The Red Jackal

A fine waste of Prime Real Estate

With President Trump’s speech to the United Nations (UN) last week to the General Assembly, it made me remember what a waste of an organization the UN is. It reminds me of a quote that conservative columnist Mark Steyn said when commenting on the UN: When mixing ice cream with dog feces (sorry if you eating right now while reading this) you will get something that tastes like the latter rather than the former.

There are approximately 200 countries in the world, out of these countries about 20 can be considered full democracies maybe another 10 can be considered loosely democratic. That means the rest are dictatorships, kingdoms, military juntas, communists, mafia run (Putin) and so on. The premise that “United Nations” share common ground with each other is demonstratively false by this breakdown as most don’t have any concept of democracy. Ironically, the 170 or so countries that are not democratic have a better idea what the UN is and does more than the 30 or so that are actually democratic and believe in the UN.

Like most international or governmental organizations, they start off with good intentions. The UN was created after World War II with the intention of stopping any large conflicts similar to the previous two world wars. But like all large international organizations they morph into something else, more often for the worse. What started out as a place for world leaders to meet has turned into an organization who believes that they should rule.

As time has gone on, the UN has expanded its influence through multiple new organizations under its umbrella. However, all of these agencies that have been created are just boondoggles and mostly are ineffective. One of the worst is the UN Human Rights Commission. By its name alone you would think that it is has a noble mission but over the decades some of the worst human rights abusers in the world have been a part of this council. Countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, Iran and so on show that one does not have to practice what they preach. The idea that we need to include all countries regardless of their current history, has made this council a laughing stock when they make pronouncements, more often than not against Israel. Of course it does not also help that two of the five permanent members on the security council are two of the worst abusers in Russia and China.

Then you have the security council itself. Yes, there are seats that rotate but you also have five permanent members that were set up at the UN’s conception. Are these countries still the most powerful in the world? Two of the five you can say yes in the US and China but what of the other three? I think Russia speaks for itself, they are basically a “large gas station with nukes” run by the Russian mafia. Without a high price per barrel, Russia’s economy would crash. It has one of the highest poverty rates in the world outside of 3rd world countries and produces nothing of value both economically or politically.

You then have the United Kingdom and France. Both countries have significantly declined over the decades to the point that both are going to need IMF bailouts as both countries political class has run their respective countries in to the ground. France most likely should have never been a permanent member to begin with. Going back to 1940, they were already on the decline since the wars with the Prussian Empire but they weaseled their way in. There really should be a revaluation of who should be a permanent member but as they all have veto power, it will never happen.

Then you have the people that work at the UN. Most are avowed socialists and communists and guide the agenda where they believe unelected people such as themselves should be ruling the world and despise the fact the US drives that now. Of course, they love the money the US taxpayers provide but really do not like the idea of being audited. Back to the comrades that work at the UN, they try and drive the agenda with such lofty aspirations such as climate change where in the end they can redistribute wealth to poorer countries.

So how do so many people that work as the UN have the same philosophy? By making sure all people that are hired have the same background. Case in point, there was a conservative writer who submitted a phony resume making sure she put in everything that would make her look like an esteemed academic (which she lied about) that would almost be considered an environmental radical. The HR department at the UN did not do a background check as this person’s philosophy and views were all that they needed. But Framboise, this person’s name, was proven right as the UN looks for views which do not oppose theirs.

So, if there are these issues mentioned above, why does the West love the UN? Most of it is ideological driven as they see the UN a place where all countries are equal and can meet to discuss ideas for a better world. In addition, the comrades at the UN see it as an entity which can counter the US. But as I mentioned before, it is the group of countries that make up most of the world that have no concept of democracy, that really understand what the UN is: an organization that talks a lot but in the end will do nothing so they venture on with their own personal agenda.

With its eight years in existence, has the UN had any success? I am sure there are some minor conflicts that have been averted but for the most part the UN has been involved with some catastrophic disasters. The two biggest ones in the last 40 years or so had to do with Rwanda and Srebrenica (former Yugoslavia). In both cases, the UN had dispatched peacekeepers to the areas to dissuade hostilities but when it came to actually defending, the UN packed their bags and left. In Rwanda, the UN withdrew which led to the massacres there. In Srebrenica it might have been even worse as the peacekeepers did not leave but at the same time did not stop the killings as the UN did not have the backbone to fight. Again, it is the thugs of the world that understand what the UN is about in the end.

So the UN is not good at protecting countries they must be good at other things correct? Wrong! The UN has sent known pedophiles to help with missions in Africa which became known in the end as the food for sex program. Then you have UNRWA which helps with refugee camps across the world with a big presence in Gaza. With the attacks against Israel on Oct 7th, and the investigation a little later, it was found out that most of UNRWA in Gaza were either Hamas sympathizers or helped with the indoctrination of the people to hate Israel. Some of these UN employees even helped in the attack or provided help on keeping the Israeli hostages from being discovered.

What about food programs? Well I am sure there are some success stories here but there are bad ones as well. None more notorious than the famous oil for food scam. The idea was that oil from Iraq would be traded to feed people that were effected by the war. Sounds noble but in the end it proved to the world how much the UN was corrupt. Kofi Annan’s son was the head of this program who made a fortune from it by selling food which was barely edible. He basically defended himself saying that the food didn’t kill anyone so there was nothing bad that he did. In a normal western organization, the thought of a Political leader’s family member would lead something with no experience again confirms that the UN belief good intentions trump what it actually does.

To further show the hostility of employees at the UN you don’t need to look much further than President Trump’s blistering speech to the general assembly. Before his speech, the escalator was sabotaged so it stopped as soon as him and the First Lady got in it. A story in the an English paper confirmed that employees talked about doing this to protest the US President. Then his teleprompter went out so Trump punished everyone by not only destroying the credibility of the UN but lengthening his speech from 15 minutes to 55 minutes. There was also speculation that the volume was turned down so not everyone could hear him.

The UN has shown it is not good at peacekeeping, spreading democracy, providing assistance, handling different views or managing its economic affairs. So what is it good for? It seems like the only time the United Nations seems to show any resolve is when it is opposing the US or Israel. For Israel, they have more resolutions against them over the past 20 years or so than most of the rest of the world combined. The US pays the largest portion of the budget to the UN and gets nothing out of it but derision and complaints that we do not give enough. When the UN was promoting the mass starvation scare in Gaza in the summer, it was not that people did not have food, they did, it is just the money was not flowing through the UN. At least the Trump administration knew to go around the middleman for this.

So in the end, good riddance, tell the UN it was nice having you but it is time to go. Maybe they can find a nice building in one of their communist paradises but once they leave, raze the building, perform an exorcism on the site and build something useful on it: Maybe a parking lot with Trump’s name on it.