By James Corbett
It's September, and that can only mean one thing. Back to school? No. Yellow-amber ridges of freshly-fallen leaves crushing underfoot on quiet country paths? Not quite. A last desperate attempt to squeeze in some outdoor sports before winter descends like a blanket once again over the northern hemisphere? Of course not. I mean the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Maybe this is what drove Ella Fitzgerald to croon so sentimentally about “Autumn in New York.” After all, who can forget Eisenhower's famous “Atoms for Peace” speech at the General Assembly in 1953 in which he announced the new age of limitless, clean, cheap, safe atomic power? Or Bush's 2002 speech before the Assembly warning of the clear, grave danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction?
What's that, you say? These speeches were pure propaganda that history has proven were self-conscious lies designed to manipulate world opinion leading to fiascos like Fukushima and the Iraq war? The annual kerfuffle in New York is nothing more than a chance for preening politicians to play the part of important actors on a global stage and deliver mealy-mouthed platitudes that are, at best, designed to inflate their own already-dangerously-overblown egos and, at worst, provide a convenient platform for globalist psychopaths to deliver their lies and steer the world into the next pre-arranged crisis? Well, yes, of course, but the truth is always so much uglier than the lie, isn't it?
If the annual meeting of the General Assembly is nothing more than a chance for politicians to bring their grievances to the world stage and puff themselves up for the benefit of their home audience, then this year's meeting is off to a great start. Every speech comes with its own agenda, each leader with his own plan to win over the opinion of the world to their way of seeing things. Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda went before the Assembly to woo the crowd on Japan's side of the Senkaku Islands controversy. Palestianian leader Mahmoud Abbas made the case for full Palestinian membership in the Assembly. Mohamed Morsy used his first address to the UN as newly-elected president of Egypt to decry the freedom of expression that has allowed the spread of anti-Islamic videos like the one that touched off a recent wave of protests in his country.
But the real fireworks, as always, have come from the usual sources: the US, Israel and Iran. Obama, for his part, didn't miss a beat in parlaying public sympathies for the September 11th attack on Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi. Included in his speech: a short eulogy to Stevens detailing his life and accomplishments; a general praise for foreign service personnel and their commitment to the “international cooperation the United Nations represents”; a feel good speech about the greatness of the so-called Arab Spring; a denouncement of Bashar al-Assad as the sole cause of violence and bloodshed in Syria; and, of course, the scapegoating of the anti-Muslim video as the main reason for anti-Americanism in the Middle East. Oddly missing from his speech: any acknowledgement of the numerous plot holes, lies and omissions that have been told about the terrorist attack on the American compound where Stevens was killed; the pesky fact that the United States was supportive of the dictators toppled by this supposedly spontaneous (and actually manufactured) Arab Spring rebellion, and the fact that all mention of similar movements in US-friendly countries like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia have been completely suppressed; the niggly detail that the US and their allies have been openly arming, funding, staging, supplying, coordinating and even smuggling the Al Qaeda-linked Wahabbi terrorist jihadis who have been committing terror attacks and war crimes on the citizens of Syria; and the fact that inside sources are now confirming that the Obama administration knew from day one that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist act and had nothing to do with the anti-Muslim video that the president continues to talk about at every opportunity. In other words: business as usual from the liar-in-chief.
Also unsurprising was Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech, during which he treated his audience like a bunch of dim-witted 8 year-olds by displaying a cartoon drawing of a Wile E. Coyote-esque Acme Co. style bomb (complete with lit fuse) as a representation of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Rather than presenting any evidence whatsoever that the nuclear program actually exists, Bibi instead used his moment on the stage to draw a big red line across the bomb at a level marked “90%”, thus subtly indicating that the world needs to draw a “red line” past which Iran cannot step without the world community taking action (did you see what he did there?). Benjamin's speech was also missing a few details, and not merely the evidence for Iran's weapons program. Namely that Israel is the only nuclear power in the middle east, with a stockpile of somewhere between 100 and 400 warheads. No one can be sure of that figure, of course, because the stockpile is still officially unacknowledged in an illusion of international politics called “If I don't see it, it can't exist” that evidently assumes the world audience is even dimmer-witted and even younger than the cartoon bomb crowd. The PM also failed to address the fact that Israel is not a member of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, unlike Iran, and has never allowed an inspection of its nuclear facilities by the IAEA, unlike Iran. Oh, and for some reason he left out the fact that recently-uncovered FBI documents that show Netanyahu himself was pat of an Israeli nuclear smuggling ring that smuggled parts and materials for nuclear weapons out of the United States in the 1970s.
Ahmadinejad's speech was surprising, but not in the way his speeches at past meetings have been surprising (or inflammatory). In fact, this year the consensus is that the fiery Iranian leader was surprisingly sedate. Rather than dwelling on the existential threat coming from the Israeli-American nexus and their sanctions, their ongoing cyberwar, their covert campaign of bombings and terror, and their constant threats to bomb all suspected nuclear sites to smithereens (and potentially irradiate the entire region in the process), he instead decided to talk about how “social relationships are guided by respect, kindness and love” and wax philosophic on how “the world over, people are kind and loving.” Naturally, the U.S., Israel, Canada and all the other right-thinking sensible nations couldn't bear to hear such rhetoric so they walked out in protest, as every year.
Exactly as expected, all of these speeches, and the many others that have been made in the past several days, have made good use of the typical buzzwords, platitudes and concepts that play well to the globalist crowd who are gathered for the festivities: “Rule of law.” “Community of nations.” “International legitimacy.” In other words, the kind of globalist claptrap that underlies the whole United Nations charade. It's easy enough to laugh this sort of rhetoric off as the insincere musings of a self-serving political class looking to bank some goodwill from the more naive sections of their local electorate. It is very disturbing, however, to realize they are deadly serious.
Take this news from the latest session: the United Nations is back at the drawing board, once again trying to create a new excuse to get its foot in the door with the first-ever global tax. It doesn't really seem to matter what the ostensible reason for the tax is. A tax on billionaires, a tax on currency speculation, the so-called Tobin tax on financial transactions, taxes on carbon emissions, taxes on airline tickets, royalties for any minerals dredged up more than 100 miles offshore of any nation's territorial waters. All of these ideas have been floated in recent months, and they will all be on the agenda at the 67th General Assembly. This is nothing new, of course. There has been talk of taxes like these for years. But with each fresh round of discussion, the idea of a global, UN-administered tax becomes that much more normalized, as if it weren't the thin edge of the wedge of the rise of a truly global government. Of course, it's coming couched in feelgood terminology about “development” money to address “global problems” and to “meet needs in developing countries.” Who could argue with that? It would be like arguing with those sensible and reasonable congress critters who instituted the income tax on Americans in 1913 at the reasonable rate of 1%. Surely you can chip in 1% to help out your fellow man. It'll never get bigger or incentivize the political class to continue growing government as much as possible, we swear.
Unfortunately, there are many around the world who truly do see more government as the answer to all of the planet's problems, and by that logic global government would be the ultimate solution. Unfortunately for anyone who knows their history, the United Nations and the other international institutions that sprang up in the 20th century are more like the banksters' Final Solution. You know, the kind from which there is no escape.
The history of how this global governmental institution was funded into existence is well documented and easily accessible. Woodrow Wilson served as the front man for bankster super gopher Edward Mandel House's League of Nations. Although generally believed to have originated with Wilson, both Wilson's and House's biographers concede that the League of Nations' covenant in fact originated with House, with Wilson merely rewriting it to change the phraseology. When the Senate refused to ratify the League in the US, the banksters were livid. Having ditched Wilson by the wayside, House moved on to setting up the Council on Foreign Relations, populated almost exclusively by bankers and lawyers (to the bankers). From the outset, they directed and shaped US foreign policy to assure the success of the League of Nations' successor organization: the UN. The United Nations originated in a meeting of former CFR members under the bland working title of the Informal Agenda Group. They presented the idea to President Roosevelt and got his approval, with FDR announcing the idea the very same day and making it the central plank of his post-war planning. When the body was founded in San Francisco in 1945, 47 of the American delegates to the UN were CFR members. The organization moved to its current site in 1952 after the Rockefellers donated the land and building to house this shrine of globalism. The former tenant on this particular parcel of land? An abbatoir.
Given the incredible lengths the banksters and their cronies went to in setting up the UN, it begs the question of what they expect to get out of it. After all, the United Nations has been a poster boy for ineffectual talking shops and the laughing stock of the world for most of its existence. Its pronouncements are largely ceremonial with no force of law and nothing to back them up. Its general assembly routinely engages in ineffectual, non-binding votes that are meant to express “the will of the international community” but are almost universally ignored. Its security council comes to a complete standstill whenever one of its permanent five members disagrees with the rest, which is nearly always. And its very existence is dependent largely on donations from the US itself, which is generally reluctant to pay and can always threaten to lower the sword of Damocles it holds over the entire organization by refusing to pay anything.
But all the same, after decades of meaningless futility, the UN is gradually starting to become what the banksters have always dreamed it would. In recent years, the doctrine of the “Responsibility to Protect” has been channeled through the gears of the United Nations, with its key provisions having been affirmed by the UN Security Council, and further debated and adopted by the General Assembly. This is the wonderful sounding pledge of the international community to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, etchnic cleansing and crimes against humanity in cases where their own government can't, or when their government is in fact the perpetrator. Although it is formulated to make anyone who raises objections to it sound like a supporter of genocide, it is another case of the devil being in the details. It has been invoked to justify the dropping of humanitarian peace bombs on Libya, for example, and we all know how that turned out. One can only imagine if this doctrine had been around in 2002. It would have made Bush's job of selling the Iraq war so much easier. Again, any policy instrument is just a weapon in the hands of whoever can wield it, and in a bankster-controlled globalist system, that's going to be the banksters and their cronies.
The International Criminal Court has likewise gained traction and supposed legitimacy in recent years. 10 years after its founding with the Rome Statute, it delivered its first verdict this year in the case of Congolese rebel leader Thomas Lubanga Dyilo. He was found guilty of using child soldiers in combat, and with one feel swoop the International Criminal Court had actually seen a case through to prosecution for the first time in history. But “international law” is another one of those slippery catchphrases that sounds fine...as long as you don't think too deeply about it. Again, who gets to make the decisions and who becomes the arbiters of what war criminals to prosecute? History has always been written by the winners, and this system is not meant to prosecute the Bushes and Blairs of the world, only those people who have been deemed “bad men” by the world's reigning superpowers. Is Dyilo a despicable person? Are many of the others who are suspected of similar crimes and into whom the ICC has opened investigations similarly despicable? Undoubtedly. But once this “international” rule of law becomes engrained, how long will it be before the ICC starts to interpret laws more liberally? If the recent debates at the UN about the idea of criminalizing any speech that might cause religious offense are any indication, it might not be too long.
All of this is not tangential to the global government that is coming into place. On the contrary. It has been woven into the fabric of the UN itself. Its Declaration of Human Rights, often held up as some magnificent charter to enshrine human freedoms on an international scale, is in fact a chilling document that was first drafted by the avowed Fabian socialist, eugenicist and New World Order advocate H.G. Wells. It spends the first two dozen or so articles outlining the fuzzy feel-good human rights one would expect in such a document before taking them all away in Article 29.3, where the UN reserves the right to strip all rights and freedoms from anyone who goes against the “purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
So as the world of punditry dissects, analyzes, and (for the most part) laughs off the theatrics taking place in New York this week, it might be best to keep in mind not the UN that we have become accustomed to seeing, that vacuous talking shop for the diplomatic jetset, but the one that is in the process of being born. The one that presumes to have the final say over law and justice in the world, and the one in which you and I have no input whatsoever.