from NY to Israel Sultan Reveals
The Stories Behind the News

Posted: 20 Oct 2009 07:28 PM PDT

From the fluttering blue flag of the U.N. with its stylized
symbol of the map of the world enclosed by olive tree branches, to the
whole collection of global organizations and imagery right down to posters
featuring children from every country holding hands, and the rest of the
globalist propaganda-- Americans have been imprinted as never before from
a very early age with the idea that they are part of a global community,
rather than merely one nation. But behind the olive branches and the
posters of smiling children, lies a very different truth entirely.

The entire notion that there is a world community is itself
mostly a myth. The United Nations does represent most of the nations of
the world, except for the really unpopular ones. But it does not represent
the peoples of the world, only the heads of their regimes. And since most
of the UN consists of nations that are not democracies and that do not
have truly free and open elections-- the UN's much ballyhooed global
community is nothing more than the well paid lackeys of tyrants,
dictators, sheiks and assorted Third World leaders, along with their First
World enablers.

Paradoxically the more the UN's membership
expanded, the less democratic it became-- because most of the nations who
joined were not democracies with open elections. As a result the expanding
UN became a tool of tyrants, beginning with the USSR which successfully
turned the UN into an Anti-Western body to serve its own agenda, with only
the Security Council retaining some shards of decency.

Behind the
fluttering blue flag and smiling multiracial children, are the
representatives of a great many dictatorships dining out at expensive New
York restaurants on your dime. Turtle Bay is not the home of a kinder and
gentler world. It is the home of every two bit thug who wants to spend 3
hours ranting about his pet causes, as everyone from Khrushchev to Castro
to Arafat to Chavez to Khadafi have demonstrated for us.

To accept
the idea that tyrants and their appointed lackeys represent some sort of
global consensus that supersedes the wishes of the free people of
democratic nations such as the United States or Canada, is to embrace a
global consensus that is undemocratic and even anti-democratic in nature,
that rejects individual freedoms in favor of tyranny. And that in a
nutshell is exactly what the United Nations is about.

Nor is it the
exception to the rule. Centralization and federalization innately leads to
less freedom and democracy, because the greater the scope of a system, the
less veto power the public has over it. Even the EU, which is composed of
individually democratic nations, openly disdained Ireland's No vote,
insisting that the process would go forward regardless. That is an
inevitable outcome when a political system becomes so large that it can
only be run by bureaucrats and diplomats who have six degrees of
separation between them and any actual electorate... a dangerous situation
that eventually allows them to cut the electorate out of the process
altogether.

The conglomeration of bureaucracy and politicians
without an electorate, translates into a political elite that becomes
indistinguishable from tyranny. That is what the EU is, and that is what
the UN aspires to be, a global government that answers to the powerful,
not to the people. Presenting the bureaucrats and diplomats as
representing something higher and nobler, a larger unity, helps the bitter
medicine of tyranny go down easier, but no amount of blue flags, smiling
children and talk about unity can entirely obscure the fact that such a
transition is one that leaves democracy behind in favor of oligarchy.

What is so appealing about that larger unity anyway? The United
States had its chance at a larger unity within a semi-democratic system
ruled from London. Instead the Founders chose to fight a war in order to
be able to make their own decisions locally by the American people. The UN
and virtually every international organization erodes that right, in the
name of compromise, brotherhood or just plain international political
consolidation.

Politicians who already work within large political
systems, find the idea of upscaling those systems immensely appealing.
Somehow a system that serves 100 million people is better than one that
serves 10 million people, and one that serves a billion people is even
better. But in fact larger systems have a way of being less efficient and
more wasteful, as well as far less democratic. The larger the political
system, the more it's meant to grind the town meeting under it, to reduce
the individual to a single vote or a political crank if he insists on
political involvement, without traditional forms of political
affiliation.

We are told repeatedly that multilateral policymaking
is better than the unilateral kind. Which is a fancy way of saying that a
committee is smarter than an individual, a notion that simply doesn't hold
up. A committee is best at achieving a compromise that serves the
interests of the more numerous or the more powerful. It is however least
likely to achieve a worthwhile solution, only one that its members can
agree on. And if most of those members answer to tyrants rather than to
citizens, those agreements will be ones that serve the interests of
tyrants.

That is why the UN brays incessantly about human rights,
but only as a cudgel with which to beat those few member states who
actually do have human rights. You will not see the Saudi treatment of
women or the Chinese treatment of political dissidents on the table at the
UN. But should an American drone take out a terrorist, or Israeli soldiers
stand guard to keep terrorists out, should Western countries refuse Third
World refugees or try to hold on to their free speech-- then the UN is
naturally on the case.

The United Nations is not a world community, it is a community
of tyrants. There is no world community, because most of the people of the
world are not free to have any say in their own lives. To talk about the
UN as if it has any moral standing, is as ridiculous as getting the guards
and inmates of a prison to vote together on what conditions inside the
prison should be like. The UN is not a force for peace, it is a force for
maintaining the political status quo for its louder voices, and for
grinding under those free countries they consider their enemies.

One day when all men are free, when the citizens of Muslim
nations may believe what they choose, when the Chinese and Russian secret
police forces have gone the way of the Gestapo, when the people of every
nation can vote in free and open elections for the candidates of their
choice-- then we may talk of a world community. But for now the rights of
the citizens of free countries can only be vested in the autonomy of their
own political systems. Any international agreements that compromise the
independence of their political systems, also compromise the freedom of
their citizens and the accountability of their representatives.