|This publication is a First Amendment service of UNWatch.com, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the conspiratorialists who run it. Articles relating to threats to our nation's sovereignty, to our form of government, to our history, to our future, etc., are brought to your attention because we found something of value in each one of them. We certainly don't endorse every thought expressed in them.|
United Nations Colonialism:
Analysis by: Daniel New
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon spoke to the governors of the various states of Nigeria in mid-August, promising them money from your pockets — money the UN does not have, but can expect to extract from taxpayers of Western countries and redistribute to Africa and the rest of the Third World.
Knowing full well that the governors in Nigeria have no interest in implementing “Sustainable Development”, much less reforming their society to give women equality with men, Ban offered them money to whet their appetites for the opportunities of graft and corruption. Whatever money enters the funnel will never reach these women and children at the poverty level.
Some African governments have recently proven recalcitrant toward outside pressures for them to pass laws that were radical in the west only a few years ago, but are decades away from becoming popular in more primitive countries. Proposed new laws would recognize homosexual marriages and elevate women to power over men — ideas not yet acceptable in tribal cultures. Sec/Gen Ban could not care less. He wants their societies to be molded into the globalist image of oneness that fits the United Nations agenda.
Here’s a quote from the article at UN News:
“That leads to my fourth point — institutionalizing gender mainstreaming across all government ministries and bodies responsible for implementing agenda 2030, with effective means of implementation and capacities for monitoring progress.”
When you understand the code, you can translate what Ban is saying: “If you don’t implement these radical policies of ‘institutionalizing gender mainstreaming’ across all government ministries€¦ responsible for implementing Agenda 2030,” then we will take away your money. “Capice?”
And what is “gender mainstreaming”?2
“Gender mainstreaming” comes out of various UN world conferences over the past 30 years, beginning in 1985. It is defined in their own words this way:
Mainstreaming a gender perspective is the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies or programmes, in all areas and at all levels. It is a strategy for making women's as well as men's concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes in all political, economic and societal spheres so that women and men benefit equally and inequality is not perpetuated. The ultimate goal is to achieve gender equality.”
The goal here is to destroy the family unit, to completely rework the cultural milieus of what they regard as “primitive societies” and bring them up to “modern standards”. So far, that has merely resulted in chaos in Africa.
But it goes deeper. If you think for one minute that this is not an agenda now expanded to force a homosexuality to a level of popular acceptance, then you are naÃ¯ve in the extreme. Sodomy is still illegal in some countries, but the United Nations knows best, and their interpretation is superior to the poor, ignorant tribal people who are just wallowing in ignorance and poverty. Money can buy anything, apparently. The biggest change sodomy has brought to Africa is the pandemic of HIV/AIDS, the disease spread by promiscuous immorality.
Everyone at the table knows what is happening. If they will pretend to reform and implement standards totally incompatible with their local cultures, then they can all improve their own family’s standard of living, and everyone will be happy. All they have to do is pay a few nephews to sit in a little office with a typewriter (with no ribbon), and tell those who come in that they don’t qualify for help (unless they are related to the commissioner). I have been in these offices, and have seen how they operate.
That’s because the aid given to impoverished nations has little to do with helping people at the bottom. It has, instead, to do with (1) redistribution of the wealth of the West (see Karl Marx); (2) establishing power in Third World nations, buying their votes in the UN General Assembly with Western money. Once these programs begin, there is created a dependency upon them, and at the same time, those who receive the monies will dance whatever tune they are told to dance. They will vote for those in power, as long as their personal Swiss bank account is not neglected.
And what is Agenda 2030?3 Why, it’s something on which the ink is not yet dry — the “ambitious new Sustainable Development Agenda to end poverty by 2030 and universally promote shared economic prosperity, social development and environmental protection.” Yeah, right.
The difference between UN Colonialism and old-fashioned Colonialism is one of centralization. It used to be that empires competed for colonies. That unseemly conduct has been replaced with a monopoly. Monopolies are much more efficient, although they may be much less effective.
Lyndon B. Johnson initiated a so-called “War on Poverty” in 1965, and Poverty won. It has nothing to do with alleviating poverty — it has everything to do with the Marxist agenda of waging war on private property and redistribution of the wealth. As with the welfare industry of the USA, the United Nations takes the same concept and now is implementing it world wide — turning the entire world into a single plantation run by the ruling elite.
There is a strong case to be made that financial aid to Africa is the problem, not the solution. The last thing they need is government money with strings attached. Even if it did get to the bottom, it would merely destroy what little work ethic exists. But if the money were to be removed, then the power elites might well face the wrath of the People, who just might find the will to rise up and throw off their oppressors, and who knows, when it’s all over, they just might become free people. Imagine that — free to keep what they earn, free to work without fear of corruption, free to get ahead if they can.
It is interesting to read the left-wing literature over the past half century, condemning Christians who send money and clothes and books, etc., to Africa, voluntarily. The argument has always gone that the money has strings — people are expected to live morally pure lives if they take the money. (How unreasonable.) Foreign churches exert a lot of influence on the policies of local churches, and indirectly on government policies. And there is an element of truth to the charges. Given freedom (of thought, of speech, of property, etc.), the African people and their churches are perfectly capable of reading and interpreting the Bible, but it may well turn out to be a culturally independent expression of Christianity. International church agencies don’t want that to happen, so they attach strings. It’s almost impossible to get away from the truth that, “He who pays the piper, calls the tune.” And what’s true for the churches is also true for foreign aid. All money comes with strings.
The truth of the matter is that Christianity has already elevated women far above the traditional treatment they received before it came, and without subsidies from anywhere. When the people have private property and can actually keep what they earn, in short time they begin to produce more and more, and to profit, and to pull themselves up to a higher standard of living. When men quit drinking all day and all night, they begin to work their fields and develop a work ethic, resulting in children with more food, and a reduced infant mortality rate. Prosperity follows where the Gospel has taken root. Civil servants steal less. Women and children are treated better. Etc. This has been proven over and over in Latin America.
But religious influence is considered the enemy by the United Nations, which pushes an atheistic, or secular point of view, grudgingly extending tolerance toward some religions, Christianity not among them. They don’t have to say it, it’s obvious, “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” Out of chaos will come a new world order, but first we will have to break down the old structures, the old ways. That includes Family and Religion at the top of the list. And this is easiest done with money.
We lure individuals into deeper poverty and dependence with welfare. We lure nations into deeper poverty and dependence with grants and foreign aid. It’s all the same.