UN Goals Unveiled: Peaceful Societies–Recovering from Conflict and Nurturing Peace
Do people notice hypocrisy any more? When, for instance, millionaire Bernie Sanders trots around the world in his private jet pimping Socialism and chastising the rest of us for causing climate change… does anyone bat an eye? Ditto for Al Gore and many others. What's missing is critical thinking, a skill no longer taught in government indoctrination centers. What they do teach under that name is a form of "social justice" thinking and "values clarification" that is nothing more than humanistic brainwashing. In today's article we will learn about peace, love, and respect from the UN. What could go wrong? “"Peace is necessary for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and is a specific goal in itself. This session will focus on the interface between peace, justice and strong institutions (SDG 16) and Safe, Resilient, Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG 11).The last decade has been marked by increasing skepticism regarding the viability and effectiveness of multilateral approaches to peacebuilding. The Peaceful Societies Thematic Session will discuss how civil society organizations are integrating objective measures to achieve an inclusive and sustainable culture of peaceful coexistence in their local activities while respecting the integrity of nation states’ sovereign rights. Attend this thematic session if you are interested in: Human rights, Gender-based violence, Human trafficking, Family valued [sic], community building and inter-cultural understanding through arts and sports, Refugees and migrants, Arms flows, Access to information, Corruption"” Buzz Buzz Buzz Once again, we must separate fact from fiction, and rhetoric from reality. In this Thematic Session description, as in all the others, fine language and emotional buzzwords are used to appeal to the non-critical thinker. But that's not us. Let's take this thing apart, shall we? Let's start with the overall goal. The UN claims to be able to do something that has never been done in the history of the earth: bring peace to the world. On a similar note, here in Idaho we have signs all along the highway, with a picture of a seatbelt, proclaiming the slogan "Towards Zero Deaths." When I first saw these, I mentioned to my wife that "zero deaths" sounds like such a noble goal, but it is completely impossible without taking away our freedoms, because there is no freedom without risk! Likewise, there can never be absolute peace in the world without brainwashing a la 1984, and/or an absolute dictatorship that has removed all freedoms. This is the "peace" promised by Communism. Real world examples include China, North Korea, the Soviet Union, Vietnam, and Cuba. You murder everyone who could theoretically pose a threat, and then keep everyone else under your boot. Hooray for peace! The Definition Of A Nation In this description, they also complain about "increasing skepticism regarding the viability and effectiveness of multilateral approaches to peacebuilding." Multilateral, according to my dictionary, is defined as something "agreed upon or participated in by three or more parties, especially the governments of different countries". To understand why this is a concern, we must understand what a country is. At its most basic, we could use the definition espoused by radio host Michael Savage, who says that a country is defined by its "borders, language, and culture." This makes sense because at some point in time a group of people claimed an area of land, ie, established borders, in order to have a distinct culture. Over time their language became distinct, as well. And so you have a country. "We will no longer be governed by you," they said to their country of origin. "We will govern ourselves, instead!" This makes sense, as well, because a group only has the right to govern themselves, not anyone else. Each country has distinct borders, language, and culture, so their laws makes sense to them, but people in other areas may not understand why things are the way they are. They want to have things a different way. That's fine. Everyone should have the right to choose their own laws and leaders. Of course, many countries have NOT chosen their laws or leaders, but have instead had these things forced upon them, and this includes most of the countries in the United Nations. The same ones that want to "multilaterally" approach "peacebuilding." Now do you see the problem? If everyone minded their own business, we would all be much happier. “"Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the President of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to “uplift” their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their peoples or even to defend them against their enemies. This point was made clear by the wise father of our country, George Washington: "I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one had a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under them selves; and that if this country could, consistent with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration."" –Excerpt from United States Foreign Policy, by Ezra Taft Benson” I'm looking at you, America! A TSA/CPS Agent's Dream Job Of course, the United Nations also meddles everywhere, and that's just one point of irony. The other is that this Thematic Session is supposedly devoted to "Recovering from Conflict and Nurturing Peace" while the UN is anything but neutral when there is a conflict, and they bring anything but peace to the areas they infest! Taking another page out of 1984, the UN troops are referred to as "peacekeepers." But did you know that there is horrendous and widespread sexual abuse of women and children whenever they bring their "peace" into town? Here is an article from 2006 on the UN's own website, one from 2016 specifically mentioning "child rape" and discussing the 99 "allegations" from the year before (2015), and one from 2017 that points out that the "145 cases of [reported] sexual exploitation and abuse involving peacekeepers in 2016" came from "across all UN staff, not just peacekeepers." Well, that's comforting. This article, also from 2017, discusses many specific incidents, including "When at least 134 Sri Lankan peacekeepers were implicated in a child sex ring." This 2018 article informs us that "Few UN personnel have faced jail (the current number stands at 30), with even fewer being fined, demoted or removed from office." Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. This is apparently how the UN "nurtures peace" in areas that are "recovering from conflict." Did I mention that we are talking about THE RAPE OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN? Just wanted to throw that out there, as you ponder how seriously this is being taken by the UN. The articles linked to above are not exclusive, and this issue unfortunately did not begin in 2006. This Human Rights Watch article from 2016 is the first of these to mention that "Exploitation and abuse by UN peacekeepers and personnel has been reported since the 1990s." From the first 2017 article, above, we learn: “"The international body has also been accused of burying cases and failing to act promptly or transparently to incidents perpetrated by its troops."” Well, duh! It's the same problem with police in America, or the KGB in the Soviet Union! They see themselves as the top of the food chain! Who's going to stop them, other cops? Ha! Safeguarding Our Future We've all heard that "when the wicked rule the people mourn," (D&C 98:9, Prov. 29:2), but what should be of greater concern to us is the warning in the Book of Mormon that "ye cannot dethrone an iniquitous king save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood." (Mosiah 29:21) Who will you turn to when you are abused by a tyrannical world government? Where will you go? "The shedding of much blood," indeed. Oh, and in case you were wondering, "An AP investigation earlier this year found around 2,000 allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse have been registered between 2005-2017." So there's really no reason people should be concerned about UN involvement in their area, is there? Notice that this number does not include anything from the 1990's up to 2005, nor explain why. We'll leave that to your imagination. Usurpation Of Delegated Authority Because a nation's borders keep their people safe, they are one of the top concerns of that nation's government. In America, this is one of the few Constitutional powers of the federal government–to protect our shared borders. Why would a nation care about the security of another nation's borders? It has nothing to do with them, especially when "protecting borders" means sending your own men and women to die. Yet, "The United Nations Charter gives the United Nations Security Council the power and responsibility to take collective action to maintain international peace and security." (United Nations peacekeeping", Wikipedia) This is the sovereign right of a nation, remember? If the UN was not already a de facto world government, why would they be involved? And why would nations let them? Yes, our birthright has been sold, America, and unfortunately we aren't the only ones. By now you should have a pretty good idea of the utter absurdity and hypocrisy of the United Nations condescending to tell the world how it might "have peace" and "recover from conflicts." As the John Birch Society has long urged, it's time to "Get the UN out of the US and get the US out of the UN!" We have a Constitution so that we can govern ourselves. UPDATE (2019-08-21): Please listen to the Defending Utah episode above! Ben touches on many other reasons the UN is not an entity of peace!
UN Goals Unveiled: Peaceful Societies–Recovering from Conflict and Nurturing Peace
Do people notice hypocrisy any more? When, for instance, millionaire Bernie Sanders trots around the world in his private jet pimping Socialism and chastising the rest of us for causing climate change… does anyone bat an eye? Ditto for Al Gore and many others. What's missing is critical thinking, a skill no longer taught in government indoctrination centers. What they do teach under that name is a form of "social justice" thinking and "values clarification" that is nothing more than humanistic brainwashing. In today's article we will learn about peace, love, and respect from the UN. What could go wrong? “"Peace is necessary for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and is a specific goal in itself. This session will focus on the interface between peace, justice and strong institutions (SDG 16) and Safe, Resilient, Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG 11).The last decade has been marked by increasing skepticism regarding the viability and effectiveness of multilateral approaches to peacebuilding. The Peaceful Societies Thematic Session will discuss how civil society organizations are integrating objective measures to achieve an inclusive and sustainable culture of peaceful coexistence in their local activities while respecting the integrity of nation states’ sovereign rights. Attend this thematic session if you are interested in: Human rights, Gender-based violence, Human trafficking, Family valued [sic], community building and inter-cultural understanding through arts and sports, Refugees and migrants, Arms flows, Access to information, Corruption"” Buzz Buzz Buzz Once again, we must separate fact from fiction, and rhetoric from reality. In this Thematic Session description, as in all the others, fine language and emotional buzzwords are used to appeal to the non-critical thinker. But that's not us. Let's take this thing apart, shall we? Let's start with the overall goal. The UN claims to be able to do something that has never been done in the history of the earth: bring peace to the world. On a similar note, here in Idaho we have signs all along the highway, with a picture of a seatbelt, proclaiming the slogan "Towards Zero Deaths." When I first saw these, I mentioned to my wife that "zero deaths" sounds like such a noble goal, but it is completely impossible without taking away our freedoms, because there is no freedom without risk! Likewise, there can never be absolute peace in the world without brainwashing a la 1984, and/or an absolute dictatorship that has removed all freedoms. This is the "peace" promised by Communism. Real world examples include China, North Korea, the Soviet Union, Vietnam, and Cuba. You murder everyone who could theoretically pose a threat, and then keep everyone else under your boot. Hooray for peace! The Definition Of A Nation In this description, they also complain about "increasing skepticism regarding the viability and effectiveness of multilateral approaches to peacebuilding." Multilateral, according to my dictionary, is defined as something "agreed upon or participated in by three or more parties, especially the governments of different countries". To understand why this is a concern, we must understand what a country is. At its most basic, we could use the definition espoused by radio host Michael Savage, who says that a country is defined by its "borders, language, and culture." This makes sense because at some point in time a group of people claimed an area of land, ie, established borders, in order to have a distinct culture. Over time their language became distinct, as well. And so you have a country. "We will no longer be governed by you," they said to their country of origin. "We will govern ourselves, instead!" This makes sense, as well, because a group only has the right to govern themselves, not anyone else. Each country has distinct borders, language, and culture, so their laws makes sense to them, but people in other areas may not understand why things are the way they are. They want to have things a different way. That's fine. Everyone should have the right to choose their own laws and leaders. Of course, many countries have NOT chosen their laws or leaders, but have instead had these things forced upon them, and this includes most of the countries in the United Nations. The same ones that want to "multilaterally" approach "peacebuilding." Now do you see the problem? If everyone minded their own business, we would all be much happier. “"Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the President of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to “uplift” their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their peoples or even to defend them against their enemies. This point was made clear by the wise father of our country, George Washington: "I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation has a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that every one had a right to form and adopt whatever government they liked best to live under them selves; and that if this country could, consistent with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration."" –Excerpt from United States Foreign Policy, by Ezra Taft Benson” I'm looking at you, America! A TSA/CPS Agent's Dream Job Of course, the United Nations also meddles everywhere, and that's just one point of irony. The other is that this Thematic Session is supposedly devoted to "Recovering from Conflict and Nurturing Peace" while the UN is anything but neutral when there is a conflict, and they bring anything but peace to the areas they infest! Taking another page out of 1984, the UN troops are referred to as "peacekeepers." But did you know that there is horrendous and widespread sexual abuse of women and children whenever they bring their "peace" into town? Here is an article from 2006 on the UN's own website, one from 2016 specifically mentioning "child rape" and discussing the 99 "allegations" from the year before (2015), and one from 2017 that points out that the "145 cases of [reported] sexual exploitation and abuse involving peacekeepers in 2016" came from "across all UN staff, not just peacekeepers." Well, that's comforting. This article, also from 2017, discusses many specific incidents, including "When at least 134 Sri Lankan peacekeepers were implicated in a child sex ring." This 2018 article informs us that "Few UN personnel have faced jail (the current number stands at 30), with even fewer being fined, demoted or removed from office." Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. This is apparently how the UN "nurtures peace" in areas that are "recovering from conflict." Did I mention that we are talking about THE RAPE OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN? Just wanted to throw that out there, as you ponder how seriously this is being taken by the UN. The articles linked to above are not exclusive, and this issue unfortunately did not begin in 2006. This Human Rights Watch article from 2016 is the first of these to mention that "Exploitation and abuse by UN peacekeepers and personnel has been reported since the 1990s." From the first 2017 article, above, we learn: “"The international body has also been accused of burying cases and failing to act promptly or transparently to incidents perpetrated by its troops."” Well, duh! It's the same problem with police in America, or the KGB in the Soviet Union! They see themselves as the top of the food chain! Who's going to stop them, other cops? Ha! Safeguarding Our Future We've all heard that "when the wicked rule the people mourn," (D&C 98:9, Prov. 29:2), but what should be of greater concern to us is the warning in the Book of Mormon that "ye cannot dethrone an iniquitous king save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood." (Mosiah 29:21) Who will you turn to when you are abused by a tyrannical world government? Where will you go? "The shedding of much blood," indeed. Oh, and in case you were wondering, "An AP investigation earlier this year found around 2,000 allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse have been registered between 2005-2017." So there's really no reason people should be concerned about UN involvement in their area, is there? Notice that this number does not include anything from the 1990's up to 2005, nor explain why. We'll leave that to your imagination. Usurpation Of Delegated Authority Because a nation's borders keep their people safe, they are one of the top concerns of that nation's government. In America, this is one of the few Constitutional powers of the federal government–to protect our shared borders. Why would a nation care about the security of another nation's borders? It has nothing to do with them, especially when "protecting borders" means sending your own men and women to die. Yet, "The United Nations Charter gives the United Nations Security Council the power and responsibility to take collective action to maintain international peace and security." (United Nations peacekeeping", Wikipedia) This is the sovereign right of a nation, remember? If the UN was not already a de facto world government, why would they be involved? And why would nations let them? Yes, our birthright has been sold, America, and unfortunately we aren't the only ones. By now you should have a pretty good idea of the utter absurdity and hypocrisy of the United Nations condescending to tell the world how it might "have peace" and "recover from conflicts." As the John Birch Society has long urged, it's time to "Get the UN out of the US and get the US out of the UN!" We have a Constitution so that we can govern ourselves. UPDATE (2019-08-21): Please listen to the Defending Utah episode above! Ben touches on many other reasons the UN is not an entity of peace!
What's Wrong With Hate Crime Laws?
An Irish website recently posted a fantastic article, outlining why they oppose "hate crime" laws. We think they make excellent points, so we are re-publishing the article here, in its entirety: 10 reasons hate crime laws are terrifying nonsense Posted by John McGuirk | Nov 16, 2020 | Comment Ireland, Irish News On Friday, we reported on the contents of Fianna Fáil’s new Hate Crime Bill, which will be debated in the Seanad this week. Ahead of that debate, it is worth setting out for our readers why we at Gript believe hate crime laws are one of the worst ideas ever introduced by Irish politicians. Here are ten reasons why they should be opposed, at all cost: 1. They criminalise thought – unlike any other law Say what you want about hate speech laws, but they don’t criminalise thought. To fall foul of a hate speech law you have to actually say something and be heard say it. There must be actual evidence that you said the criminal thing. The same goes for pretty much every other crime. Not so with hate crime laws. The crime in a hate crime is not what you did, it is what you thought. To successfully prosecute a hate crime, you must prove that the person who committed the crime was motivated by hate. But only a particular kind of hate, because…. 2. Only some kinds of hate are illegal Imagine a situation where a husband finds out that his wife has been sleeping with another man. Imagine that the husband then seeks out that other man, and physically assaults him. What is the motive there? Is it jealousy? Or is it hate? It is perfectly possible that a spurned husband might be acting with malice, and out of hate. But under the law, that would not be a hate crime. It is only a hate crime if the victim is in a protected group. Paradoxically, if the husband beat up a racial minority and declared that he did so because he hated him for sleeping with his wife, that’s not a hate crime, even though the crime has been committed with hate in the attacker’s heart. It’s only a hate crime if your hate is directed at a specific group, not an individual. But on the other hand, if in the course of beating him up, he called him a racial slur, it would be a hate crime. Makes sense, right? 3. Hate is a feeling. What other feelings are criminal? Love. Hate. Jealousy. Anger. Lust. What do these have in common? They’re all feelings. Nearly every crime is motivated by feelings of some sort or other. Why are we only legislating to make one negative feeling criminal? If a corrupt politician is guilty of lining his pockets, why is that just “corruption” instead of, say, a “greed crime”? If a man is arrested for visiting prostitutes, why is that simply solicitation, instead of “lust crime?” Those concepts are absurd, of course. Nobody would ever introduce a “greed crime” law because the idea of criminalising feelings is nonsensical, even when they are negative feelings. So why are we trying to do it with hate? 4. No other crime is judged purely by motive Even in America, where they have first, second, and third degree murder, crimes are not ranked by motive. If you kill and dismember somebody because, like Hannibal Lecter, you’re a cannibal, then your cannibalism isn’t taken into account. You don’t get more time or less time than somebody who kills and dismembers a person because, say, they wanted to inherit the victim’s money. Greed or cannibalism – the motive doesn’t matter. Only what you did. The only time motive matters is if it is exculpatory – for example, the classic example of someone speeding to the hospital because there’s a woman in labour in the car. But there is no other crime where the motive itself is the crime. It is not a crime to want your parents to leave you all their money in their will. It’s only a crime if you forge their will before or after they die. In every other area of criminal law, the action, not the motive, is the crime. This has served us well for two thousand years. 5. They create protected classes of citizens Imagine two people, who have both had their legs broken with a sledgehammer. One is a little old lady who has been attacked by thugs who tortured her to get her to reveal the money she had under her mattress. The other is a gay man who’s been attacked by people who hate gay people. Both crimes are horrendous, but hate crime laws make it so that one of them has actually suffered a worse crime than the other. Is that true? Hate crime laws by definition elevate one group of victims above another, and make it so that one of those crimes carries an additional sentence. The little old lady, in this scenario, actually gets less justice because she’s not gay, or black, or a traveller, or whatever. Is that right? Of course, it’s not. 6. They require juries to breach the “reasonable doubt” standard Human beings are not mind readers. There is, simply, no scenario known to man where one person can be completely sure what another person was thinking at the time they committed a particular act. Hate crimes must be prosecuted purely on the basis of what somebody was thinking when they committed a particular crime. But a criminal conviction, in front of a jury, must meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof. In what situation can there be no reasonable doubt about what somebody was thinking when they committed a crime? The reason that court cases proceed on the basis of physical, forensic, and expert evidence is that those things can be established beyond reasonable doubt. We can say for certain that person X was in a particular location at a particular time. We can say that their DNA is certainly at the crime scene. We can say that the crime was committed at a certain time. We can prove that somebody said something. All of those things are provable. It is impossible to prove what somebody was thinking at a particular time. A jury that says that they have no reasonable doubt about someone’s thoughts or motives is a jury that is lying. 7. They pre-judge the accused, and there is basically no possible defence Dear reader: Tell me, now, what the evidence is that you, reading this, do not hate Chinese people. Imagine you are in court, accused of a hate crime. You stand accused of holding hateful views about Chinese people. The evidence presented is that you had posted on facebook three times in 2011 about animal welfare abuse in China, and once, five years ago, you had referred to Chinese athletes as “Chinks” in a whatsapp conversation about the Olympics. The prosecution says this is evidence that you have prejudice against Chinese people. How do you disprove that? You basically end up like Father Ted, in front of the jury, desperately trying to prove that you are not a racist. But how do you do it? Have a think about that one, while you consider point 8: 8. They do nothing to actually prevent hate crimes Here’s the thing about most crimes: The people who commit them do not particularly expect to get caught. Be honest with yourself, dear reader: How many times have you personally broken the speed limit? Did the limit deter you, or did you think “it’s 1.30am, nobody’s on the road, doing 130kph instead of 120kph is worth the risk”. And that’s only a minor crime. Very few people who commit serious crime expect to get caught. And as such, the criminal penalties aren’t actually a deterrent. Making drug use illegal has not resulted in drug use becoming extinct. Similarly, you can’t legislate and criminalise racism and bigotry out of existence. Besides, hate crimes are already illegal. If you attack and injure somebody, then that is already a crime. If those crimes are still happening, then that suggests that the law has little deterrent effect as it is. Adding another sticker on to it is not going to have any impact. 9. They turn minority groups into victim classes, regardless of actual status Hate crime laws actually reinforce societal divisions by formalising in law the idea that some groups of people are in a victim class, while others are in an oppressor class. This is not true in practice, and the concept of such a demarcation risks undermining social cohesion. Try explaining to a poor homeless white person why the state is creating special crimes to protect the wealthy gay couple who live in the apartment block in the door of which the homeless person seeks shelter. The idea that somebody is more of a victim in society purely because of their gender identity, sexual orientation, skin colour, or religion completely ignores the competing socio-economic circumstances of people living in a country. In time, this will breed more resentment than it does tolerance. 10. They create a horrible precedent If “hate” itself is a crime, then what’s the argument for limiting “hate crimes” to simply acts of violence? Already we see moves to criminalise speech, and journalism, and words because they are hateful, even though they are inherently non-violent. But why stop at words? In fact, why stop at actions at all? What if inaction is perceived to be motivated by hate? For example, what about a teacher or a college lecturer who refuses to wear a rainbow pin on their collar during LGBTI awareness week? Surely a reasonable person can infer from that some level of opposition to the LGBTI cause, no? Does it rise to hate? Who knows, but surely it’s worthy of investigation? What about somebody who laughs at a racist joke? Obviously the person who tells the racist joke is guilty, in this new regime, of hate speech. But what about the person who finds it funny, and laughs? Are they not likely to come under suspicion, too? It all comes back, in the end, to point one: Hate crime laws are thought crime laws. They make thinking certain things, in some circumstances, criminally prosecutable. Once we open that door, and say that yes, some thoughts are criminal, we will find it very hard to close again. Original: https://gript.ie/10-reasons-hate-crime-laws-are-terrifying-nonsense/ The prophet Isaiah warned us that Satan seeks to "make a man an offender for a word." (Isa. 29:21) This has always been so, and it is even so now.