From the fluttering blue flag of the U.N. with its stylized symbol of the map of the world enclosed by olive tree branches, to the whole collection of global organizations and imagery right down to posters featuring children from every country holding hands, and the rest of the globalist propaganda-- Americans have been imprinted as never before from a very early age with the idea that they are part of a global community, rather than merely one nation. But behind the olive branches and the posters of smiling children, lies a very different truth entirely.
Paradoxically the more the UN's membership expanded, the less democratic it became-- because most of the nations who joined were not democracies with open elections. As a result the expanding UN became a tool of tyrants, beginning with the USSR which successfully turned the UN into an Anti-Western body to serve its own agenda, with only the Security Council retaining some shards of decency.
Behind the fluttering blue flag and smiling multiracial children, are the representatives of a great many dictatorships dining out at expensive New York restaurants on your dime. Turtle Bay is not the home of a kinder and gentler world. It is the home of every two bit thug who wants to spend 3 hours ranting about his pet causes, as everyone from Khrushchev to Castro to Arafat to Chavez to Khadafi have demonstrated for us.
To accept the idea that tyrants and their appointed lackeys represent some sort of global consensus that supersedes the wishes of the free people of democratic nations such as the United States or Canada, is to embrace a global consensus that is undemocratic and even anti-democratic in nature, that rejects individual freedoms in favor of tyranny. And that in a nutshell is exactly what the United Nations is about.
Nor is it the exception to the rule. Centralization and federalization innately leads to less freedom and democracy, because the greater the scope of a system, the less veto power the public has over it. Even the EU, which is composed of individually democratic nations, openly disdained Ireland's No vote, insisting that the process would go forward regardless. That is an inevitable outcome when a political system becomes so large that it can only be run by bureaucrats and diplomats who have six degrees of separation between them and any actual electorate... a dangerous situation that eventually allows them to cut the electorate out of the process altogether.
The conglomeration of bureaucracy and politicians without an electorate, translates into a political elite that becomes indistinguishable from tyranny. That is what the EU is, and that is what the UN aspires to be, a global government that answers to the powerful, not to the people. Presenting the bureaucrats and diplomats as representing something higher and nobler, a larger unity, helps the bitter medicine of tyranny go down easier, but no amount of blue flags, smiling children and talk about unity can entirely obscure the fact that such a transition is one that leaves democracy behind in favor of oligarchy.
What is so appealing about that larger unity anyway? The United States had its chance at a larger unity within a semi-democratic system ruled from London. Instead the Founders chose to fight a war in order to be able to make their own decisions locally by the American people. The UN and virtually every international organization erodes that right, in the name of compromise, brotherhood or just plain international political consolidation.
Politicians who already work within large political systems, find the idea of upscaling those systems immensely appealing. Somehow a system that serves 100 million people is better than one that serves 10 million people, and one that serves a billion people is even better. But in fact larger systems have a way of being less efficient and more wasteful, as well as far less democratic. The larger the political system, the more it's meant to grind the town meeting under it, to reduce the individual to a single vote or a political crank if he insists on political involvement, without traditional forms of political affiliation.
We are told repeatedly that multilateral policymaking is better than the unilateral kind. Which is a fancy way of saying that a committee is smarter than an individual, a notion that simply doesn't hold up. A committee is best at achieving a compromise that serves the interests of the more numerous or the more powerful. It is however least likely to achieve a worthwhile solution, only one that its members can agree on. And if most of those members answer to tyrants rather than to citizens, those agreements will be ones that serve the interests of tyrants.
That is why the UN brays incessantly about human rights, but only as a cudgel with which to beat those few member states who actually do have human rights. You will not see the Saudi treatment of women or the Chinese treatment of political dissidents on the table at the UN. But should an American drone take out a terrorist, or Israeli soldiers stand guard to keep terrorists out, should Western countries refuse Third World refugees or try to hold on to their free speech-- then the UN is naturally on the case.
One day when all men are free, when the citizens of Muslim nations may believe what they choose, when the Chinese and Russian secret police forces have gone the way of the Gestapo, when the people of every nation can vote in free and open elections for the candidates of their choice-- then we may talk of a world community. But for now the rights of the citizens of free countries can only be vested in the autonomy of their own political systems. Any international agreements that compromise the independence of their political systems, also compromise the freedom of their citizens and the accountability of their representatives.