United Nations Organization - China NOT A VALID MEMBER - Why - {HRI 20060429-V3.4.1-q1}
Koos Nolst Trenite
29 April 2006
{HRI 20060429-V3.4.1-q1}*
(Version 3.4.1
on 19 Feb 2008)
(suitable for foreign
language students)
(view Summary
by skipping
indentation)
'
The United Nations Organization is - and can only work, of course,
as - a Democratic organization.
'
Democracy basically means, {definition}
seeing what people - all people, from local to global - need,
and, what they need of course as a main thing, is, to be asked
what life they want to live together, what they want to do
together;
so it is asking, what people like to spend their efforts and
money on, and how, and making it possible for them to do so,
again, it means, ALL people,
with solely the exception of severely Criminal Minds, who
are cared for and not of course as they wish, but they can
be asked how they wish to be restrained, and of course
they have no right whatsoever, to vote or otherwise to
determine the activities of others.
{definition of Democracy}
'
Very PLAINLY said:
People want to be protected from and safeguarded against
dictatorship.
'
'
THAT is the primary task of the United Nations Organization:
To protect people of ALL countries, against dictatorship, so
that people living in one country, can live in peace with
people in other countries,
and can travel and trade and work together and enjoy life
together,
and it is the primary task of the United Nations Organization,
to make sure, that people inside any country are thus protected
from dictatorship.
'
'
'
China currently is a dictatorship dedicated to destroying Democracy -
and China actively supports dictatorship - both internally and
globally,
it (the Chinese "government") openly DESTROYS Democracy both
internally and globally.
'
'
Now, this has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with any
temporary rise in the average temperature in
certain areas of Earth,
and, it has NOTHING TO DO WHATSOEVER, with the
supply of drinking water or agricultural water,
and further, this has NOTHING EITHER to do with
any "shortage" of fuel or generated electricity:
'
People will naturally and of course, take care
of all of those problems,
IF THEY ARE IN SECURE, FREE COUNTRIES,
GLOBALLY, which means,
WITHOUT DICTATORSHIP.
'
And Castro and Chavez and Putin
etc.
(not even mentioning our
North Korean psychopath,
they all)
can pretend a million times, that
it is "not dictatorship," what
they do or what they want,
but it still is,
and even when it officially
is called "democratic," as
most dictatorships are being
labeled, by their very
dictators.
'
And Cisco and Microsoft and Google
and Yahoo etc., etc., can claim a
million times,
that "they follow the local law,
like anywhere else,"
but still they do not do so,
and they know it too,
because LAW IS THE OPPOSITE OF
dictatorship,
as they also know very well,
but they call dictatorship
"local laws,"
as indeed the local
dictators demand, that
they call it so,
and suddenly, committing
Criminal acts on the
population, is not anymore
a very serious Crime, but is
their being
"law-abiding," "complying
with the law;"
while in fact it is
LAW-DESTROYING,
and in fact it is complying
with dictatorship, IN ORDER
TO DESTROY LAWFUL, VITAL
ACTIVITY, and
TO PREVENT LEGAL ACTIONS
against Crimes,
and to PREVENT the
protection of the
population against
Criminals and Criminal
acts.
Now you again...
'
'
'
To agree - as they did between a dictatorship (Hu Jintao) and
a democracy (George 'Washington' Bush) -
to have, as a Secretary General of the United Nations,
a malleable, waxen puppet who speaks many languages and
with many tongues,
is not a wise thing to agree on, already in itself, of
course.
'
It gives rise to the following, English pun:
'To Ban Ki Moon Or Not To Ban Ki Moon.'
Without the pun:
Ban Ki Moon is not in any respect suitable for
being a United Nations Organization Secretary
General, not at all.
Nor is, amongst the many
translators employed by the
European Union, the most
pliable translator chosen
to preside over its (the European
Union) Commission,
managing and leading 'the
European Government,' if you
like,
'just because he talks so smoothly'
and 'he agrees with everyone,'
showing full agreement with
anyone in one-on-one talks,
that is, of course.
'
'
China is a dictatorship dedicated to destroying Democracy
- and China actively supports dictatorship - both
internally and globally,
it (the Chinese "government") openly DESTROYS
Democracy both internally and globally,
BUT our pliant Secretary General, would not have anybody
see it (like that),
"because Hu Jintao would not like to be seen as what
he is, nor would Jiang Zemin, nor Mao Zedong,"
and Deng Xiaoping "should not be called on
his fatal mistakes,"
nor would the heads of state of Sudan or Zimbabwe or of
Myanmar want to be seen (as they actually are); etc..
'
However, truth is NOT defined - outside of China's
governmental 'bubble' of Illusion and Malice - by
"whatever Hu Jintao says 'is true' or likes to be
seen 'as true'."
Truth IS defined, as the faithful reader is
well aware, of
'that what happened, and who caused it and
with what intention,'
something that anyone knows to be the
actual definition of truth,
before "eating from the tree of
lies" planted by Criminal Minds.
'
'
'
Again: China IS a dictatorship dedicated to destroying Democracy,
and China actively supports dictatorship - both internally and
globally - and also this means, that
the Chinese "government" openly DESTROYS Democracy - both
in China, and globally.
Vladimir Putin does the same, only not OPENLY yet,
he does not actually confess to being an extremely
Insane individual,
(except to those who look anyway at him and
through his mask, he has no choice BUT to
confess to his actual nature,
and an occasional photographer catches him
at a moment he can not hold his mask)
and he, Vladimir Putin, HATES nothing more than
(Putin has a searing contempt for)
those journalists that are so easily and so totally
hypnotized by the Energies he, Putin, uses on them,
so that these are wildly applauding him, on
his latest (20080214) press conference, once
again, and so that these write - as if their
very job depends on writing it -
"how hugely popular Putin is,"
they - being the journalists, that they
are 'asked' to be - are not mentioning,
that the popularity of a not dissimilar
personality,
"the one who returned Germany to
being a respected and prosperous
country and a world power to be
reckoned with, within a span of
seven years,"
after World War One,
was much more 'hugely popular' within
his own country, than Vladimir Putin.
We must also not forget, that
his current friend Kim Jong Il
of North Korea, has an approval
rate, of North Korea's population,
even exceeding the - 99 percent by
popular vote - approval rate of
the Iraqi cruelty to Mankind,
called the late Saddam Hussein.
'
Back to current China: China IS a dictatorship
dedicated to destroying Democracy,
and China actively supports dictatorship - both
internally and globally - and this also means, that
the Chinese "government" openly DESTROYS Democracy
- both in China, and globally.
'
'
Therefore China's membership in the United Nations Organization is not
valid, can not be valid, and has never had any validity.
It is self-understood on top of that, that any active membership
of China in the United Nation's Security Council,
or in ANY Security Council, for that matter,
is completely incompatible with China's "government:"
'
'
'
DICTATORSHIPS HAVE NO VOTE AT ALL, ANYWHERE, because
voting is done by free people for free people,
and that, to the exclusion of dictators or Criminal Minds.
ALL dictators ARE Criminal Minds,
ALL Criminal Minds are dictators by nature, even if they
are for some time groveling to the wishes of another
dictator.
'
'
It is, by the way, NOT difficult to understand, why vehemently
dictatorial "Islamic" countries or groups, like Iran, like
Al Qaeda and the Taliban and Hezbollah and Hamas, DO NOT attack
the most violently anti-Islamic state, the 'government' and
communist culture of China...
...China - the Chinese 'government,' Mao Zedong, Jiang Zemin
and Hu Jintao in particular - most atrociously and cruelly, do
support ALL dictatorships,
and being communistic in flavor - rather than being
fascistic in their tastes - they prefer to do so
secretively, behind a facade of "socialism" "for the
people", for "stability" and "harmony,"
and they pay the press to 'paint' that facade for the
public, for you and me.
'
'
Criminal Minds have everything in reverse:
"Freedom" "is only possible when everybody is fully controlled,"
which is of course "true" for the Criminal Mind - ONLY when
everybody is under control, only THEN can a Criminal Mind be
free to exert his or her JOY of being Criminal to people,
and revel in destroying life, making the life of others ugly,
dominated, etc..
'
'
'
Koos Nolst Trenite "Cause Trinity"
human rights philosopher and poet
'Men of all nations came
to listen to Solomon's wisdom,
sent by all the kings of the world,
who had heard of his wisdom.'
1 Kings 4:34
________
Footnote:
(*) Quoted from
'China NOT A VALID MEMBER of the United Nations Organization (UN,
UNO, ONU)'
{HRI 20060429-V3.4.1} - it quotes from {HRI 20060427-V1.1}
(29 April 2006 - Version 3.4.1 on 19 Feb 2008)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.military/msg/77bd6502b44bbcd7
'
__________
References:
'Criminal Minds KNOW VERY WELL, Who Tells The Truth'
{HRI 20060427-V1.1} - adds to {HRI 20050527-V3.5}
(27 April 2006 - Version 1.1 on 29 April 2006)
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.russian/msg/260cd92f1c2777da
'Rights of Criminal Minds' {HRI 20040108-V1.0.1}
(8 January 2004 - Version 1.0.1 on 12 Nov 2005)
http://groups.google.com/group/human-rights-issues/msg/2d74f7c389973d14
'
____________
Verification:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/platoworld
Copyright 2006-2008 by Koos Nolst Trenite - human rights philosopher
and poet
This is 'learnware' - it may not be altered, and it is free for
anyone who learns from it and (even if he can not learn from it)
who passes it on unaltered, and with this message included,
to others who might be able to learn from it.
None of my writings may be used, ever, to support any political
or religious or scientific agenda, but only to educate, and to
encourage people to judge un-dominated and for themselves,
about any organizations or individuals.
Send free-of-Envy and free-of-Hate, Beautiful e-mails to:
PlatoWorld at Lycos.com
sizy_one
> '
>
> __________
> References:
>
> 'Criminal Minds KNOW VERY WELL, Who Tells The Truth'
> {HRI 20060427-V1.1} - adds to {HRI 20050527-V3.5}
>
> 'Rights of Criminal Minds' {HRI 20040108-V1.0.1}
> '
>
> ____________
> Verification:
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/space/platoworld
>
> Copyright 2006-2008 by Koos Nolst Trenite - human rights philosopher
> and poet
> This is 'learnware' - it may not be altered, and it is free for
> anyone who learns from it and (even if he can not learn from it)
> who passes it on unaltered, and with this message included,
> to others who might be able to learn from it.
> None of my writings may be used, ever, to support any political
> or religious or scientific agenda, but only to educate, and to
> encourage people to judge un-dominated and for themselves,
> about any organizations or individuals.
> Send free-of-Envy and free-of-Hate, Beautiful e-mails to:
> PlatoWorld at Lycos.com
Unfortunately the United Nations is not the correct forum for
democracy while it incorporates the veto.
Mike_B
<7fbd0de9-1c1c-4230...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
sizy_one <sim...@bulldoghome.com> writes
>Unfortunately the United Nations is not the correct forum for democracy
>while it incorporates the veto.
Even without the veto it wouldn't be a forum for democracy, it would
just be a forum for politics.
--
Mike_B
sizy_one
> In message
> <7fbd0de9-1c1c-4230-8deb-1a18345a3...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Attempts are always being made to separate democracy from politics but
I took heart in your diminutive with the use of "just" as it shows
how inseparable they should be.
Mike_B
<35daf331-781d-426c...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
sizy_one <sim...@bulldoghome.com> writes
I can't see how an organisation whose members aren't elected and many of
whom represent countries that are a long way from any real form of
democracy can ever be described as a forum for democracy, with or
without the veto. Perhaps politics and democracy should be inseparably
connected, but they surely aren't.
--
Mike_B
sizy_one
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes of course there is little if any true democracy as the word
assumes an equality. Capitalism and Machiavellian politics have no
room for such niceties but nevertheless find it expedient as it is
more palatable to the people. The veto corrupted the United Nations
even before it got off the ground. There may even be an argument that
states it would never have got off the ground if it were not for the
veto. However it did and we have a non democratic organisation that
masquerades as an achievement to world peace. What it really does of
course is take war into the boardroom and debating chamber. It is
probably impossible to assess whether that is preferable to open
warfare, as we have no way of totalling up the number of deaths caused
by the stroke of a pen. My guess is that it has been more devastating
to the world population than the former, purely as the effects of the
latter can be accurately monitored. The UN prides itself on
interventions but these can be timely and selective according to the
benefits of member countries.
Anyway we have the organisation now and it is up to us to see if
enough pressure can be applied to make it acceptable to our needs.
Doing away with the veto at least takes away the big gun and creates a
more level playing field. It isn't nearly enough but it's a start.
sizy_one
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:08:27 GMT, Mike_B <use...@localhosts.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In message
> ><7fbd0de9-1c1c-4230-8deb-1a18345a3...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >sizy_one <sim...@bulldoghome.com> writes
>
> >>Unfortunately the United Nations is not the correct forum for democracy
> >>while it incorporates the veto.
>
> >Even without the veto it wouldn't be a forum for democracy, it would
> >just be a forum for politics.
>
> the lion's share of its membership is composed of countries that are
> not democracies now, nor have they ever been. Even the so called
> security council has the largest dictatorship the world has ever known
> as a member.
The answer is to exclude dictatorships as well as the vito.
Mike_B
<lobb...@goaway.com> writes
>
How about those countries that claim to be democracies but aren't? You
know, the ones that go ahead with rigged elections every few years.
Exclude them too? Then we would need to set a method by which we can
measure the level of democracy which would allow them access to the UN.
How would the UN then engage those who it had ejected as members?
I think the answer is to recognise that the UN is not and never has been
intended to be a forum for democracy, nor would it operate any better if
it only had democracies as members. Its charter tells us that it is an
organisation whose aims are to ensure peace and security in the world
between all member nations, not just democratic ones.
Mind you, one of the main principles of the UN is that;
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state"
So I guess they should also throw a few democracies out as well, such as
the USA.
--
Mike_B
sizy_one
> In message <sfr7u3pcciuolrf2rjjbt0tft3ojsob...@4ax.com>, E. Barry Bruyea
> <lobbyi...@goaway.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 03:48:34 -0700 (PDT), sizy_one
> ><sim...@bulldoghome.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Mar 21, 10:23 am, E. Barry Bruyea <lobbyi...@goaway.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:08:27 GMT, Mike_B <use...@localhosts.net>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>> >In message
> >>> ><7fbd0de9-1c1c-4230-8deb-1a18345a3...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >>> >sizy_one <sim...@bulldoghome.com> writes
>
> >>> >>Unfortunately the United Nations is not the correct forum for democracy
> >>> >>while it incorporates the veto.
>
> >>> >Even without the veto it wouldn't be a forum for democracy, it would
> >>> >just be a forum for politics.
>
> >>> The United Nations could never be a forum for democracy, given that
> >>> the lion's share of its membership is composed of countries that are
> >>> not democracies now, nor have they ever been. Even the so called
> >>> security council has the largest dictatorship the world has ever known
> >>> as a member.
>
>
> >Works for me.
>
> How about those countries that claim to be democracies but aren't? You
> know, the ones that go ahead with rigged elections every few years.
> Exclude them too? Then we would need to set a method by which we can
> measure the level of democracy which would allow them access to the UN.
> How would the UN then engage those who it had ejected as members?
>
> I think the answer is to recognise that the UN is not and never has been
> intended to be a forum for democracy,
The UN incorporates a consensus vote between it's members which means
it has a fundamental democratic structure and has an obligation to
uphold democratic principals. Any organisation or country which
knowingly does not uphold these principles, such as the european
union, should be treated as a tyranny. The UN is no more a forum for
democracy than any other, after all just because a country or
organisation uses the word does not make them so in the eyes of the
rest of the world unless they are seen to adhere to the highest of
principles. In that sense one can say every democracy is it's own
forum for just principals and its obligation must be in part its
recognition of other just bodies.
> nor would it operate any better if
> it only had democracies as members.
Not true. The more its members truly represent the wishes of their
nations the more credible the UN becomes in the eyes of the world.
World public opinion is its strongest weapon.
> Its charter tells us that it is an
> organisation whose aims are to ensure peace and security in the world
> between all member nations, not just democratic ones.
As I've said, the only way it can make headway is through public
opinion, as you've pointed out below it has a non intervening charter.
>
> Mind you, one of the main principles of the UN is that;
>
> "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the
> threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
> independence of any state"
>
> So I guess they should also throw a few democracies out as well, such as
> the USA.
I would go further and say that all countries that insist on a veto
should be excluded.
Day Brown
>> So I guess they should also throw a few democracies out as well, such as
>> the USA.
>
> I would go further and say that all countries that insist on a veto
> should be excluded.
That mite work in a more perfect world than this one. The failure of the
UN to find a consensus on the use of force in a timely manner has left
the way open for the US to employ its military in the support of
transnational interests.
If the reps to the UN were elected, then it mite be a democratic
institution rather than an oligarchy.