Advice on how to run our economies from the last people who would know

An organisation made up of third world tyrannies wishes to teach the rest of us how to run our economies. A couple of examples.

From Scientists Warn the UN of Capitalism’s Imminent Demise

Capitalism as we know it is over. So suggests a new report commissioned by a group of scientists appointed by the UN Secretary-General. The main reason? We’re transitioning rapidly to a radically different global economy, due to our increasingly unsustainable exploitation of the planet’s environmental resources.

Climate change and species extinctions are accelerating even as societies are experiencing rising inequalityunemploymentslow economic growthrising debt levels, and impotent governments. Contrary to the way policymakers usually think about these problems, the new report says that these are not really separate crises at all.

Rather, these crises are part of the same fundamental transition to a new era characterized by inefficient fossil fuel production and the escalating costs of climate change. Conventional capitalist economic thinking can no longer explain, predict, or solve the workings of the global economy in this new age, the paper says.

And then this from David Archibald: Stop The Climate Stupidity wherein we find:

You should read David’s article right through to savour just how mad you would have to be to follow the UN’s lead. And how could we leave this out from just today?


PDT at the UN

I sat up to watch PDT at the UN last night and it was epic. You might have thought he was running to be President of the World, and in many ways he was. But he was also trying to influence his own Congressional elections in November. The video goes for an hour but the speech itself only goes 35 minutes, and is worth every second. In essence, there are a lot of bad guys out there but we will do everything we can to stop them. Meanwhile, the US is going great guns. Not everyone will hear it that way, but that to me is what he said. You can see the official summary here if you don’t have time to watch it through.

Donald Trump’s speech to the UN

Starts 45 minutes in. You can either watch it yourself or let his enemies interpret it for you. As good as any speech of its kind you have ever heard, and it holds its strength right to the end. From Drudge:


Culture bound is culture blind

This is from Tim Blair which he puts under the heading, It all makes perfect sense.

The UN recently decided that Israel was the number one violator of women’s rights in the world today. And then the UN appointed the Islamic Republic of Iran to the executive board of the UN’s Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women.

I, of course, understand Tim’s point perfectly well. The West set up the United Nations in the 1940s under the assumption it set the standard for the rest of the world. But there were a large number of cultural assumptions built into the creation of that organisation which have been unravelling for quite some time.

Being culture bound is an unfortunate circumstance, although inevitable. The reality is that while we in the West think one way, other people think quite a different way entirely.

At the very minimum we should understand that people from different cultures do not share Western values, nor do they seek to emulate our way of life. They would like the goods and services our economies invent and produce in great abundance, and their political and social elites have more wealth than we can even begin to imagine. But they also have their own values, and these are enduring. Their societies will not become like our societies, not ever.

The Republic of Iran has, without any doubt, strong views on gender equity and the empowerment of women. They just don’t happen to be the same as ours. Why should that difference of opinion exclude their being a member of the Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women in the one-nation-one-vote structure of the ironically named United Nations?

Progressive internationalism and open borders

I wrote a post on January 7 this year, Progressive Internationalism in the modern world, which more or less tells you where we are at. Our global elites, from whatever gated communities they may happen to reside in, have decided that a world of open borders is the best hope for mankind and have been doing as much as possible for a very long time to achieve this end. Wars are caused by the existence of the nation state, they assume, and there has therefore been every effort made to break down our national borders. The most remarkable part about Obama’s decision to open the US border to any and all who might wish to come is the absence of genuine outrage. From this distance, I hardly notice a thing. The nation state is now the enemy of our elites, and if you live in one, you may be sure the efforts will remain relentless to break those borders down. Given the horrendous results of open borders across the first world, yet with no apparent ability for citizens to resist, I am not hopeful but I am not also yet in complete despair. Here then is the post I wrote in January.

The communist international was succeeded by what has been called Progressive Internationalism, a quasi-one-world government ideology that is almost as dangerous as the communist ideology it has succeeded. Here is a definition of sorts found in a review of a book by someone by name of Alan Dawley. The book was titled, Changing the World: American Progressives in War and Revolution and this is from the review:

Despite their diverse interests and affiliations, he argues, progressives were fundamentally driven by a hope that the promotion of social justice and revitalization of public life in the United States would form the core of an international campaign. ‘In a world knit together by far-flung markets and the international state system,’ Dawley explains, ‘progressives confronted social problems that crossed national boundaries, and their solutions did the same’. . . .

Taking a strongly anti-militarist and anti-imperialist stance, they argued that social justice was a prerequisite for peace at home and abroad. In the aftermath of wartime violations, the resolute defense of civil liberties soon became the ‘shining light of progressive politics’. Returning to a hardheaded analysis of corporate power, progressives renewed their focus on the working class and defined imperialism as ‘a structural component of American political economy, not an aberrant policy’. Seen most clearly in the third party campaigns of Robert La Follette and Henry Wallace, progressivism moved toward the left of the political spectrum. Never able to recover the political power it once held, progressivism would nevertheless persist in movements seeking to ‘address the wrongs of the capitalist market and the failures of the international system’.

That’s the theory. And if you would like to hear these very thoughts put into print just this week, here is an article by Conrad Black in The National Post dated 4 January 2014. The title is, “Conrad Black: What would Woodrow Wilson say?” This is a sample of what he thinks Woodrow Wilson would say:

Wilson was the greatest prophet of the Twentieth Century, in many ways surpassing and even presaging Gandhi and Mandela: He was the first person to inspire the masses of the world with the vision of enduring peace, and of the acceptance and imposition of international law and of postcolonial institutions indicative of the equal rights of all nationalities and the common interest of all peoples.

How’s that for utopian moonshine! Gandhi and Mandela are about as far as possible from my mind as standards by which I would like the world to run. And it was FDR, according to Black, who continued this progressive internationalist agenda:

It devolved upon a junior member of Wilson’s administration, Franklin D. Roosevelt, when he was president during the world war that Wilson sought to avoid, to revive the idea of a world organization, involve the opposing domestic political party fully in its creation, and have it in place even before that war ended in 1945.

FDR took the best of Wilson and of his chief rival, distant cousin (and uncle-in-law) Theodore Roosevelt, and united the latter’s ‘big stick’ with the former’s ‘new freedom.’ FDR was determined that the UN would not be reduced to a mere talking shop. He intended that it would serve to disguise in collegiality the fact that the United States, with half the world’s economic product and a monopoly on atomic weapons, effectively ruled the world, and would reassure his fractious and long-isolationist countrymen that the world was now a much safer place than it had been.

How weirdly wrong FDR was and how strange to see this vision being given such a positive review today when we know just how dangerous the UN has become. Black of course recognises that the hopes that had been vested in the United Nations have come to nothing, but this does not seem to have shaken him from his belief in a policy agenda through which Western civilisation is again placed under intense threat and may well this time succumb. I would be in a let’s-circle-the-wagons mode if it were at all possible. The following passage present our present reality, but here expressed by Black:

In 2013, the United Nations General Assembly elected China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Russia, countries that have no regard for human rights at all, as members of the UN Human Rights Council; selected Hezbollah (a designated terrorist organization) apologist Jean Ziegler as senior advisor to the Council; and elected Mauritania, a primitive country that tolerates slavery, as Council vice-chair. Meanwhile, Richard Falk, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, blamed the Boston Marathon bombing on ‘the American global domination project’ and ‘Tel Aviv.’ Of the UN General Assembly’s 25 resolutions condemning individual countries in 2013, all but four were against the exemplary democracy, Israel, which only seeks recognition of the basis on which the United Nations founded it: as a Jewish state and homeland for the Jewish people. The United Nations also elected the racist, terrorist-infested charnel house and Iranian proxy of Syria to its Special Committee on Decolonization; appointed Zimbabwe (a regime so odious it has been expelled from the Commonwealth, failing to clear an almost subterranean hurdle) to host its world tourism summit; and elected Iran president of its 2013 Conference on Disarmament, even as that country strove to put the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to the shredder.

In this world with these kinds of international agents playing such prominent roles, progressive internationalism is a form of self-destructive madness and cultural suicide. Who wouldn’t like to live in the kind of world these Progressive Internationalists imagine. But no one does because such a world is as utopian as your standard Marxist piece of rubbish, so why anyone would want to project this agenda knowing what we know is beyond me.

Stop laughing, this is serious

susan rice at un

And this is some of the text that went with the picture:

There’s an amazing picture taken a few days ago at the United Nations.

Russia had just vetoed America’s diplomatic proposal for Ukraine. So Ambassador Samantha Power, the former Harvard professor appointed by Barack Obama, who is also a former Harvard grad himself, walked over to Russia’s ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, to give him a piece of her mind.

Churkin didn’t even stand up. He just looked at her. And his aides, standing behind him, laughed.

They weren’t laughing at the ironically named Ambassador Power. They were laughing at their good luck; that they had the good fortune to get into the invading business when a feckless man like Barack Obama was in charge of the free world.

Meanwhile, Russian forces storm Ukraine naval HQ in Crimea. Can’t really be much of an issue since so little attention is being paid to it. There’s perhaps not much you can do but to me the response from the West still looks like slow motion insanity. Next stop, Estonia?

UPDATE: Remember this quote and then watch the video below:

“One cardinal rule of the road is, we don’t watch CNN, the news or MSNBC. We don’t watch any talking heads or any politics. We watch SportsCenter and argue about that,” Obama told The New York Times.

What you are watching is the President of the United States right this minute choosing his bracket, that is choosing which college team will win the NCAA Basketball tournament which is about to start.