Monday, December 06, 2004
Big Brother International, Heroes, and Travesties
Holiday Slacking
As the holidays approach -- dare I say, “The Christmas Holiday” -- postings here will become less frequent (perhaps weekly?). I enjoy the opportunity to comment on current issues and to note other articles and sites that raise important questions, and sometimes answers.
Blogging is somewhat of a project, often being rather time intensive. I’ve noticed many books I’ve purchased have recently gone unread as I gathered information on-line and typed my own observations on current events and timeless controversies. Blogging is fun but not always a fair trade-off for other creative pursuits or chores.
So for awhile; some less in-depth appraisals in the Promethean spirit.
************************
Big Brother International
The United Nations is like any political agency. Like any bureaucracy -- and unlike a capitalist enterprise – a political agency doesn't have to give the customer what they want, often quite the opposite, they force you to take what you don’t want (especially if you don’t want the groundwork laid to world government).
To express concern regarding the UN’s ultimate motives used to be the stuff of far right wing “paranoid types” like the John Birch Society. When such fringe group attention was directed toward the UN there was probably little real cause for such concern. Now the UN is a little more influential and certainly has a wide following of support, or at least tolerance, around the world. Phrases like “international law” and “illegal wars” can now be uttered to the point that many really believe there are such things. Of course, they’re all just self-fulfilling (generated) semantic prophecies. They’ve been spoken and echoed enough by the international media that they’re slowly becoming valid verbal catalysts to the new order some would like to create – and impose.
There are those who have seen conspiracy in all of this, but a conspiracy is hardly required to implement an ideology and political program. Like the situation with much of the international media, there are simply a lot of like-minded people (essentially socialist in view) who think that an emerging international “big brother” would be a good thing.
The initial purpose of the UN was certainly noble, practical, and maybe even, “needed.” After two world wars, nations certainly benefited from a forum to discuss disputes and avoid open conflict. The UN as a mere forum for discourse was to be a short lived idea, however. Like all political institutions, the UN has continually sought greater power and authority. Should we really be surprised that this has happened?
Like its baby sister, the EU, the UN is clearly socialist in its sympathies. On its better days merely sounding like any Euro-socialist or left wing Democrat in America. At its worst, it openly sides (always feigning neutrality) with dictators and tyrants. Accordingly, it is distinctly anti-free market and hostile to the values of individualism.
Ironically, after a banner year of exposed corruption, the UN is now promoting, “…the most comprehensive …reform since it’s founding in 1945.”
The UN panel that has come up with this new “blueprint” for the 21st century was hardly circumspect in its thinly veiled attacks on the U.S. By now it should be obvious to any observer that that the UN would like to see America stripped of its success, wealth, and influence. The domestic left in the U.S. – always in traitor mode – will of course be more than happy to assist.
The natural order of political institutions is to aggrandize power. The American government itself does this with considerable detriment to freedom within its own borders.
At this point in the UN’s growth process, the U.S. should do everything in its power to resist and thwart the UN’s socialist power grab. Of course, we would certainly be given all hell for doing so. The international brigade of the idealistic, masochistic, and clueless would be out in force no doubt, but the alternative would come too close to the plot of a distopian sci-fi film.
I can’t press this point enough. I’ve said it before in a thousand different ways: The left likes government authority. The left trusts government authority. The left wants government authority…and they don’t want you or me standing in their way. They want the local school board to have more power. They want Washington to have more power, and they want the UN to have more power. The more centralized and all encompassing, the better (for their twisted vision).
Socialism savors the authority of the state and hardly cares which state as long as all citizens are eventually subjugated to the authority of bureaucrats and “planners.”
There’s no conspiracy. They’re doing it all right before our eyes. They’ve got the backing of the usual crowd of intellectuals, media talking heads, and common citizens who want someone else’s money – and soul.
The UN is double-plus-unfree…*
*A reference to Orwell’s, 1984, (as I’m sure you know)
***********************
Real Heroes
An excellent comparison from The Razor, between Vaclev Havel and Nelson Mandela:
“In contrast to Vaclev Havel, there is Nelson Mandela. Mandela spent 27 years in South African prisons - entering as a firebrand extolling violence, leaving as a healer preaching peace. Since managing the peaceful transition to majority rule in South Africa, Mr. Mandela has made statements that can be best characterized as "bizarre". On January 2, 2002 he said: "The labeling of Osama bin Laden as the terrorist responsible for those acts before he had been tried and convicted could also be seen as undermining some of the basic tenets of the rule of law." This less than a week after Bin Laden had claimed responsibility for the 9-11 attacks in a tape aired by Al-Jazeera. Mandela has never publicly criticized those behind the attacks, nor voiced his support in the worldwide efforts to bring the men behind them to justice.”
***********************
What exactly is it with the French government?
Stuff like this gets me fuming:
“…The conference itself was almost scuttled due to the French demand that the terrorists fighting in Iraq also be allowed to send representatives, as if the international community shouldn't choose sides between the terrorists who until a week ago were running slaughterhouses in mosques and apartment buildings and the soldiers sent in to destroy them. So it is now the Iraqis themselves who are standing up to the so-called international community in demanding to be allowed to become a democracy while fighting terrorism.”
It has become all too clear that the French government – and a good portion of their general population – not only oppose U.S. actions but oppose the very concept of freedom. Not really a surprise. Remember, this is the land of Robespierre, Derrida, Foucault, and Sartre.
***********************
This says it all…
As the holidays approach -- dare I say, “The Christmas Holiday” -- postings here will become less frequent (perhaps weekly?). I enjoy the opportunity to comment on current issues and to note other articles and sites that raise important questions, and sometimes answers.
Blogging is somewhat of a project, often being rather time intensive. I’ve noticed many books I’ve purchased have recently gone unread as I gathered information on-line and typed my own observations on current events and timeless controversies. Blogging is fun but not always a fair trade-off for other creative pursuits or chores.
So for awhile; some less in-depth appraisals in the Promethean spirit.
Big Brother International
The United Nations is like any political agency. Like any bureaucracy -- and unlike a capitalist enterprise – a political agency doesn't have to give the customer what they want, often quite the opposite, they force you to take what you don’t want (especially if you don’t want the groundwork laid to world government).
To express concern regarding the UN’s ultimate motives used to be the stuff of far right wing “paranoid types” like the John Birch Society. When such fringe group attention was directed toward the UN there was probably little real cause for such concern. Now the UN is a little more influential and certainly has a wide following of support, or at least tolerance, around the world. Phrases like “international law” and “illegal wars” can now be uttered to the point that many really believe there are such things. Of course, they’re all just self-fulfilling (generated) semantic prophecies. They’ve been spoken and echoed enough by the international media that they’re slowly becoming valid verbal catalysts to the new order some would like to create – and impose.
There are those who have seen conspiracy in all of this, but a conspiracy is hardly required to implement an ideology and political program. Like the situation with much of the international media, there are simply a lot of like-minded people (essentially socialist in view) who think that an emerging international “big brother” would be a good thing.
The initial purpose of the UN was certainly noble, practical, and maybe even, “needed.” After two world wars, nations certainly benefited from a forum to discuss disputes and avoid open conflict. The UN as a mere forum for discourse was to be a short lived idea, however. Like all political institutions, the UN has continually sought greater power and authority. Should we really be surprised that this has happened?
Like its baby sister, the EU, the UN is clearly socialist in its sympathies. On its better days merely sounding like any Euro-socialist or left wing Democrat in America. At its worst, it openly sides (always feigning neutrality) with dictators and tyrants. Accordingly, it is distinctly anti-free market and hostile to the values of individualism.
Ironically, after a banner year of exposed corruption, the UN is now promoting, “…the most comprehensive …reform since it’s founding in 1945.”
The UN panel that has come up with this new “blueprint” for the 21st century was hardly circumspect in its thinly veiled attacks on the U.S. By now it should be obvious to any observer that that the UN would like to see America stripped of its success, wealth, and influence. The domestic left in the U.S. – always in traitor mode – will of course be more than happy to assist.
The natural order of political institutions is to aggrandize power. The American government itself does this with considerable detriment to freedom within its own borders.
At this point in the UN’s growth process, the U.S. should do everything in its power to resist and thwart the UN’s socialist power grab. Of course, we would certainly be given all hell for doing so. The international brigade of the idealistic, masochistic, and clueless would be out in force no doubt, but the alternative would come too close to the plot of a distopian sci-fi film.
I can’t press this point enough. I’ve said it before in a thousand different ways: The left likes government authority. The left trusts government authority. The left wants government authority…and they don’t want you or me standing in their way. They want the local school board to have more power. They want Washington to have more power, and they want the UN to have more power. The more centralized and all encompassing, the better (for their twisted vision).
Socialism savors the authority of the state and hardly cares which state as long as all citizens are eventually subjugated to the authority of bureaucrats and “planners.”
There’s no conspiracy. They’re doing it all right before our eyes. They’ve got the backing of the usual crowd of intellectuals, media talking heads, and common citizens who want someone else’s money – and soul.
The UN is double-plus-unfree…*
*A reference to Orwell’s, 1984, (as I’m sure you know)
Real Heroes
An excellent comparison from The Razor, between Vaclev Havel and Nelson Mandela:
“In contrast to Vaclev Havel, there is Nelson Mandela. Mandela spent 27 years in South African prisons - entering as a firebrand extolling violence, leaving as a healer preaching peace. Since managing the peaceful transition to majority rule in South Africa, Mr. Mandela has made statements that can be best characterized as "bizarre". On January 2, 2002 he said: "The labeling of Osama bin Laden as the terrorist responsible for those acts before he had been tried and convicted could also be seen as undermining some of the basic tenets of the rule of law." This less than a week after Bin Laden had claimed responsibility for the 9-11 attacks in a tape aired by Al-Jazeera. Mandela has never publicly criticized those behind the attacks, nor voiced his support in the worldwide efforts to bring the men behind them to justice.”
What exactly is it with the French government?
Stuff like this gets me fuming:
“…The conference itself was almost scuttled due to the French demand that the terrorists fighting in Iraq also be allowed to send representatives, as if the international community shouldn't choose sides between the terrorists who until a week ago were running slaughterhouses in mosques and apartment buildings and the soldiers sent in to destroy them. So it is now the Iraqis themselves who are standing up to the so-called international community in demanding to be allowed to become a democracy while fighting terrorism.”
It has become all too clear that the French government – and a good portion of their general population – not only oppose U.S. actions but oppose the very concept of freedom. Not really a surprise. Remember, this is the land of Robespierre, Derrida, Foucault, and Sartre.
This says it all…
