Why did it take so long for people to realize that the UN is rigged to be bullshit with the single veto powers of the in-security council?
I used to bring this up way back in school and my social studies and history teachers defended that veto bullshit... Boomers brainwashed to think America and the other in-security council nations really gave a shit about fairness and peace.
One of the main reasons (I would say main reason) for the UN to exist is to help prevent nuclear war. Originally it was only the nuclear powers that were in the security council. They get a veto because they have real, live, veto power (nuclear attack) over actions in the world and it is better for this to be done in the UN than on the ground. This set up has work so far and no nuclear weapons have been used since WWII.
Peace is no global thermonuclear exchange. It might be a good idea to return to that model and include the new nuclear powers on the council and get rid of the others.
The parallels with today… ‘Saddam’ was the Zelensky of his time, at first. And for the duration of a 9 year war against Iran that ‘the West’ arranged, set the table for, encouraged, funded, winked and nodded, gave our green light for, promised rewards for...
Well, our guy thought he should get something instead of nothing and so he took it. Addressed us on TV explaining it too. Then came the ‘incubator babies’ and the demonization. Then the bombing. Then expelling Iraq from Kuwait. Then stopping. Then starting again invading Iraq. Then hanging ‘our guy’.
Well I’ve skimmed over it but there’s plenty of background there. The second half of it is yet to come in at least one of the current conflicts.
Right, thanks for this. The Iran-Iraq war is a crucial aspect of the background, with half a million deaths, quite a lot of people in both societies remember their boys being shot to bits for no other reason than "anglo-zionist" jockeying.
Your comparison is excellent and well worth devoting a full article to, just teasing out the similarities and such. Would you be up for it?
"All wars are Banker's wars" comes to mind. By now, almost all nations are members of the "Bank for International Settlements" and the "United Nations".
Presidents and Prime Ministers know the danger of going against the global agenda.
Obviously we are in the midst of a global transition into a new socio-economic & governance paradigm.
Out of the current "engineered" global chaos, those behind the Central Banks are envisaging and maneuvering towards a New Order, since their Old Order is currently on life-support and they will not give up their Monopoly of power.
We can overcome this deception, but we're going to have to work together and refuse to be divided by these cascading false flags. The power resides in the people and these psychopaths know it.
Well said. Destruction is on the menu. They can't change society in the way they want without destroying it first. Then they can build back better - better for them. Given that there are more and more of us waking up to the scale of the scam, I'm not betting they'll succeed. But they're trying so hard, the little psychos, bless their distorted hearts.
It is that the system can do wathever it want, be it a war or a totalitarian dictatorship.
Because the amount of repressed rage from frustrations caused by it over the population are engineered to hark back against themselves. That's what always happens.
This is why consciousness and reason to know the enemy and act upon it will be necessary. Be prepared to help and to be a Consciousness Objetor.
Why did it take so long for people to realize that the UN is rigged to be bullshit with the single veto powers of the in-security council?
I used to bring this up way back in school and my social studies and history teachers defended that veto bullshit... Boomers brainwashed to think America and the other in-security council nations really gave a shit about fairness and peace.
One of the main reasons (I would say main reason) for the UN to exist is to help prevent nuclear war. Originally it was only the nuclear powers that were in the security council. They get a veto because they have real, live, veto power (nuclear attack) over actions in the world and it is better for this to be done in the UN than on the ground. This set up has work so far and no nuclear weapons have been used since WWII.
Peace is no global thermonuclear exchange. It might be a good idea to return to that model and include the new nuclear powers on the council and get rid of the others.
If you wanted to you could extend this piece with earlier background on the Iran/Iraq war prompted by Saddam Zelensky's invasion of Iran in 1980 and the aftermath. I remember this because I was there when it happened in 1988 https://www.amazon.com/No-Higher-Honor-Roberts-Persian/dp/1591146615 And a few months later, this: https://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/04/world/downing-flight-655-us-downs-iran-airliner-mistaken-for-f-14-290-reported-dead.html
The parallels with today… ‘Saddam’ was the Zelensky of his time, at first. And for the duration of a 9 year war against Iran that ‘the West’ arranged, set the table for, encouraged, funded, winked and nodded, gave our green light for, promised rewards for...
9 years later it ended after millions of dead in artillery and tank battles, and with chemical weapons used by ‘our guy’ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/ , and with the (our) media insinuating ‘no, it was them’…, after all that, the border between Iran and Iraq changed not at all, not one inch.
And then what?
Well, our guy thought he should get something instead of nothing and so he took it. Addressed us on TV explaining it too. Then came the ‘incubator babies’ and the demonization. Then the bombing. Then expelling Iraq from Kuwait. Then stopping. Then starting again invading Iraq. Then hanging ‘our guy’.
Well I’ve skimmed over it but there’s plenty of background there. The second half of it is yet to come in at least one of the current conflicts.
Right, thanks for this. The Iran-Iraq war is a crucial aspect of the background, with half a million deaths, quite a lot of people in both societies remember their boys being shot to bits for no other reason than "anglo-zionist" jockeying.
Your comparison is excellent and well worth devoting a full article to, just teasing out the similarities and such. Would you be up for it?
"All wars are Banker's wars" comes to mind. By now, almost all nations are members of the "Bank for International Settlements" and the "United Nations".
Presidents and Prime Ministers know the danger of going against the global agenda.
Obviously we are in the midst of a global transition into a new socio-economic & governance paradigm.
Out of the current "engineered" global chaos, those behind the Central Banks are envisaging and maneuvering towards a New Order, since their Old Order is currently on life-support and they will not give up their Monopoly of power.
We can overcome this deception, but we're going to have to work together and refuse to be divided by these cascading false flags. The power resides in the people and these psychopaths know it.
Well said. Destruction is on the menu. They can't change society in the way they want without destroying it first. Then they can build back better - better for them. Given that there are more and more of us waking up to the scale of the scam, I'm not betting they'll succeed. But they're trying so hard, the little psychos, bless their distorted hearts.
What's more?
It is that the system can do wathever it want, be it a war or a totalitarian dictatorship.
Because the amount of repressed rage from frustrations caused by it over the population are engineered to hark back against themselves. That's what always happens.
This is why consciousness and reason to know the enemy and act upon it will be necessary. Be prepared to help and to be a Consciousness Objetor.
"War is the Health of the State"
-Randolph Bourne