Tuesday, October 20, 2009

The Myth of the World Community

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.

The entire notion that there is a world community is itself mostly a myth. The United Nations does represent most of the nations of the world, except for the really unpopular ones. But it does not represent the peoples of the world, only the heads of their regimes. And since most of the UN consists of nations that are not democracies and that do not have truly free and open elections-- the UN's much ballyhooed global community is nothing more than the well paid lackeys of tyrants, dictators, sheiks and assorted Third World leaders, along with their First World enablers.

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.

The United Nations is not a world community, it is a community of tyrants. There is no world community, because most of the people of the world are not free to have any say in their own lives. To talk about the UN as if it has any moral standing, is as ridiculous as getting the guards and inmates of a prison to vote together on what conditions inside the prison should be like. The UN is not a force for peace, it is a force for maintaining the political status quo for its louder voices, and for grinding under those free countries they consider their enemies.

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.


NormanF said...

I have advocated Israel leave the UN. Its absurd for the Jewish State to have its national interest subordinated to countries that hate it and seek to destroy it. It would far better for Israel to take the initiative in creating a League Of Democracies. This naturally puts the undemocratic nations out in the cold. But its a direction vitally needed for a more sane and peaceful world - which the UN can never bring about.

urbanadder22 said...

The U.S. should not only leave the UN, but remove this agglomeration of Islamic and other garbage countries from its territory. The Saudi Arabian desert might be a place that would be less attractive to the freeloading garabage "diplomats" that live the high life on US-furnished funds in New York.

Israel, treated like a despised Jew by the Islamic and other garbage countries, could follow suit, but, as Norman F holds, preferably should lead the way.

Fat chance that the US will abandon and expel the UN under the present regime in Washington.

NoahDavidSimon said...

I agree that Israel (and America) should leave the U.N. and start a league of Democracy, but I also would like to argue that true freedom and Democracy can not be ruled through Internationalism.

there is a place for something like the U.N., but it's place is not to condemn nations they don't like. the U.N. should be a place where Multi National treaties can be made, but these treaties need to be unanimous. example might be a treaty to ban a harmful chemical, but if the treaty is breached then the treaty should be voided for all. the idea is to have mutual interest that countries can share that puts no burden on any party because all committed benefit.

Lemon said...

There should be no leagues of any kind.
Their very nature makes them wrong since they violate G-d's command that Israel should remain separte from the nations and live alone.

Nimrod tried to gather the world in a "league". It was evil then, it is evil now.

Sultan Knish said...

The best time to have turned its back on the UN was after 9/11 when it became painfully clear that it did not serve American security to remain inside it

Anonymous said...

Like others here, I have long said that Israel and the USA should lead the way - leave the UN, expell it from NY and instead establish an alliance of human-rights respecting, freedom-loving nations.

The ultimate goal is for this alliance to be guided by Israel, but Israel has a long way to go before it is able to fulfil this role based on its God given mission.

Meanwhile let the UN move to Saudi Arabia or somewhere else that represents the dictatorship majority.

Post a Comment