4
   

Anti UN propaganda

 
 
Cyracuz
 
Reply Tue 9 Nov, 2010 04:26 am
I found this video, and the only way I can understand it is as a propaganda video against the UN made by american, capitalistic interests.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8683417149337063720&hl=no&emb=1#

Are we supposed to accept bs like this?

They say stuff that "pantheism is the religion of the UN"... absolute bullshit, but probably very effective to enrage the christian population of the US, though.

They talk about "very militant anti abortion groups"... more bullshit, but also, probably very effective to enrage the christian population of the US.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 4 • Views: 1,708 • Replies: 15
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Nov, 2010 04:45 am
Your focus is a little too much on christian groups in the United States. The appeal to christian conservatives is a rather recent phenomenon in the United States, whereas hatred of the UN goes back, literally, to its foundation. Making claims which would alarm christian conservatives is just a ploy to whip up more opposition to the United Nations.

Hatred of the UN in the United States goes back as far as i can remember, to the mid-1950s when i began to be aware of such things. To many on the lunatic fringe, the United Nations represents an appeal to an authority above and beyond national sovereignty. It may well be that capitalists support it, especially now that they've gotten into the business of business in many countries in which they can operate without being responsible corporate citizens. But hatred of the UN is older and deeper than that. Before American entry in the Second World War, the prevailing mood in the United States as isolationist. Americans wanted to turn their backs on the world. They didn't want their sons to die in yet another futile European war, and they frannkly didn't care what happened to the rest of the world, they had trouble enough of their own. The Japanese attack on Hawaii changed all of that, and the United States entered the Second World War both in the Pacific and in Europe.

For those who were once isolationist, the formation of the United Nations during the Second World War was a threat to keep the United States engaged in world affairs even after the war was over. They didn't like it, and, frankly, the UN shoots itself in the foot often enough to keep the hysteria fueled.
djjd62
 
  0  
Reply Tue 9 Nov, 2010 05:10 am
Anti UN propaganda

i'm all for it
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Nov, 2010 07:31 am
@Setanta,
Ok, so there are negative feelings towards the UN. That's fair enough. But the makers of this video clearly do not care about the realities.

They are trying to convince people that the UN is the next thing to the devil. This video reminds me of the communist and nazi propaganda videos that were dirstibuted before WW2.
I do not know what the impression is inside the US, but almost everywhere else the realization that the US is fast becoming a totalitarian regime is spreading fast.
Propaganda videos have never been the preferred medium of those who work for freedom and security for all. It has been the medium of those who seek to misguide and lead people into servitude for their own personal gains.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Nov, 2010 07:36 am
@Cyracuz,
Propaganda is promulgated in all nations, not just the United States. There are nut cases everywhere. The United States is not a totalitarian regime, nor even anything close to it. That other nations fear the United States is indisputable, and with good reason. That is not, however, a reason to go off the deep end and call it a totalitarian state. If it were there would not be the uproar and the tenstion between conservatives and those who are called liberals in the United States.

You can make your point without smearing the United States.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Nov, 2010 07:50 am
@Setanta,
You are right. It's not just the United States. It's not really any nation, but a relatively small elite of people who own everything.
Money is the only real power, and those who own our resources within the capitalistic system control the US the UN and any other organization. And they resort to tactics like such videos to convince people that what can free them from their clutches is actually bad for them and has to be fought.


Here is what you might call propaganda the other way around. I would love to get your feedback on this video, but it is over 2 hours long, so I can understand if you don't want to watch all of it.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912#
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Nov, 2010 07:52 am
@Cyracuz,
I don't know if i will be able to watch it, but i certainly can't do so now. It's almost 9:00 a.m. here, and i am leaving with a friend at 10:30. I may watch it later, but i don't like to make promises i can't keep.
CarbonSystem
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Nov, 2010 08:05 am
Haven't had a chance to watch either video, but my take on the UN is that it's a whole lot of talk that doesn't do much of anything.
Firmly suggesting certain actions or policies to another nation doesn't accomplish anything.
On top of that, the nations who are part of the UN are the same ones who are always wrapped up in the ugliest of the ugly.
Example: the five permanent member states of the security council are: china, france, russia, uk, us.

The real problem is that the UN just can't enforce anything the way they would need to for it to work. And that's assuming those making the decisions in the UN actually called for good policies and actions. Otherwise were looking at the whole 'world police' scenario. I personally wouldn't trust five of the richest nations in the world to have a heavy hand on the security council. They're the wealthiest for a reason, and the poor nations are the poorest for a reason.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Nov, 2010 08:09 am
By the way, i agree that international capitalism is the source of most of the world's woes. Capitalists "export" jobs from the industrialized nations in order to avoid fair labor practices standards, environmental responsibility, and bans on piece work and child labor. Governments abet this, either intentionally and cynically, or stupidly from their dedication to foolish ideologies.

I was very angry with the elder George Bush after the slaughter in Tienaman Square, because he did nothing. That was before China had become the economic powerhouse that it now is, and Bush had an opportunity to make a real impact on them with sanctions. Instead, he did nothing. I was even more disgusted with Slick Willy Clinton for sucking up to the Chinese just so he could get campaign money from them. The younger Bush finally flushed the realtionship down the toilet when he borrowed trillions from them to finance his dirty little war in Iraq, and his tax cut give-aways to the rich. So long as political leaders act either venally or stupidly in such a manner, the world will continue to be a hell hole for far too many people.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Nov, 2010 08:13 am
@Setanta,
That's ok Set.
Watch it if it strikes yer fancy.
The video is about the capitalistic system as it is today, and how it serves to enslave most of us and truly benefits only a small elite of weathy people.

A problem with this video is that I know that other videos made by the same people have not always remained true to facts. But if it gives a correct assessment of the fractional reserve banking system that alone is distrubing.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Nov, 2010 08:14 am
my solution, the UN should not be in New York, it should be on an island somewhere, completely autonomous from any nation, a very nice compound should be built there for the leaders to meet, and on the opening day, it would be nice if every world leader were to attend, and midway through the opening ceremony, the island should be nuked and sunk into the sea

it might not solve all the worlds problems, but damn it would look great on TV
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Nov, 2010 08:19 am
@CarbonSystem,
France and the United Kingdom are on the security council because the United Nations was originally organized to fight the Second World War. Neither nation is in the top five of the wealthiest nations on earth, and neither one is any longer a significant military power. Originally, Nationalist China was an American ally in the war against Japan, so they were included as a member of the security council. After moving to Formosa/Taiwan, they remained on the security council due to American and Russian hostility to Mao's China. Eventually, though, the PRC was given Taiwan's seat on the security council. Russia is there, of course, because of the fact that the Soviet Union had been one of the anti-Hitler allies.

I'd agree that the UN is mostly just a talking shop. However, i find your analysis somewhat simplistic.
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Nov, 2010 10:57 am
@djjd62,
How about doing the same thing to D.C.
0 Replies
 
CarbonSystem
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 08:24 am
@Setanta,
I find you to be missing the point, all of the reasons you pointed out may be true, but now in today's day and age and political climate, they are irrelevant. And the UK is very powerful. You know it, I know it, we all know it.

So yeah, we know why these nations were put on the security council in the first place, but by now those reasons are long gone in the past.

Simple enough for you?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Nov, 2010 08:56 am
@CarbonSystem,
Yeah, you're simple enough. (If you are going to make snide remarks to me, you can expect to get snide remarks in return.)

The UK certainly possesses a poweful economy, but that by no means makes them one of the top five wealthiest nations on earth. According to this site, with per capita share of the gross domestic product in 2007 U.S. dollars as the base line, the United Kingdom is not even in the top ten. You seem to have forgotten the Gulf oil states entirely.

I haven't disputed that the reasons for France and England to be on the security council are now irrelevant. More importantly, national wealth wouldn't qualify them either. I was simply pointing out why they were there--many people who read here were born twenty-five years or more after the Second World War ended, and wouldn't even ncessarily know the origin of the United Nations, let alone security council membership.

Neither Russia nor China qualify on the basis simply of wealth, and it is doubtful today that Russia would qualify on the basis of military might, were it not for their decaying nuclear arsenal. China is not as great a military power as mere numbers would suggest, and lacking a large, modern navy they are no threat to anyone other than their immediate neighbors, unless they were mad enough to trigger a thermonuclear exchange.

But China does qualify on the basis of their economic power, for all that most of the Chinese don't benefit commensurately. Whether Russia should be there in the future is, i think, a subject of some doubt, but one which is not likely to be entertained any time soon. If they were actually to reform their government and economy, they have the population and resources to command that spot at the table.

None of these things is true of the United Kingdom or France. I don't know anything at all such as you allege, you just think you know it, and "we" don't all know any such thing. For all that it may gall the children of a decayed empire, England's glory days are long dead and buried.
CarbonSystem
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 11:22 am
@Setanta,
Notice the top five nuclear powers in our world are the exact five countries on the security council.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons#Statistics )
Looks to me like it will be very easy to bully around non-nuclear countries when push comes to shove.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Anti UN propaganda
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/04/2020 at 11:18:45