Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Well, the rent-seekers, money-hungry NGOs, grifters, post-normal “scientists”, con-men, Eurotrash, Ameritrash, and the usual camp followers are gearing up again for another monumental waste of money. This time, it’s for the upcoming extravagarbonza, the new Rio+20 Climate Carnival.
Figure 1. The logo of the Rio+20 Climate Carnival, featuring someone being drowned in waves of green nonsense.
The meeting features the usual dangerous bafflegab, which conceals wholesale theft under layers of rhetoric like this:
Integrate the three pillars of sustainable development and promote the implementation of Agenda 21 and related outcomes, consistent with the principles of universality, democracy, transparency, cost-effectiveness and accountability, keeping in mind the Rio Principles, in particular common but differentiated responsibilities. SOURCE
As is typical with this kind of mealy-mouthed official doublespeak, we need a translation to see who is getting fleeced, and how.
First, what are the “three pillars of sustainable development”? Turns out, no one knows. One source gives us this:
Figure 2. The “three pillars of sustainable development” … or not.
That all seems good, or at least as though it might possibly be vaguely meaningful … but another source gives us this:
Figure 3. The “three pillars of sustainable development” … or not.
In other words, it’s just feel-good bullpuckey, dressed up to look like something real. “Viable”? “Bearable”? Nonsense. This is post-normal “science” at its most pathetic. At the end of the day, nothing is sustainable, that’s just green-washing.
Next, they say that they want to “promote the implementation of Agenda 21″. Now, “Agenda 21” was what started all of this nonsense. It was adopted at the original Rio Conference in 1992, and is as dangerous now as it was then.
The danger is highlighted by the recent meeting of the UN Chief, Secretary-General Ban-ki Moon, with his UN aides brainstorming about Rio+20. They talk about “moving toward a fairer, greener, and more sustainable globalization”, a very frightening thought. They talk about strengthening the UN “to manage the process of globalization better,” another scary idea. I don’t want globalization of any kind, and if I did, I damn sure don’t want the UN involved in any way.
To return to Agenda 21, let me take up just one tiny portion of the Agenda. (In passing, I doubt that they could have invented a more Orwellian name for this plan to take over the world’s economy than “Agenda 21” … but I digress.) Here is Section 9.8.(d) of Agenda 21:
Cooperate in research to develop methodologies and identify threshold levels of atmospheric pollutants, as well as atmospheric levels of greenhouse gas concentrations, that would cause dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system and the environment as a whole, and the associated rates of change that would not allow ecosystems to adapt naturally;
There are several things of note about this part of Agenda 21. First, in 1992 we didn’t know (and still don’t know now) if GHGs can cause “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with the climate system or not. For that matter, we don’t know what “dangerous anthropogenic interference” is when it’s at home. But despite that, the goal was not to find out what the actual effect of GHGs might be.
Rather than figuring out if there was a danger, Agenda 21 instructed people to establish an imaginary level of “dangerous interference”.
The same is true about “rates of change”. We have no evidence that changes in climate can keep ecosystems from “adapt[ing] naturally”. Despite that, we are instructed to determine the levels that do just that, with no hint about what that might be or how to measure it.
Finally, you can see how early this was—GHGs were not listed as a “pollutant”. This is in stark distinction to the EPA’s ruling that CO2 is a pollutant … go figure.
Anyhow, that’s just a little bit of the garbage in Agenda 21. It has already caused huge problems, including the formation of the IPCC and the assumption of GHGs as the main (if not only) driver of global climate change when there is no clear evidence (even today) if that is actually the case—that’s what the debate is about.
To leave Agenda 21 and return to the first bit of translation, they say they want to rip people off “consistent with the principles of universality, democracy, transparency, cost-effectiveness and accountability”. What this means depends on the tide, the phase of the moon, and the desires of the person invoking it. Basically, it means whatever they want it to mean, unless it happens to favor development, business, or human beings, in which case it means the opposite.
Next, they pledge allegiance to the “Rio Principles“. The “Rio Principles” were an unprincipled declaration of how they planned to achieve their global redistribution of wealth. Among the un-principles are the “Precautionary Principle“, along with the usual feel-good clauses and paragraphs about how they planned to spend the money.
Finally, in a wonderful understatement, they back the idea of “common but differentiated responsibilities.” This is UN-speak at its finest. The “differentiated responsibilities” part means “the poorest in the rich countries have the responsibility of providing the money to pay to the richest in the poor countries, whose responsibility is to spend it on Mercedes sedans for Government Ministers.” Seriously. That’s what “common but differentiated responsibilities” means, except the part about the Mercedes, I added that because it’s the inevitable outcome.
So yes, no surprise, they have learned absolutely nothing in the last 20 years. How could they, when 20 years ago they claimed they already understood it all? They are doubling down on their stupidity, planning to restructure the global economy and have the industrialized world pay the whole tab. I mean, somebody has to line the pockets of the NGOs and the third-world despots, and who better than … you?
I’m not sure how we can fight this, but fight it we must. I see they are planning to use “social media” to try to whip up the faithful, so we can expect lots of that, fluff on Facebook and the like. In any case, Rio+20 is the usual, and still very dangerous, conflux of the useful idiots, greedy activists, pimps, prostitutes, and pseudo-scientists who have caused so much damage in the past.
Head them off at the pass, harass their flanks, destroy their supply-wagons, cut them off from their water supply, I don’t know what … but this madness has to stop. You cannot redistribute your way to wealth, and as Margaret Thatcher is rumored to have remarked, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
A word to the wise … it’s your money that they are planning to run out of, in the process of propping up some of the planet’s most despotic regimes in the name of “combatting climate change” …
Regards to all, keep fighting the good fight,
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
All is revealed. The RIO+20 terminology is easily explained. The author is cited below (and not Lewis Carroll):
“…when I use a word it means exactly what I intend it to mean nothing more or nothing less”. –Humpty Dumpty to Alice, Lewis Carroll in “Through the Looking Glass”
We’re winning the war against the alarmists, but we’re going to lose the war. Even here in Alberta the government keeps talking about green house gases, I read about companies reducing energy to help reduce greenhouse gases. It’s everywhere! The MSM is in the pocket of the alarmists and as long as they don’t/can’t see the error of their ways we’ll never stop Obamas wet dream or the UN (Useless Nitwits) from achieving their goal. Let’s face it we’re the silent majority, no one listens to us but ourselves. I haven’t read a single story about Gleick or Fakegate or Climategate 2 etc. Unless the general population can get this information the warmists keep picking off more and more non-believers.
To me when I first heard about AGW and CO2 I immediately thought that it was impossible for CO2 to have any impact on the earths climate/temperature, many simply believe in AGW. If you say anything in public you’re almost accused of being a witch. If Obama wins the 2012 Presidency we’re doomed unless the GOP can win the congress AND senate!
Well said, Willis, and like most here I’m with you on this. If I ever see a ‘pillar of sustainable development’, I shall reach for the ‘shaped charge of democracy’ and take it out as quickly and cleanly as I can. I’ve mentioned centralising authoritarianism in earlier comments here, and the UN is the prime source of that poison.
“I’m not sure how we can fight this, but fight it we must.” – Spot on. As to how, we might start by as many as possible of us declaring, as loudly, as often and as publicly as possible, that if it isn’t democratically accountable to me, it has no authority over me – most people of good heart will get behind that, and quite right too. We also need to use the social – and other – media as widely as they do, otherwise Joe Public will be led to think that Agenda 21 is some sort of established plan which will inevitably happen because everybody accepts it. No. It is greenshirt fascism, and it must be treated the same as any other fascism.
There may not be too long, though. Check out the links on this page and tell me nothing’s happening. Something is definitely beginning to come into contact with the fan.
Eurotrash is the correct term. When you remember who had the idea for the European Project you can see how it got to where it is now. Two French communists whose names escape me but Wikipedia would know.
Indeed, this is a great example of our own state sponsored jackbooted thuggery acting as agents for a foreign power. It is the only thing that has woken up some of my lefty musician type friends from their endless slumber. Specifically, from your link:
WTF! Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA)! Raiding an American institution like Gibson over fretboard wood. Give me a [self-sniping] break! That alone should wake up the rest of the American people from their daily stupor. And some people think that words like Eco-Nazi are beyond the pale. Just wait until they march into Galleria malls all over America searching for Ivory jewelry.
Smokey, you got my vote with just one condition. Let the buildings at U.N. Plaza be razed, the ground salted and the rubble bulldozed into the East River. Let’s not take any chances that it comes back again. ‘Nuke it from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure‘.
Excellent point, this is exactly what he meant. Nothing but foreign entanglements can ever be expected from having a United Nations headquarters in NYC, complete with thousands of scofflaws with diplomatic immunity flaunting local laws. I’m not sure if anything has even changed from the Revolutionary War when it hosted enemy troops and thousands of loyalists.
To Willis, great article. The the UN and ‘Agenda 21’ (plus all their other fiascos) is a target rich environment indeed, and you would think it would be enough to unite our so-called right and left factions along with those of us that prefer to be classified as ‘Constitutionalists’. So far as I can tell, one of those idealogical factions continues to to willfully side with the enemy however. Let’s hope things change soon.
This link will help: (In it appears Lord Monckton):
http://youtu.be/ih1UPeEK9Ig
Science advisor maybe?
This is exactly right. The world is being knit every more closely together by the jet plane and satellite communication. Multi-national corporations operate as super-national entities. It is most likely inevitable that some kind of ‘global governance’ [gad! I hate to use that Algoric phrase!] will emerge over the next century or two.
The real challenge, as John West sagely notes, is to prevent the Agenda-21-style statists (Marxists in “sustainable” clothing) from commandeering the process of global unification, and instead to ensure that the Enlightenment values of the American Revolution, based on the dignity and freedom of the individual, win out over the multitudinous forms of tyranny that the statists, Marxists, watermelons, and such ilk are busily devising.
We will need an ‘Agenda AR’ and an army of Thomas Paines to raise the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag whenever the statist snake rears one of its many heads. The world trembles on the cusp of a great decision, for an over-arching world tyranny, or a world that celebrates the rights of the individual to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” By the 24th Century, will we have Star Trek’s noble Federation of Planets, expanding into new frontiers, or a stinking Gulag ruled by the high priests of a Marxist Sustainability Council? The struggle for one or the other will be long. But it begins here.
/Mr Lynn
Well, I’m for economic globalization and legal sovereignty.
Everybody gets richer and nobody steps on their toes.
What you call “Star Trek’s noble Federation of Planets” is Marxist, as is the very idea of a global state and government from which no one can choose to exempt themselves.
That “Federation” also, in its fictional representation, is ruled by the “high priests” of a council that has arrogated plenary power for itself. Try opposing its universal belief system that it attempts to enshrine, and you will find out how antithetical its existence is to freedom.
That fictional “Federation” was invented by our enemies, and was packaged in pretty packaging in the 1960’s so as to brainwash massive numbers of people to believe that it is good and necessary. One and a half generations later, the authors of this nightmare and their successors are still reaping massive political profits from the endeavor.
I, too, used to believe as you do. But thankfully, I woke up from the brainwashing. Usually, it requires someone close to you who is already awake to shake you up a little. It is a very, very powerful message. More powerful than AGW, and easily ten times as dangerous.
RTF
Well, maybe you know more about the fictional ‘Federation of Planets’ than I do. My source is only how I remember it from ST: The Next Generation. My impression was that it was a federation based on the American model, not a one based on a Soviet collective tyranny, hence my adjective ‘noble’. If the writers of that series intended something different, I am not aware of it.
But that is of no import. What is essential is that, rather than burying our heads in the sand as the world grows more unified, we make sure that in any future global (or planetary) union the individual remains supreme, that the American Revolution Agenda wins and is not trampled by tyranny and collectivism. We can’t just hunker down in our back yards and hope that the growing tentacles of bureaucratic oppression will ignore us forever.
/Mr Lynn
The American model was not intended to work on a unified global government. It doesn’t even, at its present scale, work as intended. It’s out of control and would be virtually unrecognizable to the founders. I believe that the American system simply cannot work as intended, at the scale at which it is being tried today. My personal opinion.
Here is the white paper from I.C.L.E.I last year,these guys are talking trillions of dollars to save the world from itself.Its not making me feel warm and fuzzy or safe at all. http://www.iclei.org/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/Global/Publications/Report-Financing_Resilient_City-Final.pdf
The Alarmists live in a virtual world very much similar to the one depicted in the ScFi fantasy film Matrix. We could be having summertime blizzards in Texas and they wouldn’t budge one bit.
Gene Roddenberry was a very brilliant man who was given a very hard task and did extremely well at it. That task was this: sell the American people on Leninism by portraying it up-close and personal in its theoretical utopian form, while still convincing the vast majority that what was being portrayed was the very essence of American rugged individualism and exceptionalism.
To do this, Roddenberry had to have an intimate understanding of both the ideal (and thus impossible) conception of Leninist Marxism, and also an intimate understanding of the American psyche and the Lockian philosophy that gave rise to it. In other words, he had to be able to relate to both of these paradigms at a very intimate, personal level, as well as at the overarching “big picture” level. And then he had to produce a product where the two were so seamlessly welded together that even the most observant and educated had trouble telling where one left off and the other began.
The two series with which he was involved, the original and Next Generation, were without question, some of the most ingenious sociopolitical projects of the 20th century, if not the most. But to really understand them, one has to approach them as polemic works. If one approaches them as objective works of social science, one is doomed to failure. It was exactly this mistake — approaching secular-humanist art and philosophy as objective works of social science rather than the religiously charged polemics that they are — that caused Marx, and then Lenin, and then Mao, to be so tragically far from the truth about how countries are properly organized.
Make no mistake: Roddenberry may have been delusional in his belief that global Marxism-Leninism was the best structure for society, and that secular humanism was the best religious and philosophical system to be offered to the people. But he was under no delusion about the enormous warts and drawbacks that came with these options. His efforts to paper over those by showing only very limited cross-sections and close-up shots of the society he was portraying are clear upon careful observation, and they are quite deliberate. They are no accident. They are not the result of a confused or ill-informed mind — rather, a very deceptive one.
The politics and sociology of the Star Trek Federation was based in large part on the Foundation series (just like Star Wars was); but while Asimov was more fair in his observation of flaws (how could he not be, being a Soviet refugee), Roddenberry was more openly cynical and propagandist in his approach. Asimov is hard for me to figure out; at times, he comes across to me as a type of globalist, while at times you get the sense he is using sarcasm to attack globalism. But to me, there is no strong trend that motivates me to clearly label him as pro- or anti-globalist. My best guess is that perhaps he believed that he needed to pay some undeserved respect to globalism in order to be widely published.
Roddenberry is much more straightforward in his views. But because his views were so controversial (at the time, at least), he had to go to great lengths to camouflage those views under multiple layers of prevarication and dissembly. The smart viewer will see his work as a view of his ideal for the world, but filmed through a kaleidoscopic lens that is being slowly turned as the scenes are shot. Thus, in order to really decode what you are seeing, you have to understand in what ways the lens is distorting the reality it is filming. Roddenberry, of course, wants his friends and supporters to see the reality, but his opponents not to see.
RTF
Follow the Rio+20 conference here http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/index.html
and the déclaration (draft 0 : http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/futurewewant.html)
On CC
Climate change (at this, it’s short but the text will dramatically inflate …
88. We reaffirm that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and express our deep concern that developing countries are particularly vulnerable to and are experiencing increased negative impacts from climate change, which is severely undermining food security and efforts to eradicate poverty, and also threatens the territorial integrity, viability and the very existence of small island developing states. We welcome the outcome of COP17 at Durban and look forward to the urgent implementation of all the agreements reached.
89. We encourage international initiatives and partnerships to address the interrelationship among water, energy, food and climate change in order to achieve synergies as well as to minimize conflicts among policy objectives, being particularly sensitive to impacts on vulnerable populations.
Willis, you’ll have work on commenting the final declaration ! : )
This smacks of serious over-analysis to me. Do you have documentation for this claim the Gene Roddenberry (and co-writers) were closet, or surreptitious, Marxist-Leninists?
Me, I’ve never “approached” Star Trek as either “polemics” or as “objective works of social science,” or as anything, really. I just appreciated them, as engaging works of entertainment. A long-time fan of science fiction, Star Trek (and later, the original Star Wars movie) were the only video works of the genre that really appealed to me, Star Trek especially because of its convincing characterizations and optimistic vision of “the final frontier”—and because nothing beats a good story.
I never had any doubt that liberal democratic values permeated the shows, some with obvious social messages (about the evils of racism, etc.) but to me Kirk’s and later Picard’s real values were those of ship’s commanders, qualities that might even be antithetical to today’s Left. To claim that these series were somehow intended to “sell the American people on Leninism by portraying it up-close and personal in its theoretical utopian form” seems absurdly far-fetched, even silly.
But as I said before, Star Trek doesn’t matter. What interests me more is your claim (February 27, 2012 at 10:02 am) that the principles which informed the American Experiment are not suited to the governance of large-scale entities. There is much more to be said, pro and con, about this essential issue, but this is not the forum for that discussion.
/Mr Lynn
I have put up a post at my blog for continued discussion of the matters you raise. I will comment there shortly.
RTF
As a non-American is it hard for me to get wound up defending the tall, tough and proud lone cowboy on the prairie as the pinnacle of human development. Many comments above are (political) models all the way down. Theories about other theories.
Willis, I am not entirely with you on this one for the reason that the world without the UN was a much bloodier place for patently obvious reasons: wars between major powers. It was formed to prevent them and has achieve that, but arguably not much else on the political front. On the health front it has been a blazing success. I have lived in bottom tier countries and without the WHO, it would have been far worse. We are as a global society, permanently elimination contagious diseases one by one. That is amazing!
It is common (including above) for people to think that they might live in some perfect world where international cooperation is not needed and anything that looks like ‘globalisation’ (a stupid word) means Marxist totalitarian management. Most of today’s contributors would be surprised if they would stop looking at their (political) models and start ‘by looking at the data’. The movementment towards ending millenia of war and bloody argument domination by force and coercion began long ago with the Law of The Sea. It was an agreement by nations (now basically all) that there are rules for what happens at sea (international territory).
These days we have many internation cooperative agreements for the allocation of radio frequencies, how the internet will communicate, protocols for aircraft flight and identification, and so on – hundreds of them. They are what makes modern efficient life including this blog possible.
These agreements and Laws show that it is quite possible to cooperate with each other globally without invoking some bogeyman each time we solve a long term problem. It strikes be as childish to see the admirable work of peacemakers and organisers demonised so much. As they say about climate, it is not that simple. Skeptics: don’t be so credulous about conspiracy theories. Be more….well, skeptical about trolls said to live under the bridges of international cooperation.
We need international cooperation on disease control, on responses to floods and droughts, on preventing national governments attacking their own populations using the national military. We can’t just say, ‘Too bad you chose to be born in an oppressive, insane country. Sure glad we live in America.” That is immoral. And morality does matter. Hand-washing followed by hand-wringing is not moral behaviour on a shrinking planet.
The planet is not a living, sentient being even it is might appear momentarily to be so from time to time. Even as an allegory it is weak. The USA as a paragon of political virtue also falls short. Island America (if it ever existed) is no more and it is not coming back. That is a shock to the system for lonesome cowboys who still want to play Home on the Range on a rosewood fretboard.
If you are gonna cut the Madagascan forests, you are gonna have to learn that the natives are not willing to trade their island for $24 worth of beads.
RockyRoad says:
February 26, 2012 at 5:04 pm
I find it telling that of the 83 responses so far (this should be the 84th), I don’t see a single comment by William Connolley, R. Gates, A physicist, Exp, or others from the AGW Control Freaks crowd. (And Agenda 21 is exactly why I’ve added the “Control Freaks” moniker to their “AGW” TLA.)
Now why is that? Why are such notables missing from the discussion? Are they like vampires that are repelled by the silver cross of an open discussion about the UN’s IPCC and Agenda 21?
———————————————————————————————————————–
Good call Rocky, Why indeed? Contrast their silence with the vocal defense of the Heartland Inst and WUWT sceptics when false accusations are made. Of course, these blackbeards are condemmed by their own words and actions, whereas the sceptics have far more honest blogs and institutions, the more so evident by the fact that false documents must be forged to inpune nefarious motives on the sceptics.
Johnnythelowery says:
February 26, 2012 at 9:13 am
Your assertions concerning the lack of fossile fuels, and the exorbitant expense of coal to liquid and shale oil are without evidence, and have been refuted on this blog many times.
Mr Lynn says:
February 27, 2012 at 6:09 am
=======================================
Thanks Mr Lynn
I concur with your remarks and have thought a little along these lines. Remember, the man that started the Arab Spring in Egypt just wanted the freedom to have a little merchant cart. As the world grows ever smaller, its bilions of people do indeed become more interdependent, and this in my view makes the understanding of what the US experiment of a constitutional government with limited powers and protected rights of the individual ever more important.
Crispin in Waterloo says:
February 27, 2012 at 9:30 pm
Find anywhere up there that I said that all that the UN does is useless or wrong, and you might have a point. But I said nothing of the sort.
My grandmother was one of the very first people who worked for the UN, in 1944-45. Both my mother and my father worked for the UN. So I have few illusions about the organization. Like many organizations, it started out to be about something, and ended up being about its own survival.
I am not as sanguine as you are regarding the success you claim for the UN in preventing wars. Here’s a list of the wars that the UN failed to prevent, a list that only goes from WWII up to 1989:
1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine
1948 Arab–Israeli War
1978 South Lebanon conflict
1982 Ethiopian–Somali Border War
1982 Lebanon War
1987 Sino-Indian skirmish
Agacher Strip War
Algerian War
Angolan Civil War
Angolan War of Independence
Bangladesh Liberation War
Basque conflict
Battle of Karameh
Bizerte crisis
Black September in Jordan
Cambodian Civil War
Cambodian–Vietnamese War
Chadian–Libyan conflict
Chola incident
Civil war in Afghanistan (1989–1992)
Civil war in Chad (1965–1979)
Civil war in Chad (1979-1982)
Colombian armed conflict (1964–present)
Communist Insurgency War
Congo Crisis
Costa Rican Civil War
Cuban Revolution
Dhofar Rebellion
Dirty War
Dominican Civil War
Eritrean War of Independence
Ethiopian Civil War
Falklands War
First Eritrean Civil War
First Indochina War
First Intifada
First Kurdish–Iraqi War
First Liberian Civil War
First Sudanese Civil War
Football War
Greek Civil War
Guatemalan Civil War
Guinea-Bissau War of Independence
Hungarian Revolution of 1956
Ifni War
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
Indo-Pakistani War of 1965
Indo-Pakistani War of 1971
Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation
Indonesian invasion of East Timor
Indonesian National Revolution
Insurgency in Aceh
Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir
Insurgency in Laos
Insurgency in Northeast India
Insurgency in the Philippines
Internal conflict in Burma
Internal conflict in Peru
Invasion of Goa
Invasion of Grenada (1983)
Iran–Iraq War
Korean DMZ Conflict (1966-1969)
Korean War
Kuomintang Islamic Insurgency in China (1950–1958)
Kurdish Rebellion of 1983
Kurdish–Turkish conflict
Laotian Civil War
Lebanese Civil War
Libyan–Egyptian War
Lord’s Resistance Army insurgency
Malayan Emergency
Mau Mau Uprising
Mauritania–Senegal Border War
Mozambican Civil War
Nagorno-Karabakh War
Name of Conflict
Name of Conflict
Name of Conflict
Name of Conflict
Namibian War of Independence
Naxalite-Maoist insurgency
Ndogboyosoi War
Nigerian Civil War
North Vietnamese invasion of Laos
North Yemen Civil War
Ogaden War
Operation Entebbe
Operation Polo
Papua conflict
Paquisha War
Paraguayan Civil War
Pre-Korean War insurgency[3]
Retribution operations
Rhodesian Bush War
Romanian Revolution of 1989
Salvadoran Civil War
Samu Incident
Sand War
Second Eritrean Civil War
Second Kurdish–Iraqi War
Second Sudanese Civil War
Shaba I
Shaba II
Shifta War
Siachen conflict
Sino-Indian War
Sino-Soviet border conflict
Sino-Vietnamese conflicts 1979-1990
Sino-Vietnamese War
Six-Day War
South African Border War
South Lebanon conflict (1982–2000)
Soviet war in Afghanistan
Spring of Youth
Sri Lankan Civil War
Suez Crisis
Thai–Laotian Border War
The Troubles
Tuareg Rebellion (1962–1964)
Tunisian War of Independence
Turkish invasion of Cyprus
Uganda–Tanzania War
Ugandan Bush War
United States invasion of Panama
United States occupation of the Dominican Republic (1965-1966)
Vietnam War
War of Attrition
War over Water
Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia
Western Sahara War
Yom Kippur War
Zanzibar Revolution
That’s a hundred and thirty three, and there’s a quarter century uncounted … and how many wars can you point to that were defused by the UN? You can call that a huge success for the UN if you want … some of us might have a different view.
But my point is not that the UN is uniformly bad. It isn’t. If nothing else, the world needs a place for the despots to rant and the diplomats to talk. But to pretend that a “democracy” comprised of oligarcies, monarchies, kleptocracies and tyrannies will be functional in the real world is … well, optimistic. We end up with Libya chairing the UN Human Rights Commission …
Sure, there are a few good parts, like the WHO and the FAO. On the other hand, some of the corners of the UN (like Agenda 21) are nothing but a flat ripoff by a bunch of bottom-feeding unelected bureaucrats.
w.
Crispin in Waterloo says:
February 27, 2012 at 9:30 pm
Thanks, Crispin. I was tracking with you just fine on disease control and floods and the like, until you said that Americans need to be the world police. You seem to think it is America’s responsibility to free the oppressed all around the planet. I couldn’t disagree more.
The problem is, you can’t set a slave free. They will just go back to their slavery. It’s happened dozens of times in history. You can only set a free man free … but free men set themselves free. We just tried your theory out in Iraq and Afghanistan … how long will they stay free when we have left? We tried it in Vietnam … how long did that last?
Your claim, that the US is responsible for the poor and downtrodden around the planet, puts me in mind of the old story about the Texan and the Mexican. The Mexican says “I’m really angry at America, you stole our land. All of Texas used to be part of Mexico.”
“Hold on,” says the Texan, “that was almost two centuries ago, and besides, you still have plenty of land.”
“Yes,” the Mexican says, “but you stole the best part. You took the land with all the paved roads and the electric wiring.”
The US cannot be police, and hand-holder, and paved-road builder, and electricity supplier to the world. If people want to get out of poverty and oppression, we can assist them a bit, but free men set themselves free … and they pave their own roads …
Oh, piss off, it’s obvious from your writing that you have no idea what a cowboy even is, much less what might be a shock to us. It might be a shock to you that some of us cowboys have a very subtle and nuanced view of the world, and we see your claim that the US should be the world policeman as a sick joke.
Heck, you live in the UK, how about you gather up your mates and YOU go free the oppressed of the world? I mean, you can’t just say ‘Too bad you chose to be born in an oppressive, insane country. Sure glad we live in the UK.’, Crispin says that’s immoral. I’d suggest you start out by freeing the oppressed folks in Iran … be sure to come back and tell us how that went.
Call me crazy, call me a cowboy, but I plan to continue to say “I’ll help where I can, but you’ve got to free yourselves.”
While you’re at it, since you’re so into the UN system, how about you take over paying a fifth of the UN budget, since that’s what the US currently pays?
Say what? You want the US to pay 22% of the UN budget, but not the UK?
Funny, that, how many people like you want to eat steak, but you want someone else to pick up the tab …
w.
Crispin, you spoke above about freeing the oppressed. The US has just done that WRT the “Arab Spring” uprising in Egypt. What has been the outcome?
Like I said, you can’t free slaves, and they may bite you if you try.
So you can advocate for the US or the UK or the UN to be the policeman to the world if you wish, but this cowboy thinks you’ve got your head up your … cow if you think that will buy you anything but trouble. As Mark Twain remarked,
w.
Regarding Star Trek and the Federation, what is worth remembering is that relativity rules. When the enemy was front and center, be it Klingon or Romulan, the Federation is viewed as our wonderful, home sweet home. When these enemies were not in plain sight the Federation took on a whole new appearance, often as the antagonists to the beloved Enterprise Captains, whether they were forcing Kirk to continually break prime directives or even sanctioning the impressment of Cmdr. Data. I don’t think that Roddenberry or his many writers can be pigeon-holed into portraying the Federation in a single fashion, if anything, they painted an all-too-accurate picture of ruling class bureaucracy, which in real life we tend to overlook in times of war and strife but we then re-focus on it in other times. One could argue that the fact that the series heroes, both Captains (particularly Kirk) were often breaking ‘FedGov’ rules is in itself a statement that the far-away government is not capable of managing day-to-day operations (hmmm, sound familiar?). Naturally you can count me in as being on the Captains’ side and adamantly anti-FedGov.
What I think is a better question is which of the two Captains is a better role model for our young people? … a hyper-confident, larger than life, womanizing, hard drinking, man’s man, or … a politically correct, Earl Grey tea sipping, flute playing, sissie girl.
Let me think.
Well, Kirk would have had Dr. Crusher in the beginning of season one.
😉