The UK has no business being part of the vile United Nations

In the Telegraph, Christopher Booker’s column leads with a story about the Met Office (h/t EU Referendum) – which quietly revised its prediction of global temperatures for the next five years and uploaded the much changed graph on Christmas Eve, a great day to bury inconvenient news – and why its forecasts are undermined by dogmatic climate change assumptions.

It’s an excellent reminder of the Met Office’s dereliction of duty in pursuit of an agenda, just as the country is being hit by another of those temperature drops and downfalls of snow that were supposed to be replaced by ‘warmer winters’, following the soaking summer which was supposed to have been replaced with ‘hotter, drier’ conditions.  But it is the second part of Booker’s column that focuses on a story of far greater importance – UN complicity in the mistreatment and killing of refugees in Iraq’s Camp Ashraf.

Click to enlarge

Camp Ashraf is yet another United Nations scandal where backroom agendas, intrigues and double dealing has resulted in a number of lives being lost violently with many other people’s lives put in peril.

But what else would one expect when the UN treats people with such unmitigated contempt, for example when Gadaffi’s Libya was appointed Chair of the UN Human Rights Committee?  The same UN which in November last year went on to elect genocidal Sudan to the Economic and Social Council, a top U.N. body that regulates human rights groups, oversees U.N. committees on women’s rights, and crafts resolutions from Internet freedom to female genital mutilation. And it really surpassed itself when Mauritania, the world’s worst offender for slavery, was elected to the position of Vice President of the UN Human Rights Council – on Human Rights Day of all days.  This while Syria remained on the UNESCO human rights committee!

Lets not forget the UN’s sex for food scandal and UN officials being complicit as police and troops working on behalf of the UN in Bosnia were exposed as being involved in sex trafficking of young women – behaviour that was brought to the big screen with the film The Whistleblower.  It even extolled the virtues of China’s human rights record and its supposed respect for oppressed Uyghurs, Tibetans and other minority groups.

To describe this small handful of examples as Orwellian would be ludicrous understatement.  Yet despite all of these scandals in recent years and many, many others besides, the UN continues to be paid for by us, the hard pressed taxpayers around the world, our money taken from us by the political class to fund this insanity.

The UN, a global organisation made up of unaccountable bureaucrats and representatives from countries including brutal and oppressive regimes over which we have no control, wields a huge amount of power around the world through its commissions and agencies.  It is responsible for the pushing the sustainability cover story for the plan to increase its control over world governance via the insipid Agenda 21, while directly influencing what economic actions the EU follows through its Economic Commission for Europe, UNECE.

So, not for the first time, this blog asks the question, what is the point of continuing to bang our heads against a wall and fund an organisation that serves the interests of the international community so poorly? Going further this blog believes the time has long since passed for the UK to withdraw its membership.  The UN is not a force for good.  All too often it is the vehicle that facilitates the worst crimes human can commit.

Leaving the UN won’t happen all the while the political class directs operations in its own interest, but it should happen.  This country has no place cooperating with the most brutal, vicious and corrupt regimes on this planet, much less legitimising their vile behaviour with our money co-membership on UN bodies.

Energy Bill published… and in our supposed democracy, the media and the people sleep on

The big news this week? Many of you may think it is the floods across the country. Others will believe it is the Leveson Report. Others may feel it is the Common Purpose inspired Rotherham foster child scandal.

Of course, it’s all subjective. But for this blog the biggest news this week – and indeed for many months – is that which will have the widest reaching and most harmful effect on the vast majority of people up and down the UK. Only, assuming our glorious press is capable of understanding the story in the first place, you won’t have read much about it in the papers or seen it on the news because the press is too busy doing exactly what the political parties do… navel gazing and considering its self interest. That is why they are in such convival company among the establishment.

The story? Why, it’s the Energy Bill of course. It’s huge (that applies as much to the draft legislation as to what drops on your doormat) it’s sexy, it’s loaded with scandal and dodgy dealing, it has the capacity to run for months on end and it’s underpinned by faustian pacts. But barely anyone is giving the Energy Bill, the ream of additional information about it, the coverage it deserves.

It will only get the coverage it deserves, and the politicians will only come under necessary scrutiny and pressure, when people see the cost of heating their homes and having the lights on continues to spiral, and rota disconnections via smart meters remotely cut the power to our homes despite lofty pledges to keep the lights on.

The politicians will follow the usual response format. First they will blame wholesale energy prices for the increasing cost of consumer energy. Then they will prattle on about people needing to shop around for the best deal, where the major energy providers (British Gas, E.ON, nPower, Scottish and Southern, EDF and Scottish Power) provide tariffs ranging from high (which people opt for as the cheapest available option) to ludicrous (knowing hardly anyone will opt for them it makes the high tariff look comparatively good value). Soon that bolt hole for the Westminster morons will disappear when the range of tariffs becomes limited by law thanks to a typically brainless Cameron piece of policy making on the hoof. The effect of this will be the lowest available prices actually increased and the cartel able to lock in their existing customer base as there will be no benefit to changing provider with barely a cigarette paper between the prices each of the big six set.

But it is the politicians who are to blame.

It is the politicians who are, with puppy-like timidity, executing the policies and direction handed down to them by unelected, unaccountable and largely unknown bureaucrats and activists operating with impunity within the structures of the United Nations to make the supposedly voluntary and non-binding Agenda 21 (sustainable development) a reality.

Rather than map out in detail here how the vicious Agenda 21 objectives (which this UN document explains without any mention of the word voluntary) are designed to force people to reduce energy consumption I humbly recommend this post by Richard at EU Referendum, who has been painting the bigger picture and connecting the dots on this massive story for a long time and continued with that effort yesterday.

The Agenda 21 objectives drive up prices by reducing supply. That is why industrialised nations are decommissioning effective and reliable energy generating capacity and replacing it with ineffective, unreliable and intermittent sources that are only economically viable if people pay grossly inflated charges – and behind the scenes billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is forked over in direct funding to the land barons and subsidy farmers who get rich in return for a product that isn’t fit for purpose.

The same objectives are responsible for driving an insane approach to water supply, where the focus is on restricting our use instead of building more reservoirs to negate the need for supply interruptions and hose pipe bans. All of it done out of the sight and beyond the reach of voters, but we all feel the effects. And with a typical inversion of the reality, using techniques embraced by totalitarians the world over, Agenda 21’s corruption of ‘sustainability’ is portrayed in images and logos as a something wonderful.

The media would rather focus on the cult of celebrity and their own narrow interests. If it were not for a few determined people fighting to be heard on the internet we would know nothing about this. That’s why the majority of the people in this country continue to sleep on in ignorance – indeed in places like Croydon North, Rotherham and Middlesbrough, they even continue to vote for the slime representing the very political parties who are carrying out this spiteful agenda.

The tactics of the globalist warmists are legion

In the comments to my previous post about the article on melting Arctic sea ice causing colder winters, by Richard ‘Black is White’ of the BBC, is this response from fellow blogger, Dephius, who writes:

AM, if you haven’t noticed it, I sense a paradigm shift in the trend of the BBC’s output. Its not so long ago that a report like this would have rammed the AGW message home loud and clear with several references to it.

Instead we have just one paragraph related to how man made CO2 might skew the natural pattern of global climate cycles.

When natural cycles and the effects of the Sun on global climate are given more emphasis than warmist dogma, I just wonder if we’re seeing the tide finally turning.

I’ve seen more emphasis given to Chinese (no friends of the AGW cult) climate research now too, which is interesting.

And then on another post prior to that, where I invited readers to forget the climate science feeding frenzy and focus instead on the real issue of the globalisation of government, which is using climate change as a justification for its development, commenter Karl Hallowell, contributes these thoughts:

I have to disagree. Not that there are ideologies that move to overthrow the current democratic order, but rather the claim that the strategy for dealing with them are flawed. Coming up with a policy attack -based vehicle for ideological purposes is not a trivial task. It’s not like guessing passwords or trying different keys in a lock. Each attempt takes a great deal of effort, communication, and coordination. And exposes the participants to risk of humiliation, disfranchisement, and even criminal charges, if they go too far.

Dealing with the attacks rather than the ideology has three strengths. First, it builds up a body of policy for when a valid weakness is found. Ultimately, having an established, democratic plan for dealing with valid environmental or societal problems will do more to cut off these attacks than fighting the ideology directly. Democracy by itself has done much to weaken the power of these ideologies, precisely because it provides conduits for debate and action that ideologues can’t bypass.

Second, they lose something every time they fail. The more they cry “wolf” the more they discredit themselves in future assaults. They don’t have infinite resources at their disposal.

Finally, it means that the strategy remains effective, even if the ideology mutates or is replaced. It works as well against would-be theocrats (of any flavor), Marxists, or any new ideologies that haven’t yet had a chance to rear their nasty, little heads.

Both are very good comments and worthy contributions to the debate.  As I was about to write a post replying to these points I spotted a great blog post on Biased BBC by the ever excellent Robin Horbury.  It addresses both points at once.

Firstly is demonstrates the shift in approach by the BBC, explaining the point raised by Delphius.  As, for example, the comments section on Richard Black’s activist page are increasingly pock-marked with spaces where comments have been removed and comments that are allowed to remain that nevertheless pull Black’s warmist position and bias to pieces, the angle of the warmist attack has changed.

It seems the BBC is slowly giving up pushing such an alarmist narrative because it is increasingly rejected and derided by readers those who stop to think about the reality of the situation and provide counter evidence.  Why waste time trying to convert people who refuse to accept the party line?  Far better to seek the adoration of and nodding agreement of those who believe the alarmist argument on climate and stand to benefit financially from the UN mandated wealth redistribution programme under the guise of fighting climate change.

On to Karl Hallowell’s comment, the Biased BBC post shows that going toe-to-toe over the scientific arguments being used by the globalist warmists only serves to drive them down another avenue, while maintaining their direction of travel.  The opportunity to engage and challenge the science is being removed from the sceptics while the globalist agenda is furthered in a different way.

Ultimately our money and resources are still going where the UN wants it to, and we will still pick up the tab for the alarmists’ policies as we are forced to pay for wind turbines that don’t work and CO2 emission measures that make no difference to the environment.  Surely that demonstrates that focusing on holding the line in one theatre of battle is futile as the enemy troops elsewhere isolate you from the rest of the war.

Their tactics are legion.  Until we stop tackling the climate science symptom exclusively and go after the political root cause of this agenda, we will be swamped and lose the war.

Forget climate change, we must focus on the real issue

Over at Bishop Hill there is a post titled A Study in Groupthink that looks at an exchange of Twitter comments between Maurizio Morabito (@Omnologos) and Bora Zivkovic (@BoraZ), the blogs editor at Scientific American.

The author of the Bishop Hill blog, Andrew Montford, explains in his post that Zivkovic is clearly very much out of the same mould as Peter Gleick, which I take to mean an unswerving true believer, a rigid in his views who sees anyone dissenting from what he chooses to believe in and argue for as ultimately evil or corrupted by vested interests.  Montford’s take is that Zivkovic perhaps views his cause as beleaguered by wicked big business, and opines that reading Zivkovic’s tweets it’s a fascinating study in groupthink.

Strictly speaking, when looking at the cabal of proponents of man-made global warming theory (AGW) and the band of sceptics lined up against them, you can see they are all in fact caught up in a groupthink.  Because both sides act as if the issue at hand is about whether mankind really is causing the planet to warm significantly and therefore endangering the earth.  Which is why I left the following comment on the blog:

Ultimately it is all meaningless. While people like Zivkovic, Gleick, Mann, Trenberth, Briffa, Jones etc try to make this into a scientific argument, because they are funded to churn out hypotheses about the climate and the ecosystem, it is nothing of the sort. It is all about politics.

Sceptics, and scientists who dissent from the ‘consensus’, could falsify, debunk and disprove every element of the AGW narrative and see off every member of the ‘team’ and make a laughing stock of the ’cause’, but we will still come under assault.  For this is all about politics and ideology, even if the prominent actors don’t realise it.

Ultimately if it is not climate change it will be some other vehicle connected to ‘sustainability’ that will be used as a means of controlling the population and redistributing wealth from the industrialised world to the developing world in a way that enriches the corporates.

From the United Nations down, every tier of governance has been tasked with executing the ‘progressive’ agenda, which in reality is regressive for all of us.  It’s not some crackpot conspiracy, it’s just the way those with power and wealth are steering the ship.

This direction of travel will not be defeated by butting heads with a small band of AGW blowhards who are lavishly funded to continue producing ‘findings’ and ‘projections’ that fit in with the actions needed to further the overarching agenda.  Until people start to tackle the root cause of the disease instead of the symptoms, we will continue to go round in circles playing ‘he said, she said’ while our democracy, liberty, wealth and individual rights ebb away.

Expose the distortions, errors, scientific flaws all you like, but don’t lose sight of what is really going on and why.

Politics has changed.  We no longer have a left-right paradigm, even if many who are politically active but unaware of what is going on around them still define themselves in such terms.  Today we have an authoritarian mix of progressive and fascist corporatism (rule by and in the interest of government and corporations) on one side, and mix of classical liberalism and libertarianism (limited government and individual liberty) on the other.

We can see the evidence of the corporatist approach.  It makes me laugh when the global warming fanatics try to undermine opposition to them by arguing the sceptics are in the pay of ‘big oil’.  One of the worst propagandists for spinning this line is Bob Ward, mouthpiece for the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics.  Australian Journalist Jo Nova reported that Exxon-Mobil had paid $23 million to sceptical groups over a ten-year period.  Big corporate Exxon-Mobil are therefore considered evil personified by warmists like Ward.

Ward’s employer is named after its benefactor – the uber wealthy fund manager, Jeremy Grantham.  In 2011 Grantham held 11,309,048 shares of Exxon stock.  Why would Grantham fork out to fund an institute researching climate change when he is making a fortune from the very company cited by his minions as evil big oil?  Perhaps because as a corporate animal his only interest is making money, and his hypocritical fence straddling is a means to that end.

Let’s compare Exxon’s oft cited $23m funding of sceptics to money poured into environmental interests.  How about another big corporate, BP?  They were investing $8 billion in biofuels, wind power and solar while building long term options in carbon capture and storage and clean technology. Five billion dollars of that had already been invested by 2011.  That money is funnelled into delivering exactly what the environmentalists want and also supports lobbying and activism.  But they are still considered ‘big oil’.

There are plenty more examples of these kind of inconvenient facts, where the supposed enemy is a friend and supposed ally is an opponent.  The bottom line is these companies will support whatever helps their bottom line.  They are super powerful and influential corporates, and with the subsidies on offer utterly committed to keeping the climate change gravy train on the tracks.  And we, the taxpaying consumers, foot the bill to increase the wealth of these corporations.

To believe the corporates have anything other than a vested interest in the centralisation of power and control that coordinates global action, to erode democracy and liberty which thus enables the transfer of wealth, is to reside in a realm of delusion.  No matter what the ‘science’ reveals and how much it is debunked, there will always be another line of attack from the sustainability playbook to further the political – and dare I say economic corporatist – agenda.  This is where the battle needs to be fought, not in the theatre of carbon dioxide emissions, raw and adjusted data or fractions of a degree of temperature change.

Today Libya, tomorrow Saudi Arabia?

The UN Security Council has voted 10-0 with five abstentions to impose a no fly zone over Libya.

So the obvious question is, if and/or when Bahrain, Yemen or Saudi Arabia’s people decide to oppose their rulers in direct fashion as we have seen in Libya, will we see the United States, UK and France marching into the UN Security Council to demand the imposition of no fly zones over those countries?

Or are such actions only reserved for regimes with whom there are old scores to be settled?

Will we see this newly found principled approach trump the vested and strategic interests of the US and other western nations?  Will we see a surprising appetite for intervention to ‘level the playing field’ in potential civil conflicts between autocrats and the people they dominate?

The words ‘Yeah, right!” spring to mind.

Countries praised Libya’s human rights spin in UN report

Only the United Nations…

From UN Watch we learn that despite having just voted to suspend Libya from its ranks, the UN Human Rights Council (according to the agenda of its current session) is planning to ‘consider and adopt the final outcome of the review of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’.  This concerns a lengthy report which hails Libya’s human rights record which is still due to be presented on March 18.

The report features comments from various countries and include the assessments and observations below about human rights in Libya – the same country that is currently machine gunning and hanging democracy protesters who are trying to end the Gaddafi regime.

Iran noted that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had implemented a number of international human rights instruments and had cooperated with relevant treaty bodies. It noted with appreciation the establishment of the National Human Rights Committee as an independent national human rights institution, and the provision of an enabling environment for non-governmental organizations.

Algeria noted the efforts of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to promote human rights, which reflected the country’s commitment to complying with Human Rights Council resolutions and cooperating with the international community. Algeria welcomed the national institutional framework that had been set up, in particular the National Human Rights Committee. It noted that the country had made some progress in the area of education, as well as social and economic progress since the lifting of economic sanctions.

Qatar praised the legal framework for the protection of human rights and freedoms, including, inter alia, its criminal code and criminal procedure law, which provided legal guarantees for the implementation of those rights. Qatar expressed appreciation for the improvements made in the areas of education and health care, the rights of women, children and the elderly, and the situation of people with special needs.

Sudan noted the country’s positive experience in achieving a high school enrolment rate and improvements in the education of women.

The Syrian Arab Republic praised the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its serious commitment to and interaction with the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms. It commended the country for its democratic regime based on promoting the people’s authority through the holding of public conferences, which enhanced development and respect for human rights, while respecting cultural and religions traditions.

North Korea praised the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its achievements in the protection of human rights, especially in the field of economic and social rights, including income augmentation, social care, a free education system, increased delivery of health-care services, care for people with disabilities, and efforts to empower women. It noted the functioning of the constitutional and legislative framework and national entities.

Bahrain noted that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had adopted various policies aimed at improving human rights, in particular the right to education and the rights of persons with disabilities. Bahrain commended the free education system and praised programmes such as electronic examinations and teacher training. It commended the country for its efforts regarding persons with disabilities, particularly all the services and rehabilitation programmes provided.

Palestine commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for the consultations held with civil society in the preparation of the national report, which demonstrated its commitment to the improved enjoyment of human rights. Palestine praised the country for the Great Green Document on Human Rights. It noted the establishment of the national independent institution entrusted with promoting and protecting human rights, which had many of the competencies set out in the Paris Principles. It also noted the interaction of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya with human rights mechanisms.

Iraq commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for being a party to most international and regional human rights instruments, which took precedence over its national legislation. It welcomed the efforts to present a comprehensive overview of the human rights situation in the country based on the unity among democracy, development and human rights. It also commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its cooperation with the international community.

Saudi Arabia commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s achievements in its constitutional, legislative and institutional frameworks, which showed the importance that the country attached to human rights, and for the fact that international treaties took precedence over its national legislation. It noted that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had become party to many human rights conventions and had equipped itself with a number of institutions, national, governmental and non-governmental, tasked with promoting and protecting human rights.

Tunisia welcomed [Libya’s] national report, as well as the efforts of the National Committee, such as the website created to gather contributions. Tunisia noted progress made by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, such as the adoption of the Great Green Charter, which was very comprehensive and enshrined fundamental freedoms and rights as enshrined in international human rights instruments.

Venezuela acknowledged the efforts of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to promote economic, social and cultural rights, especially those of children. It highlighted progress achieved in ensuring free and compulsory education.

Jordan welcomed the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s achievements in the promotion and protection of human rights, including the establishment of institutions, particularly in the judiciary system. Jordan praised progress in the fields of health, education and labour, as well as the increased attention to the rights of women. Jordan noted the participation of women in public life, including decision-making, and emphasized the fact that women held one third of all judicial posts.

Cuba commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for the progress made in the achievement of one of the Millennium Development Goals, namely, universal primary education. It noted that the country had also made a firm commitment to providing health care.

Oman commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its diligent efforts in the field of human rights and for making them its priority. It referred to the legal framework for the protection of human rights, and its clear commitment in that regard, which was reflected in the ratification of most human rights instruments, and its cooperation with United Nations mechanisms. The country’s report focused on both achievements and challenges, which demonstrated its sincerity in addressing human rights issues.

Egypt commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for progress in building a comprehensive national human rights framework of institutions and in drafting legislation and supporting its human resources in that area. It commended the separation of the Ministries of Justice and the Interior and the development of a new criminal code, and it praised the cooperation with international organizations in combating human trafficking and corruption, and the improvement made in the conditions related to illegal migration.

Malta fully recognized the difficulties faced by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and welcomed the action taken at the national, bilateral and regional levels to suppress the illegal activities that gave rise to migration. Malta welcomed the cooperation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya with the International Organization for Migration.

Bangladesh referred to the progress made in the enjoyment of economic and social rights, including in the areas of education, health care, poverty reduction and social welfare. Bangladesh noted with appreciation the measures taken to promote transparency.

Malaysia commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for being party to a significant number of international and regional human rights instruments.

Morocco welcomed the achievements in promoting social protection, especially for women, children and persons with special needs. It welcomed the efforts to protect the rights of children. It welcomed the establishment of a national committee for the protection of persons with special needs. Morocco also praised the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its promotion of human rights education, particularly for security personnel.

Pakistan praised the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for measures taken both in terms of legislation and in practice, noting with appreciation that it was a party to most of the core human rights treaties. Pakistan praised the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s commitment to human rights, in particular the right to health, education and food, even when the country had faced sanctions in the 1990s. Pakistan was encouraged by efforts to address the root causes of illegal migration, and noted the good practice of settling political disputes and developing infrastructure in source countries.

Mexico thanked the delegation for the presentation of the national report and the answers that it had provided. It expressed appreciation for the political will of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to address the human rights challenges facing it. Mexico hoped that the universal periodic review of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya would make a positive contribution to national efforts to overcome challenges to guaranteeing the full enjoyment of human rights.

Myanmar commended the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for its economic and social progress, and recognized efforts in domestic legislation aimed at guaranteeing equal rights. Myanmar noted that the country had acceded to many international human rights instruments and established a national Human Rights Committee. Myanmar praised efforts to realize basic education for all and a free health-care system.

Viet Nam congratulated the delegation on the quality of the national report. It noted with satisfaction the commitment of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the protection and promotion of the human rights of its people, particularly the country’s accession to the main international human rights conventions. It welcomed achievements made in the exercise of human rights.

Thailand welcomed the national report, which presented both progress and challenges. Thailand highlighted efforts made with regard to education, persons with special needs and vulnerable groups.

Brazil noted the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s economic and social progress and acknowledged the promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities, the free health care and the high enrolment in primary education. Brazil noted the successful cooperation with international organizations in areas such as migrant rights, judicial reform and the fight against corruption.

Kuwait expressed appreciation for the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s initiative to improve per capita income and to ensure social justice and the fair distribution of wealth. It praised the measures taken with regard to low-income families. Kuwait called upon the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to continue its efforts to integrate people with disabilities into society while recognizing their positive role.

Reading these submissions one wonders why anyone would want to foment a revolution in such a utopian paradise… What a misunderstood and benevolent man that Gaddafi is.

Richard Falk finally goes too far even for the UN

A tireless effort by campaign group UN Watch has led to what is being described as the unprecedented international condemation of Richard Falk, who has consistently exploited his position as a special rapporteur at the UN’s Human Rights Council to justify and deny Hamas and Al Qaeda terrorism.

As the UN Human Rights Council’s permanent investigator of alleged Israeli violations in the Palestinian territories, Falk has had a largely unscrutinised position from which to satisfy his unquestioning vilification of the Israelis.  As his target was Israel he was indulged by the left wing media as his outbursts fitted their narrative.

But it now seems that after years of Falk’s rampant Israel bashing and partisan bias towards Hamas, spreading slurs and distortions and the asserting as fact claims that have later been debunked, the penny has finally dropped among his UN colleagues and the media that he is a deluded and unreliable propagandist.  It follows his promotion of 9/11 conspiracy theories and attempts to exonerate Al Qaeda of any involvement in the terrorist atrocity, instead claiming the US government was responsible for the attack.

First steps taken towards global information censorship

How best can we keep information to ourselves and prevent ordinary people exchanging it?

That is the question being asked by the global political class as the United Nations, now confirmed as an entity committed to global control, considers setting up an intergovernmental working group to ‘harmonise global efforts by policy makers to regulate the internet’.

Regulation. Censorship. Control. Repression.

As iTnews reports:

At a meeting in New York on Wednesday, representatives from Brazil called for an international body made up of Government representatives that would to attempt to create global standards for policing the internet – specifically in reaction to challenges such as WikiLeaks.

The Brazilian delegate stressed, however, that this should not be seen as a call for an “takeover” of the internet.

Of course they don’t want it to be seen as that, but that’s what it is. The political class has seen how the information age has brought with it the ability of ordinary people to scrutinise their behaviour and expose their actions. Politicians around the globe cannot stand any examination of what they do and resent the opportunity that has been provided for ordinary people to spread awareness and share information around the world in seconds at the click of a mouse, without state control or sanction.

Because states have different rules ordinary people have been able to shop around for locations in which to host data where freedom of speech is protected. The only way to exert control over what people can say, write, watch, listen to and read online is to have harmonised regulation that facilitates global control over what will be permitted to be shared around the ether and what will be censored because it is inconvenient to the politicians.

So here we are, just days after global climate change conference in Cancun where plans were being made for centralised UN control over the redistribution of money, learning that plans are being made for centralised UN control over internet content.

Is there anyone who still scoffs at the notion of a developing world order? One that is committed to eradicating democracy and using regional supranational entities, like the EU, as the local branches of its governance structure with power in the hands of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.

If I had read this post elsewhere a couple of years ago I would have laughed at it and had visions of conspiracy theorists and foil hats. But the fact is the evidence is being presented openly like pieces of a jigsaw. On their own the pieces seem fairly inconsequential, but when put together to complete the picture you can see what is happening. Even then many people would tell themselves ‘oh that’s just ludicrous, don’t be so stupid’. It is not ludicrous, it is real and those of us who live in nominal democracies risk experiencing what it’s like living under complete state control.

This isn’t about the aims of secret societies, Freemasons, Illuminati or shadowy organisations. It is simply the aim of the self selecting political class and their well known financial backers and beneficiaries. It is happening openly in plain sight.

United Nations focuses on China’s human rights record

But not in the way you might imagine…

We learn via UN Watch that the United Nations European Headquarters in Geneva today hosted a massive photo exhibit extolling China’s human rights record and its alleged respect for Uyghurs, Tibetans and other minority groups, displayed next to the U.N. human rights office event marking international Human Rights Day. (Hat tip: Helen)

UN Watch’s story goes on to add that:

Under photos showing Chinese deputies voting at a ballot box, the U.N. exhibit says that “China’s Constitution and laws guarantee citizens’ freedom of speech, publication, assembly, association, procession and demonstration.” China’s laws mark “the gradual perfection of the legal system” where “the rule of law is generally realized in the country’s economic, political, cultural and social life.”

This obscene piece of appeasing propaganda has been timed to coincide with the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, who remains imprisoned by the Chinese authorities for ‘subversion’ – namely campaiging for democratic reforms in China and an end to the one-party communist state. In addition to Mr Liu, dozens of others have been detained or threatened to prevent them going to Oslo to collect the award or to speak with journalists. So much for freedom of speech, association and demonstration.

The UN consistently shows itself to be an insipid, corrupt and morally bankrupt organisation whose only aim is to satisfy the special interests of large corporations and the political class. Like other bureaucracies it is now engaged in its own project to assume the role of world government that can demand national governments to follow particular courses of action or hand over money to the UN for it to spend as it sees fit.

The conspiracy to trump all conspiracies

We are now moving beyond laughable conspiracy theories and into the realm of a genuine conspiracy to entirely subvert democracy.

It sounds so far fetched people will be tempted to scoff at such a suggestion. But Viscount Monckton of Brenchley argues that decisons being made and plans being laid at the Climate Change jamboree in Cancun have sinister implications for the way the world will be shaped in years to come. As Monckton explains:

The 33-page Note (FCCC/AWGLCA/2010/CRP.2) by the Chairman of the “Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Co-operative Action under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”, entitled Possible elements of the outcome, reveals all. Or, rather, it reveals nothing, unless one understands what the complex, obscure jargon means. All UNFCCC documents at the Cancun conference, specifically including Possible elements of the outcome, are drafted with what is called “transparent impenetrability”. The intention is that the documents should not be understood, but that later we shall be told they were in the public domain all the time, so what are we complaining about?

Monckton points out a raft of plans in progress on a number of subjects, which everyone should read and understand. Among them are the following:

Finance: Western countries will jointly provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to an unnamed new UN Fund. To keep this sum up with GDP growth, the West may commit itself to pay 1.5% of GDP to the UN each year. That is more than twice the 0.7% of GDP that the UN has recommended the West to pay in foreign aid for the past half century. Several hundred of the provisions in the Chairman’s note will impose huge financial costs on the nations of the West.

The world government’s powers: The Secretariat will have the power not merely to invite nation states to perform their obligations under the climate-change Convention, but to compel them to do so. Nation states are to be ordered to collect, compile and submit vast quantities of information, in a manner and form to be specified by the secretariat and its growing army of subsidiary bodies. Between them, they will be given new powers to verify the information, to review it and, on the basis of that review, to tell nation states what they can and cannot do.

Bureaucracy: Hundreds of new interlocking bureaucracies answerable to the world-government Secretariat will vastly extend its power and reach. In an explicit mirroring of the European Union’s method of enforcing the will of its unelected Kommissars on the groaning peoples of that benighted continent, the civil servants of nation states will come to see themselves as servants of the greater empire of the Secretariat, carrying out its ukases and diktats whatever the will of the nation states’ governments.

Many of the new bureaucracies are disguised as “capacity-building in developing countries”. This has nothing to do with growing the economies or industries of poorer nations. It turns out to mean the installation of hundreds of bureaucratic offices answerable to the Secretariat in numerous countries around the world. Who pays? You do, gentle taxpayer.

At no point anywhere in the 186 pages of the Treaty draft do the words “democracy”, “election”, “ballot”, or “vote” appear.

Delusional and far fetched conspiracy theory, or the explosive distilling of intentionally confusing legalese that reveals the blueprint for a new world order previously considered impossible to construct? Do you feel utterly powerless and detached from the ability to hold these politicians and bureaucrats to account? Just look at what has been taken from you while you slept. Now, how are you going to take it back?

UN appeases North Korea over Submarine attack

The United Nations has once again demonstrated fundamentally dysfunctional it is.  For today the UN’s Security Council has given an exhibition of appeasement to rival all others, by unanimously condemning the sinking of the South Korean warship, Cheonan – but bandying words to avoid blaming the aggressor, North Korea.

In fact appeasement is not the right word.  What the UN did today was nothing short of cowardice.  It backed down in the face of threats of further naked aggression by North Korea if blame for the sinking was laid at Pyongyang’s door.  The mighty international community has been pushed around by the playground bully, caved in and promised not to tell the teacher.  The dead members of the Cheonan crew were killed in the Yellow Sea and have now had their memories disrespected by craven yellow bellied diplomats.

The spin from the talking shop that the supposed condemnation shows the international community has taken a strong stance that no provocations against South Korea will be tolerated is just laughable.  Where is the lack of toleration of North Korea for the provocative act of sinking a South Korean Navy warship, killing 46 sailors?  Don’t do it again North Korea, or else you will be told in somewhat uncertain terms that if you do it again it won’t be tolerated, and that line will continue ad infinitum.  Yeah, that should do it.

No doubt there are some who will rail against this description of the UN’s action as cowardice.  Perhaps they will prefer to call it by its weasely alter ego currently so beloved of politicians and diplomats today, pragmatism.

What is the point of the United Nations?

When it comes to being critical of the United Nations (UN) one is generally spoiled for choice as to which particular incidence of incompetence, corruption or idiocy should be focused upon.  In that respect the UN is the gift that just keeps giving, as Helen Szamuely at Your Freedom and Ours demonstrated earlier this week.  The expression ‘it defies belief’ is generally an over used descriptor when applied to ridiculous actions or decisions.  But in this case it is entirely appropriate. 

What other organisation could convene a Commission on the Status of Women and include representatives from Iran – a country where women can be raped by a violent male yet receive brutal corporal punishment for it, or be stoned to death for an adulterous sexual liaison; and the Democratic Republic of Congo – a country that doesn’t have even a fleeting idea of democracy and where women are systematically brutalised by lawless militias and even serving UN personnel stationed in the county.  Women may be forgiven for feeling this breathtakingly stupid decision by the lavishly funded and utterly useless international talking shop sends a less than convincing signal about the seriousness attached to the protection of women.

No doubt we will soon see the UN and many media outlets performing contortionist acts to avoid stating the fact that under the watchful gaze of UN observers, Hezbollah in the Lebanon has been able to re-arm itself with ever more sophisticated weaponry from its sponsors in Tehran and Damascus, which it will again put to use attacking Israel under some imagined provocation.  The UN response will be to urge Hezbollah to be nice, while condemning Israel for disproportionate response or investigating it for alleged war crimes for having the temerity to do no more than defend its population from a determined and premeditated assault.

Too many of the nations treated with kid gloves by the UN are not nations we want to be united with, in any way.  The Security Council is hopelessly deadlocked on vital matters, such as Iran’s nuclear proliferation.  What is the point of continuing to bang our heads against a wall and fund an organisation that serves the interests of the international community so poorly?