Author Topic: Statists Gonna State - UN Human Rights Office Hates, Conflates, then Exaggerates  (Read 2550 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sasha

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,781
    • Sasha
Statists Gonna State - UN Human Rights Office Hates, Conflates, then Exaggerates

A member of the United Nations high commission on human rights gave a contrived condemnation of large swaths of humanity three days ago when he compared European and American patriots to a state-sponsored proxy-army of Middle Eastern terrorists.  His misdirected aim was to assert that a specific group of Westerners are using ‘similar tactics’ to ISIS by creating fear in any outsiders excluded by definitions of statehood, whether it’s ISIS’ despotic pseudo-statehood or any other liberal democratic western nations’.  His misdirected aim was an attempt to vilify the entire notion of nationhood as anachronistic, too idealistic, and exclusionary for the world he and his ilk have planned for us all.  His justification: nations have always interacted with other nations and therefor all nations are international by nature, divorced from national sovereignty and thus they should be regulated accordingly.  By this argument, individuals who interact with other individuals, as we have always done, are no longer individuals, and no longer have individual sovereignty, but have become groups that should be regulated accordingly – a central planner’s dream.  UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Raad al-Hussein, a Jordanian (who presumably isn’t ready to condemn his own government’s coordination and training of Islamist jihadists that were exported into Syria to destabilize it and help kick the refugee crisis into full swing) argued that,

"The proposition of recovering a supposedly perfect past is fiction; its merchants are cheats," Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein said Monday. "Clever cheats." 

"All seek in varying degrees to recover a past, halcyon and so pure in form, where sunlit fields are settled by peoples united by ethnicity or religion – living peacefully in isolation, pilots of their fate, free of crime, foreign influence and war. A past that most certainly, in reality, did not exist anywhere, ever. Europe’s past, as we all know, was for centuries anything but that," Zeid said.
(PJ Media)

The High Commissioner’s remarks did not go entirely unnoticed by his peers thankfully,

Before Mr Hussein delivered this impassioned speech, his office in Geneva had sent a tweet to 1.5 million followers asking if “belief in the infallibility of free market economic policies” amounted to an “urgent threat”.

Hillel Neuer, the head of UN Watch, a campaign group, called this a “loony tweet”, adding: “While millions of people are suffering from genocide, sexual slavery and starvation, it is far from clear why the UN would instead focus its attention on unidentifiable ‘urgent threats’, let alone on economic subjects about which it has neither competence nor expertise.”
(Telegraph UK)

The Hegelian vice grip is being tightened.  Those terrorists that UN committees rubber stamped into Libya as NATO's grunting cannon fodder and the other terrorists overlooked by the Saudi run UN Human Rights Commissions as Saudi royals, business magnets and other Gulf State frenemies funneled money, arms and other aid into their jihadie projects; these terrorists; these crucifying, head chopping, medieval zealots are being compared in moral depravity, equated in violent potential, and conflated without fact, example nor anything much more than base and false associations with those members of Europe and American that have opposed nearly every plan and contrivance by these internationalists, these nation-state haters.  We’ve opposed controlled-markets, opposed unelected, unaccountable stuffed-suits holding political office, opposed international trade agreements that by-pass national law, and opposed wars based on lies; the lies given sanction by these same gross international bodies that have circumvented national law, morality, and any definition of ‘humanitarian’ no matter how many times they tack it onto the next war they’ve helped to create.  The basic argument is this: anyone who opposes the dystopian nightmare gains socially ostracizing classifications as punishment and social coercion for normative violations.   The insults don’t have to be rooted in reality beyond vague associations and flimsy implications achieved through much more than mental gymnastics, hence previously normal definitions of behavior can progressively be labeled racist, bigoted, sexist, xenophobic, no matter what version of normal they previously occupied, and the ‘cave-Nazis’ that behave that way can be abused, fined or even worse because they are incompatible with the values of this unelected 'global-progressive' bureaucratic superstructure.  The, ‘useful idiots’, serving the power-grabbers will do most of the lifting though; ‘useful idiots’ disposed against free markets and personal liberty will do both the disposing of and be disposed of, when their use against the enemies of the super-state has expired.
The purpose of calling populism 'weaponized' is equally obvious, for what presumably does one do against something that's been weaponized but either fight it or fear it.  To fight it without reason one sets the state powers of Europe and America on a course of violent oppression, and potentially years of civil wars to oppress an organic, popular political movement against the erosion of all of our sovereignty - an oppression that knows no political boundaries - merely being popular and against their plans for consolidation of power makes one a sufficient threat to the overarching power structures that already exist.  To fear it without cause one is encouraged to the same in prohibitions and punishments by law.
For Example, the Tea Party R3VOLution wasn't a threat until Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential Campaign started gaining traction and monetary power, accumulated after the unexpectedly successful December 16, 2007 money-bomb:  $6 million in a day, which was a fund raising record at the time.  Freedom was popular.  The R3VOLution was built on a three legged platform, each one explicitly opposed to these pseudo-progressive global amassments or power:  1)  End the Fed  2)  End the foreign wars (close the foreign military bases)  3)  End the War on Drugs.

A diatribe about the Federal Reserve's quasi-governmental structure, its bankster founders and board members, and its detrimental effects on monetary policy and price discovery would be appropriate here, but those arguments have been made well enough by so many people that I would be simply retreading their dances.  It might suffice to say in lieu that central banking is like most forms of centralization, a power grab by a powerful minority at the expense of the rest; at the expense of those they pretend they are centralizing for; planning for; all the while they are simply enriching themselves.  One can see quite clearly that central planners don't like the populous in general, much less an informed and politically active one.
To end the foreign wars America is somewhat perpetually engaged in means that the NATO-UN-GCC mob loses its muscle.  If Hillary Clinton, on account of the US government, hadn't run much of the Arab Spring from behind the scenes, there would have been no program to get weapons from Egypt's proxy-revolution to Libya's, nor from Libya's to Syria's.  Some will say that the blowback was already on its way, that no US departure from the Middle East would've helped to stabilize the region and that ‘humanitarian’ intervention was the best fit path, even if Western NGOs and the IMF-WTO cabal were responsible for lighting the fuses of these violent revolutions.  Someone had to do something to ‘help’.  However, a strong anti-thesis argument makes itself:  what stability has constant proxy-war provided?   Yet still, the numbers speak louder than most words ever will:  about four million Muslims and Arabs killed since Gulf War One; about six trillion US dollars wasted since 9/11/01; thousands and thousands of US soldiers lives lost,... for what?  The 'international' community has the answers; the same international community (UN-NATO) that in 2012, at the height of the Libyan War, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said was giving orders to the Pentagon.

Ending the War on Drugs is very closely linked to ending the War on Terror.  Consider the US troops guarding the Afghan poppies that find their way into ISIS hands, Turkish hands and Belgian hands and into US hands thereafter.  Consider that the DEA and other alphabet agencies are 'overseeing' large parts of these programs and that contrary to purpose the opium production seems to keep going up every year - yet where, we posture, are all drugs coming from?  yet what, we posture, can we do to stop them?  Consider the Mexican cartels armed with US weapons delivered by US ops run from the US Department of Justice explicitly to run guns across the southern border to blame gun stores and gun show vendors in the US.  Consider the explicitly racist history of the drug war from its inception in the 30s, through the middle and later 20th century, and the modern versions of it all demonstrably racist in practice and philosophy, all aiding in the creation of an atmosphere of terror in the hardest hit cities of America fueled in large part by drugs run across America’s borders with the blind-eyes and tragic, periodic help of Mexican and US authorities.

This is not an effort to place the grass roots, liberty-loving, pro-Constitution, R3VOLution squarely in the center of opposition to the trend of unaccountable bureaucratic internationalism, nor place its former volunteers and activists as singular examples of dissent.  There were groups before and there will more to follow, hopefully.  Occupy Wall Street was another well-intentioned group opposed to much of the same anti-democratic values being pushed on the public.  Many of the protests against structural racism and police violence started by groups like the original Black Panthers, and more recently with Black Lives Matter, base some of their arguments on similar foundations, yet tragically some of the present leaders of a few groups have thrown in with UN programs that will circumvent local authority rather than hold it directly accountable - this despite the failures of some leaders’ plans to grab the minds of local protesters who had initially rejected these mega-national proposals.  These leaders have unfortunately, like the bureaucrats they're in league with now, by-passed the will of those they claim to want to help.  And this is the distilled essence of the error committed when we resort to central planning.  On the contrary to central planners’ tendencies, each person is their own best advocate, especially when we’re working together. How else can we discover our synergies and best fit compatibilities unless we are enough of ourselves to be consenting rather than coercively assembled.  We are well advised religiously and philosophically by some of the greatest minds of both realms to tend to that which is essentially unique in ourselves:  that which imparts a portion of being into whatsoever group we choose or find ourselves.  When we ignore this and allow ourselves to be treated as socially engineered lump-able groups - as individuals deprived of individual sovereignty for the ‘betterment’ of the lumps, or as nations deprived of national sovereignty for the ‘betterment’ of  the international lumps - then our individual property becomes lump property, markets become congested with lumpy rules that inhibit uniqueness, genius, and the very creative potential of mankind, all the while we’re being promised the moons and stars above but delivered a lump-ocratic nightmare ruled by lumpy fat-cats below.  What good is there in any of this leveling by the order of the lump?  No central planner’s use of man’s laws, no matter how perfectly fitted, can balance-out their abuses of natural law.
Morality is contraband in war.
- Mahatma Gandhi