What is the United Nations Organisation FOR?

I read today somewhere that the UN has produced a new document describing the urgent need for action on Climate Control. I have found the link:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/un-climate-change-global-warming-paris-agreement-warning-heat-rising-melting-a8028961.html

It is the Independent newspaper which has shouted about it.

I think that the UN report is directly aimed at President Trump and anti-Trump conspirators. It intends to exploit the bitterness of the defeated Democrats. Anything which is anti-Trump can be exploited.

But what is obvious is that the UN is acting entirely politically. It is entirely a political organisation. The WHO and IPCC organisations are entirely political. Any semblance of ‘science’ is not especially significant. It is POLITICS which is important.

So what of the ‘science’?

It is time that the word ‘science’ was given a precise meaning. Epidemiology is not ‘science’. The discovery of penicillin, as an antidote to bacteria, was a great breakthrough. That was science. Counting the number of cases of pneumonia in different places was not ‘science’. I am not saying that Epidemiology was not useful; I am saying that it was not science. Observation of naturally occurring events is just that – observation. The observation of the movements of the planets around the sun led to the science of astronomy.

There is no obvious reason for the UN to continue to exist in its present form. It no longer makes sense. It is an ‘out of control’ vehicle for tyrants of one sort or another to propagate dissatisfaction throughout the world.

It cannot be reformed since there is no superior governor to force reform. The only possibility is dissolution. Trump is courageous, but I doubt that he has the courage to defund, and thereby destroy, the UN. But he should have the courage. As I have said before, move the headquarters of the UN to Somalia or Afghanistan or Mongolia or Greenland as see how may ‘experts’ are prepared to live and work in such places. No, the UN exists in the nicest of cities with all the pleasures of such places. ASH Australia collapsed instantly when its State funding was withdrawn.

We would see the same thing in the UK is ASH State funding was terminated. It would immediately cease to exist. So much for enthusiastic support.

There are serious problems with our democracy, not only in the UK.

I think that it comes down to HUMILITY. The higher the status that a person attains, the more humble that he should become. Humility is the only antidote to power.

The lack of humility in organisations such as the UN, WHO, IPCC, etc is directly responsible for the exaggerations of Climate Control, Tobacco Control and Fat Control.

What is the chance of Theresa May defunding the UN? Lower than negligible, I suspect. The same might not be true of Trump.

I tried to establish a ‘Constituency Group’. I got about 120 aspirants. I still think that the idea has legs. The idea was to have at least one person from every constituency in the UK, or at least in England. The idea would be that each person would bombard their MP with letters or emails saying much the same thing, such as that PP would be lies unless the pictures were proven cases of tobacco harm.

The problem was that I would be placing myself as the arbiter of what was good and what was bad. I do not have the stomach to be the arbiter. And yet that is the only way. We do not need a miracle. We need a voice.

 

Advertisements

8 Responses to “What is the United Nations Organisation FOR?”

  1. elenamitchell Says:

    The United Nations is no longer relevant, if it ever was. I mean, what United Nations? They are all out for themselves, and ever have been. Or did I mean Has Been?

    • junican Says:

      As with many things, the main problem is with terminology. What does the word ‘United’ mean?

  2. Vinny Gracchus Says:

    You are right about the need for political action to counter the totalitarian assault of tobacco control and its lifestyle control allies. Without a voice the persecution will not only continue but it will deepen.

    • junican Says:

      Prisons full of smokers because the acquired tobacco which was prohibited? Yes, that makes sense.

  3. J Brown Says:

    Have your readers google ‘Agenda 21’. Or, if they can, sit through the video called ‘Why Big Oil Conquered the World’. The UN is part of the globalist plan, reached decades ago, to reduce world population, redistribute natural resources, redistribute wealth, etc. As we are seeing from the political backlash to Trump (done by globalist organized and funded organizations), and to a lesser extent in Brexit, this is all a plan to create chaos among the world, have the ‘peasants’ fighting one another, while they quietly take away our civil liberties, etc. Trump removed the US from UNESCO…another interesting organization. Not only is ‘climate change’ fueled by this globalist platform, but there also is evidence that the weather manipulation that we are seeing (note the assembly line of manufactured hurricanes that suddenly arose during the first ‘hurricane season’ of Trump’s presidency) is also part of the globalist backlash.

    • junican Says:

      I agree about the ‘other-worldness’ of Agenda 21, but it makes some sense. There MUST be a limit to the population which the World can support. The question is whether de-population is desirable.
      It is hard for us to understand these days how powerful people in the 18th century could believe that conquest of other nations was legitimate. But that is how it was. We forget that a life of scavenging was not preferable to a life of certain shelter and food in return for work. AKA ‘slavery’. The lifestyle of ‘slaves’ in Rome was not unpleasant. I think that the British conquerors actually believed that they were bringing enlightenment to the savages of Africa etc.

      Were they wrong?

  4. garyk30 Says:

    The UN can not be made to move. It owns the HQ buildings and the land they occupy.

    • junican Says:

      Erm… WHAT owns anything? The UN does not have the right OWN anything. The idea that the UN OWNS its headquarters is comical. Only PEOPLE can own things. The situation you describe is a useful legal concept, but is unreal.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: