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

going global on climate change

After spending an entire century or more feeding, educating and Christianizing the Third World, it strikes Jinny as very odd that the globalists now want to impose severe restraints on these emerging economies -- could it be that the West is using global warming scaremongering to keep its economic advantage?

"Just think about it," says Jinny. "The West became rich after a filthy dirty industrial revolution and it was hundreds of years later -- in the 1960s -- that pollution became such a problem that measures were finally taken to stem it."

"The Third World cannot possibly catch up with the West without experiencing a similar industrial revolution," says Jinny, "and there is something immoral about imposing on emerging economies the same pollution measures that the West now uses and scaring these people into submission with dire climate change predictions."

"How dare the globalists beat up on China's economic miracle and expect Africa to forgo the use of electricity,"says Jinny. "The more I think about it the more I believe that global warming is nothing more than a political agenda pushed by the same people pushing globalization for the same reason -- economic advantage".

"I know there are a lot of conspiracy theories about global warming and some may be crazy," says Jinny, "but there's a little bit of truth in all of them."

"When one race imposes its will on another, especially when the imposing race once considered itself as having a 'white man's burden' to look after the other," explains Jinny, "I see shades of eugenics and Neo-Nazi race science emerging."

"When think tanks come up with studies showing that if couples had two kids instead of three, they could reduce their carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights pa between, say, London and New York," says Jinny, "you get to understand that the globalists are not just talking about global warming, but population control."

"Actually, believe it or not, the concept of 'global warming' was invented by Britain's Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in support of nuclear power after a fight with both coal suppliers and coal unions," laughs Jinny. "She poured money into the venture and gained the support of most of the scientific establishment."

"I think the only point on which the pro and anti global warming protagonists agree is the fact that a Medieval Warm Period occurred and was definitely warmer than today,"laughs Jinny. "That, to me, is enough evidence that man-made global warming is bunkum, and it's downright criminal that the globalists continue to push their propaganda not just on us, but on the rest of the world, too."

"Sure, man is responsible for adding to naturally occurring CO2, but in total this makes up just a tiny fraction of a percent of the Earth's atmosphere," says Jinny, "and rather than pointing their fingers at the Third World the globalists should be cleaning up their own act. How many of them, for instance, practise what they preach? How would they like to live for a year, let alone a lifetime, without electricity and vehicles and the other polluting necessities of modern life?"

"And, another oddity in this equation is the Live Earth concerts," says Jinny. "Following on from so many concerts aimed at feeding the Third World masses -- allowing more and more so-called superfluous people to live and breed and make ever more carbon footprints -- now the globalists are using music to push the green message onto them!"

"Tell me, why would the masses in the Third World be interested in taking a pledge to cut global warming pollution and return to stone-age living so that Al Gore and his fellow-globalists in the West can continue to live like carbon hogging kings?"

"How dare the globalists blame the emerging Third Word economies for spoiling the planet," says Jinny, "and how dare they make up lies about man-made climate catastrophes and how dare our governments give these people millions of our taxpayer funds to spread such drivel."

"Man-made pollution is a real problem and needs to be addressed, but climate change is a natural event and has nothing to do with us," says Jinny. "If the globalists think that their climate change scaremongering will stop the emerging economies from steaming ahead and overtaking the West, then they need a reality check."

"When you go global, you either uplift others to your level or downgrade yourself to theirs," adds Jinny, "and I'd prefer the former, wouldn't you?"

smoking scientists discredited

It sounded like a good debate to watch -- Gore's Inconvenient Truth v. Durkin's Global Warming Swindle -- but Lottie was gobsmacked when one of the debating panellists attempted to destroy the life work of an eminent scientist by saying, shock horror, that the man was a smoker and had published a paper debunking second hand smoke.

"Imagine the furore if he had said, instead, that the scientist was a Muslim and had published papers, say,debunking the medical benefits of alcohol," says Lottie. "Since when have scientists been forbidden to be smokers, Muslims or anything they want to be -- and publish papers accordingly?"

"I fully expected the panellists to shred to pieces each other's pro and anti global warming theories," says Lottie, "but I didn't expect a debate between so-called science intellectuals to sink into a personal attack and especially so when the man whose personal habits were being attacked wasn't there to defend himself."

"To their credit, or perhaps not, the other panellists ignored this personal attack and kept strictly to the global warming debate," says Lottie, "and it did not surprise me one bit when I checked this guy out later and discovered he was employed by the government, being paid from taxpayer funds."

"His remark came in the context of a personal interview he once had with the eminent scientist -- oops, the filthy, dirty, nicotine stained, cancer riddled, moronic smoker -- and this guy actually counted the number of cigarettes the scientist had smoked in his presence."

"Hopefully, the scientist had politely asked his guest whether he minded if he smoked -- and naturally the guy would have said, okay, because he was, after all, a guest in the private space of a smoker -- and in this convivial environment the scientist relaxed, talked and smoked. Not twenty cigarettes, not ten but three lousy cigarettes."

"OMG, for the poor guy to have actually counted the cigarettes smoked he must have been incredibly uncomfortable and fearful of dropping dead on the spot from second hand smoke," laughs Lottie. "If so, why didn't he object straight off on the smoking issue or suggest that they go outside?"

"No, he sat there, pretending to be friendly and interested in what the scientist had to say but all he wanted was a reason to discredit the man," sighs Lottie. "What a jerk!"

"Had the scientist slugged three whiskeys, or ate three chocolate eclairs or scratched his backside three times would that have discredited him, too?" asks Lottie. "Probably. That guy was hell bent on finding something not quite kosher about the scientist in order to discredit his anti-global warming stance, and a smoking habit and support for the rights of smokers was it."

"The global warming debate was, of course, inconclusive -- neither side was able to convince the other, or the audience -- but I did pick up some facts about scientific research funding that made me understand not only how global warming came to be such a big issue but also how cigarette smoking got such a bad rap."

"Apparently, because the clique of global gnomes who rule the world behind the scenes have two pet hates -- smokers and rising third world polluters, China being a threat on both counts -- the word went out to the puppet western governments to stamp them out."

"Second hand smoke and global warming were quickly invented for this purpose," says Lottie,"and a mass of funding became available to any researcher willing to give credibility to these invented hazards."

"That's why there is now an avalanche of literature in medical and scientific journals about the hazards of smoking -- and very little about any of the terrible diseases that continue to plague us," sighs Lottie. "Our governments deliberately reduced the funding available for the diseases that the researchers wanted to study, and the only way the medicos and scientists could get around this was by linking whatever they wanted to research with smoking."

"Do a search of PubMed and the number of articles linking the most esoteric diseases to smoking is a joke," says Lottie. "I don't blame the researchers -- because it's clear from their articles what their real passion is -- but it is nevertheless an abominable way for our governments to manipulate researchers."

"Similarly, there is now an avalanche of literature in all types of journals about the hazards of global warming," says Lottie, "and if more scientists appear to support Al Gore it is only because they are the ones getting the big funds to do so."

"The politicizing of science -- like the politicizing of other so-called independent bodies -- is an abomination similar to the crazy religious climate in which Galileo worked and suffered," says Lottie. "An avalanche of government funded research does NOT represent conclusive evidence of anything other than politcal interference."

"While I remain undecided about climate change, I nevertheless applaud the maverick scientists who went out on a limb -- some with threats on their lives believe it or not -- in order to present publicly an opposing theory," says Lottie. "I applaud them not because I smoke -- or because some of them, apparently, have also presented an opposing theory to the hazards of second hand smoke -- but because science would not be science without dissent and scepticism."

"If today's 'politically correct' science community is encouraged to discredit the work of a fellow scientist on the basis of a personal smoking habit," says Lottie, "then what is it going to do about the work, for instance, of Albert Einstein, and how is it going to attract brilliant young minds with attitude?"

"Undoubtedly, after the debate the panellists retired to a lounge where, awash with alcohol and whatever other drug was being used, a convivial atmosphere prevailed," sighs Lottie. "I hope they didn't relax too much because who knows who was COUNTING and storing this information for a future discrediting."