jueves, 8 de abril de 2010

¿A que se dedica la ONU?

Después de la retirada miserable de los conflctos y por tanto de su papel de fuerza de Paz, ahora solo se dedica a esto: (traducir con google)

At the recent conference on the Status of Women at the United Nations I represented Belgium. I observed that with the Obama administration the United States has joined the hardcore Marxist social engineers.
Imagine entering a factory hall where a large, complicated machine is in operation. Raw materials are poured in at one end and at various intervals along the belt. There is a regular rhythm, some hissing, clanging, churning from indeterminate sources, a panel with lights that appears to accompany the whole process. Whatever is produced at the other end is immediately packaged and whisked away. Sitting in the room where the “informal consultations” are held, observing the process by which UN resolutions are written, is a similar experience. There is a draft text. At first observation it is unclear where it came from and how it got there. The same applies to the people round the table. Who are they and what are they doing? One thing is clear: the resolution is inevitable, and most of the content of the resolution is inevitable, too. Whoever gets to write the first draft determines the content and thrust of the text.

The chair was a hard, impatient woman who led the meetings aggressively and would have rammed her text down the negotiators’ throats if she could. The US strategy was consummate. They had found a cross-regional alliance of co-sponsors to submit the draft resolution along with them. A number of these were countries from sub-Saharan Africa: a clever move, as this way the African countries could not form a bloc to obstruct the resolution. Other co-sponsors were Belarus, Colombia, Thailand and Indonesia, and Israel.

The discussions constituted a veritable battle; a battle of words, psychology and endurance. The aim of the US and its allies was to gain ground on the ideological battlefield by including references to “sexual and reproductive rights” in the text, i.e. to include the right to unlimited access to contraception and abortion in the recommendations of the UN (on maternal mortality!) to the governments of the world. Switzerland, Sweden, Canada and Australia were extremely diligent in this respect. Their relationship with the chair was of an amicable nature and the chair smiled upon them each time she gave them the floor. The Turkish representative could have been a hardcore feminist in the Europe of the seventies; the chair welcomed her as a shining star in the firmament of the women’s rights universe. At one point she advised the group to accept an amendment suggested by Turkey with the words “Turkey has been extremely helpful, so don’t oppose them here.” Turkey was also helpful in opposing the alliance of Iran, Qatar and Syria, who wished to adapt some of the wording relating to girls and to marriage. They were given the floor with an air of impatience. The liberals resented the fact that the “pro-lifers”, whom they spoke of with anger and hatred, had enlisted their help. Among the assembled national delegates the pro-lifers were few. The representatives of the Holy See, Costa Rica and Chile opposed the repeated attempts of the chair and her allies to introduce terminology which referred implicitly or explicitly to abortion.

The spokesperson for the European Union would have loved to introduce such terminology. However, she had to abide by the consensus which the 27 European Union members negotiated in separate informal consultations, held every morning at the headquarters of the EU Representation to the UN and chaired by a delegate from Spain, which currently chairs the EU. Here a similar battle raged, with the Spanish chair pressing for what she called “strong language.” She had prepared a “package on sexual health and sexual rights” for the EU members to agree on, a text which slyly attempted to introduce references to abortion and to “sexual and reproductive rights.” Malta, especially, was in the defense. Ireland, too, stipulated that it could not accept references to sexual and reproductive “rights” but only “health”. In general, though, the Irish representative seemed quite meek. In one informal moment it was mentioned that Ireland and Poland were “coming round”. The sweetness which the chair bestowed upon them was telling compared with the undisguised mockery that greeted the representative from Malta whenever he asked to speak. On more than one occasion he was subjected to scathing comments on the part of the chair. Informally Malta was referred to as a “hardliner.” Obviously the pro-abortion majority in the room did not regard themselves as hardliners, and could not imagine that others might not share their “enlightened” views.

I was witnessing a chapter of the Marxist push to reshape the world which triumphed in the West with the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. The Marxist agenda, however, is one of global scope and its proponents will not rest until they have eradicated every last remnant of pre-sexual-revolution morality. Since the 1960s they have acquired powerful instruments to achieve this aim. They manipulate the complicated and non-transparent bureaucracy of the UN (they fondly refer to it as “the system”), which exerts powerful pressure on the governments of the world. Through this bureaucracy they aggressively advance their cause, initiating attacks on the core-values of family-based societies, especially the judaeo-christian values that have shaped Western civilization, at every opportunity.

These people also feel at home in the massive bureaucratic construction of the European Union, through which considerable moral and legal pressure is exerted on the member states. Within governments, too, they have organized an entire bureaucracy which is paid by the taxpayers and where the activists occupy key positions at every level: in political parties, parliaments and governments, in a wide range of councils and organizations which advise governments, in the administration and diplomatic services, and in a multitude of subsidized NGOs which have considerable influence on decision makers through a network of friends-in-arms. (My country’s delegation to this year’s conference on the Status of Women included government ministers, members of parliament, members of equal opportunities organizations that advise the government, employees of various NGOs, including one who said she was there because of her experience as a social worker at an abortion centre).

The activists consistently behave with responsibility not to the taxpayers who fund the systems within which they operate, but to their own agenda. This March in New York, the issue was not the plight of ill and dying mothers, but the promotion of a general acceptance of abortion as a form of healthcare, through UN texts which are binding for the member states. The more texts there are that include references to this, the more frequently the terminology (referred to by UN negotiators as the “language”) occurs in each text, the stronger the position of the activists. Any concept that has been defined and employed in the body of existing UN literature has been acquired. It can only be weakened by an awkward process in which states pronounce reservations at the moment the text is accepted. But such reservations do not stop the process. The bureaucracies grind on, the activists launch new attacks. They constitute so massive an army, they are so relentless and dedicated that one wonders how long the few brave defenders will hold out?

1 comentario:

  1. Ya lo sabíamos Memetic Warrior, pero gracias por traernos este documento. Los totalitarios y en concreto el fasciofeminismo mundial nos lo llevan ocultando los últimos cuarenta años. ¡Pero en política no hay secreto que mil años dure!

    Los totalitarios (varones) supieron que su palabra no se podía materializar de forma completa, si en sus políticas sólo actuaban sobre los varones... había que integrar en las mismas a la media humanidad femenina... y había que hacerlo con la colaboración protagonística de la mujer. Difícilmente en el siglo XXI se podría victimizar al mundo entero si entre los víctimarios no había paridad de géneros.

    Los totalitarios (varones) sabían que a diferencia de los totalitarismos marxistas del siglo XIX y XX (que se hicieron sin el protagonismo de la mujer), si querían triunfar en el siglo XXI, para victimizar a las mujeres debían primero hacer su reingeniería social sobre ellas (llevan haciéndolo desde los años veinte, pero a nivel global desde los años sesenta del pasado siglo). Nadie como una mujer para victimizar a otra (hacerlo desde el varón, es machista), por lo que había que primero de todo dotarla protagonismo, para después utilizarla en contra de las mujeres. De alcanzar dicho protagonismo se encargaría una ideología: el feminismo. Totalitarismo éste, que además de dar protagonismo político a la mujer, a través de dicha ideología todos sus actos totalitarios permitiera que fuesen vestidos como derechos de las mujeres.

    ¿Tú te imaginas el éxito de un hombre obligando a una mujer a abortar a través del eslogan adoctrinador “por tus derechos a la salud sexual y reproductivos que toda mujer ha de practicar”?

    Sin los apoyos y la reingeniería social impuesta por la ONU a nivel mundial, hoy sería imposible que en España por ejemplo, estuviera una tal Bibiana de ministra y un iluminado como zp de presidente. Ambos son el resultado de los cuatro jinetes del apocalipsis del siglo XXI: el marxismo (que continua teniendo éxitos con sus mantras como el de la igualdad), el islamismo (cada vez con más poder en ONU), el ecofascismo (con sus mantras del calentamiento global) y el feminismo (con su mantras de “hombre malo mujer buena” y por tanto, como libertadora de las mujeres, basádose en ello, legitimar el odio al varón y su derecho a ser la voz de las mujeres).

    En otras palabras, los ciudadanos (y ciudadanas) del siglo XXI tendremos y tendrán un siglo calentito, y no solamente por tener que luchar contra el ecofascismo del calentamiento global; también tendrán que luchar las sociedades libres contra el islamismo que quiere mediavalizarlas (muy en concreto en Europa); tendremos que seguir luchando contra un marxismo enemigo del libre pensar y empobrecedor de las sociedades en las que se impone; y por supuesto... las mujeres tendrán que luchar poniendo en peligro sus vidas, para recobrar sus individuales voces usurpadas por el feminismo que víctimiza a las de su género en nombre (en este caso) de su “salud” (entre otros mantras feministas que irán surgiendo).

    ¿Quién dijo que el siglo XXI sería aburrido?

    Un saludo Memetic Warrior,

    Pablo el herrero