "Life's too short to make enemies," says Adrienne, "but the conduct of this war against terror has overturned everything I was raised to believe."

    "Either I have been lied to all of my life -- in which case I have been a victim of pacifist propaganda," says Adrienne, "or our government is run by evil people and in not protesting this war and stopping it we are all accessories to a terrible crime."

    "As I see it, the weapons inspectors were doing their job in Iraq, the regime was complying with UN requirements and no 'smoking gun' was found that indicated Iraq was producing weapons of mass destruction."

    "By refusing to allow the weapons inspectors the time they needed to complete their task and prove to all concerned that Iraq was, indeed, no threat to anyone," explains Adrienne, "Bush proved that he wanted a violent conflict and had no intention of allowing peaceful negotiations to work."

    "Just imagine how this scenario plays out in our private lives," says Adrienne. "If we had a dispute with a neighbor, for instance, and we took the matter to court and were told to give the neighbors six months to remove whatever offensive material they had on their property, do we have a right to ignore what the court says -- claiming six months is too long to wait -- and go in there and murder them all?"

    "Don't tell me that we have one law for individuals, and another for governments," says Adrienne.

    "Civilization is built upon civility or it isn't, and if it isn't then I need to reassess everything I was brought up to believe."

    "No matter how much I may despise my neighbors because they are brutal people, had a religion that differed from mine and stored material offensive to me on their property," says Adrienne, "I have no desire to invade their property and murder them. I trust in legal negotiations to work the problem out, and if it doesn't pan out to my satisfaction then I would be prepared to move rather than kill them."

    "Does this mindset make me a fool?" asks Adrienne.

    "Apparently so," she answers, "because my government wasn't even prepared to let legal negotiations run their course!"

    "Instead, my government got fed up waiting for the weapons inspectors to do their work and took the law into its own hands."

    "I don't believe Iraq ever had any weapons of mass destruction, and if it did then it certainly wasn't planning on using them on us in a country half a world away with more weapons of mass destruction than the rest of the world put together."

    "All of which means," sighs Adrienne, "that my government invaded Iraq because it didn't like Saddam and his regime and wants to overthrow the regime and set up a puppet government it can manipulate."

    "If my government can do this," reasons Adrienne, "then my neighbor can invade my property because it doesn't like me and my family, and it can murder us, too, for the same reasons."

    "And if my government can do this," adds Adrienne, "then other governments can do this, too. North Korea can march into South Korea, China can invade countries to the south and west and all of the Arab nations can do the same."

    "My government has set a precedent and because so few nations and individuals protested there is going to be no end to war and the sanitized murder that invading nations commit."

    "I was brought up to believe that murder is murder when you know what you are doing, when you're aware of the consequences of your actions," says Adrienne, "and my government planned this war and whatever it says about collateral damage and other sanitized terms it's still murder to me."

    "I can't be the only person perplexed by what my government has done," sighs Adrienne. "I can't be only person feeling ashamed to be part of a nation that is seen by most of the rest of the world as a nation of bullies and evil monsters."

    "And yet I am aware that to think the way I do I am essentially expressing traitorous thoughts," muses Adrienne, "and this perplexes me even more because I love my country."

    "Of course I am as concerned about the death of our troops in this war as I am about the Iraqi civilians that get killed," adds Adrienne, "and of course now that the war has gone on for long I want it to end as quickly as possible in our favor so that we don't end up being called losers as well as murderers, yet I will always regret that we didn't take the peaceful course set down by the United Nations."

    "The weapons inspectors should have been given all the time they needed to find the weapons of mass destruction that Bush claimed Iraq was producing and stockpiling," says Adrienne. "And if such weapons were found then the war needed to be a UN mission, not a unilateral strike by the USA."

    "What is a few months or even a few years when we are talking about human lives -- not just those of innocent civilians but also military personnel?" asks Adrienne.

    "My kids are asking questions and I feel useless at explaining what is happening," sighs Adrienne. "This war goes against everything my husband and I have taught them."

    "I'd like to know what sort of Christianity Mr Bush follows because it sure as hell isn't the same one we use to guide our lives," says Adrienne. "All that old testament stuff -- eye for an eye, stoning to death and other acts of brutality in the name of God -- isn't in our good book."

    Adrienne's story first appeared as war is sanitized murder! and is reprinted with permission.

    Labels: , , , , , , , ,