The Time Has Come

“The time has come,” the Walrus said, “to speak of many things… .”1

Whether you are one of those incurable optimists who thought the United Nations offered any hope whatsoever for a better world, or perhaps you’re among the skeptics who believe the United Nations represents the culmination of the one-world governing designs of the Illuminati and the New World Order, the time has come to face the stark reality that the time has come to end the experiment in global governance before we go too far and cannot recover from the disaster that is looming before us.  The time has come for the USA to withdraw from the U.N., and let it dwindle and die wallowing in its own impotence and corruption.

This is not a proposal to “replace it with something better”! This is a call for the USA (and other nations) to immediately:

  • withdraw our membership from the United Nations;
  • withdraw our funding of their cockamamie schemes of pseudoscience and social engineering on an unsuspecting world;
  • withdraw from all treaties formerly signed under U.N. auspices, rendering them null and void;
  • give the U.N. six months to find another country to host them, and to vacate the premises, or face eviction.

It matters not what country you live in and/or love, the United Nations is totally committed to the reduction of your national sovereignty and the increase of international control and authority over that nation. 

To those who say that the United Nations has value, particularly to some of the poorer countries of the world, we are compelled to point out that for every single incident of value you may find (and there are a few), we can probably find ten incidents of abuse and a hundred incidents of corruption. 

The petty dictators of the world are, to a very large extend, kept in power by the money (and the troops) of the United Nations.  (But, since the UN has no money and no troops of its own, that means our money and our children.)  The oppressed peoples of the poorest countries should be the ones to hate the United Nations the most (and those countries which finance it) for the simple reason that they can never gain their freedom, much less see prosperity, until the yoke of bondage of tyrants is thrown off – and the United Nations will never allow that to happen.  The UN is more than accommodating to stack the odds against those who struggle for freedom, propping up petty dictators and corrupt regimes, for these are the very ones who vote as a bloc in the General Assembly to soak the rich nations, and give it to the poor (them). 

“If you love your country, the United Nations is not your friend.”
Daniel New

The United Nations requires poverty, revolutions, war and abuse of power worldwide in order to maintain its reason to exist, and yet, shamefully, it has not only reduced these problems, it has arguably caused more human suffering than it has alleviated.

The abuse of United Nations troops upon local populations is legendary.  The cowardice of United Nations troops when facing fire from a stubborn enemy is infamous.2 Corruption on the part of many UN administrators in the field is a given.  They will not stop the trafficking of humans; they will expedite it.3  They will not stop the spread of infectious diseases; they will prevent common sense treatment.  They will not protect the people from evil tyrants; they will protect the tyrant from the will of the People.  It is in their mutual self-interest to do just that.

And just what is the alternative to the United Nations?  Well, there are a couple.  Nations which prove unable to govern themselves should have the freedom to sink to the level of a Zimbabwe, until the People have had enough, and decide to throw off their tyrants and try again.  Or, in the alternative, they might like to approach the family of nations and take bids on helping them both in governance and in economic development on a sustainable level. 

A partnership of mutual benefit, where the poor nation is no longer subservient, but is in a working relationship with a more developed nation, might like to offer a deal along the lines of 40% of the copper, 33% of the oil, 80% of the molybdenum, 35% of the grain crops, etc., etc., in exchange for technical expertise, and some assistance in governance.  This assistance may also take the form of establishing model courts based upon justice instead of bribery; policing based upon constitutional law instead of tribal rivalry and influence, providing protection for the concept and principles of private property, and so on.  In exchange for longer-term contracts of, say, ten years at a time, as things improve and stability returns, those percentages can be renegotiated, with other nations getting in on the bidding.  No more colonial masters.  Partners in governance and national development – what a concept.  And a return to the peace and harmony that was once known in most colonial countries, but this time with local citizens in on the governance.  A middle class will start growing under this kind of partnership, and that will benefit the nation as poverty begins to fade and is reduced every year through the gradual improvement of conditions – not by giving foreign aid and lining the pockets of the powerful who exploit their people worse than any colonial power ever did.

This could be a free-market solution to an age-old problem.  It could become the best of all worlds, for both parties, and if a contract goes bad or doesn’t fit, it can always be renegotiated.  Countries in partnership could find it most remunerative to have access to natural resources and a cheap labor force.  Uganda and the Congo, for instance, might prefer Belgium as their new trading Partner – rather than their colonial master – but no matter what country they strike a deal with, in ten years other countries are going to offer better deals.  In fact, they may like to separate the deals and let the Russians and the Yanks bid on the mining of the chromium, the Germans and French bid on the iron ore, etc.  Let the free market return, but this time with both parties working together.

Third World countries wouldn’t know what to do with molybdenum if they had a few tons of it, but they wouldn’t turn down payment in the form of school buildings and water wells and provincial medical centers with some foreign management teams for a decade or so.  This approach is workable because it involves the willing consent between adults, rather than the old-fashioned rape and pillage of conquering nations. 

Let us speak “of cabbages and kings”, and how local governments can find a road to prosperity and justice.

In order to make this approach work, the United Nations needs to be placed into the dustbin of history.

End Notes:

1 From the poem, “Jabberwocky”, by Lewis Carroll.

2 Remember the “Blackhawk Down” incident of Somalia?

3 Cain, Kenneth.  Emergency Sex (and Other Desperate Measures), Ebury Press, 2006.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *