The United Nations ‘Omerta’

The United Nations is an organisation which is wholly good. It was set up in June 1945. The war in Europe had ended on 8th May 1945, but Japan had yet to surrender. Thus, the political organisation of the world post WW2 had already been decided even before WW2 was completely finished. 51 countries originally combined to form the general assembly. The ‘Big Five’ (USA, Britain, France, Russia and China) formed the security council.

The UN was given a charter which you can read all about on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Charter

I only got the idea for this post about an hour ago, so I have read very little about it. However, it is obvious from the preamble that its chief purpose was intended to be to ‘keep the peace’.

But what peace was it designed to keep?

What we saw after WW2 was a continuous series of limited wars. One might reasonably call them permitted wars. That is, the combined might of Security Council could easily and quickly put a stop to the Korean War, but it chose not to. Why not? I suppose that the answer is that limited, permitted wars avoided general conflagration. So, when China pushed into Vietnam, a sort of boxing match took place in Vietnam between ‘The West’ and ‘The East’. ‘The East’ was declared the winner of that bout when the Americans threw in the towel. But there had been the stand-off over Cuban missiles, which had been something of a humiliation for Russia, and the subsequent assassination of Kennedy. Also, as far a Britain was concerned, a continuous series of minor (limited but permitted) wars in ‘the colonies’ (the Mau Mau springs to mind). Mind you, one of the UN Charter policies is stated thus:

“Chapters XII and Chapter XIII describe the Trusteeship Council, which oversaw decolonization

Thus, the British Empire was taken apart, bit by bit, by limited permitted wars, given the nod by USA, Russia and China. France’s ‘colonies’, in South East Asia, were already dead meat, and its territories in North Africa were quickly ‘decolonised’ (the Algerian War).

====

When you think that it is quite possible that the USA was quietly cooperating with Russia and China to ‘decolonise’ the World by ‘turning a blind eye’ to limited, localised, permitted wars (and turning a blind eye to military assistance here and there), it is easy to begin to understand the need for “THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE”. 

—-

But there is an extension to this story.

The United Nations Organisation has competitors. These are the multinational companies. They are too powerful and must be broken up or brought under control/regulation/ownership.

What multinational epitomises this situation? No, it is not tobacco, it is oil and gas. Nuclear Power can generate electricity but it cannot make oil. Oil and gas drive every advanced economy in the world. Control (ownership by regulation) of that industry is what is sought by Climate Change Legislation.

Shortly after WW2, the Coal Industry in the UK was nationalised. Regardless of what anyone might say, nationalisation brought great benefits at the time. Benefits of scale meant better machinery and better production, and miners welfare (showers, canteens, doctors, etc) was much enhanced. Needless to say, a certain type of charlatan bored into the ‘benevolent’ monopoly and buggered everything up to its own advantage.

====

====

THE UNITED NATIONS OMERTA

It has taken me some time to come round to the point of this post.

No one in Parliament, or Newspapers, or Magazines, or Online, talks about the United Nations Organisation. No one in Parliament, or Newspapers, or Magazines, or Online, talks about the World Bank. As far as I know, neither Cameron, Merkel, Putin, Hollande, etc have EVER talked about the UN or the World Bank. Is the universal failure to keep an eye on the UN and the World Bank the reason that Ebola decimated REAL lives in tens of thousands here and now?

====

Is there an answer?

I think so, but very tentatively. The answer lies in population control, which is what all the blather about climate control and health is all about. But the ‘thinkers’ dare not come out and say so in so many words.

It surely must be true that the exponential explosion in the human population of the world should be of concern. That statement is reasonable, in that it is possible to envisage a situation where there are so many people that a failure in a harvest, no matter what you might try to do, will result in the deaths by starvation of millions of people. That argument cannot be denied. But I do not say that that point of over-population has been reached or anywhere near it. All I am saying is that the argument is correct.

But there is an associated argument which is not so clear.

It is said that ‘the mother of invention is necessity’. I think that that principle is true. For example, if you belong to a tribe of humans who live in a sort of paradise where the climate is warm and mild, and food is plentiful, and shelter is readily available, then what need is there to invent anything? Such people would spend their leisure time, of which they would have plenty, singing songs and dancing (and ‘having it off’). What need would they have of reading, writing and ‘rithmatic? But, no doubt, there would be a few members of the tribe who drew circles in the sand and muttered, and the rest of the tribe would giggle at their scribblings. But if, for some reason, the food source for that tribe became temporarily unavailable, then it could be that the scribblers had already worked out the principles involved in digging a deep hole in the ground and placing upturned spikes in the bottom…

That thought suggests that invention is driven only by need, which can certainly be the case, but in the modern world, it seems that invention is much more driven by competition.

Strange though it might seem, it is very likely that population reduction will benefit invention! Thus we see the stupidity of politicians like Blair who demanded an increasing population, here and now, by immigration, to produce economic growth! As Maggie would have said, “NO! NO! NO!” Growth in Economic Value comes from “Productivity” and not “Production”.

—-

I must to bed and so this is my last thought.

It seems to me that Tobacco Control, via PP, wish to destroy utterly, world-wide, any competition in the provision of tobacco products.

I hope that Parliament passes the car ban and PP. I really do. Only if it does will The People begin to see that 50 Shades of Grey is their destiny.

 

 

Advertisements

One Response to “The United Nations ‘Omerta’”

  1. artbylisabelle Says:

    Push the envelope, because under draconian laws, the people might actually rise up against all the current forms of tyranny. If I am understanding you. The landslide is too rapidly advanced, to stop. Next.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: