Playing in the Little League

The United Nations is different from the old League of Nations. 

There were very few countries when the League of Nations existed, and almost all of them 

had deep roots. 

So the League was almost entirely limited to professional major league 

diplomats.

Most of the so-called “nations” in the United Nations are leftover colonial subdivisions 

like Iraq and Zambia.

The United Nations is an affirmative action version of the League of Nations.   Libya is

now head of the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations and Iraq has taken over the

committee handling weapons of mass destruction.  Nobody questions any of this because

membership on such committees has nothing to do with qualifications.  It is entirely a 

matter of affirmative action, i.e., quotas and rotation.

The Secretary General of the United Nations holds that job because he is an African.  It 

was their turn.

The so-called “nations” in the United Nations are places where no one lives unless he has

to.   Anybody with any talent in Africa has long since immigrated to Europe or America.  But

the United Nations delegates from a country have to be from there and return home regularly.

So they have to be picked from what’s left after all the talent has moved out.

You are supposed to consider this affirmative action version of the old League of Nations to

be some kind of authority.  

Especially moral authority.   Like Libya.

I think the United States government, which is run by respectable conservatives, is silly

enough.   They are going to get us into the business of suppressing Arabs for the sake of 

Israel.

The neoconservatives who run the United States Government are bad Americans, but most of 

them objected to going to the United Nations in the first place.  They are a hell of a lot 

less idiotic than those who leave American troops sitting in the desert while they play 

footsy with the United Nations.

How Much of Your Investment Money Would You Invest in the United Nations?

The price of labor is ten times as high on the American side of the Rio Grande as it is a 

hundred yards away on the Mexican side.  Why?

The reason labor is so cheap in Mexico is because no one wants to live in Mexico and no 

one wants to invest in Mexico.   The reason no one wants to live in Mexico is because it 

is inhabited by Mexicans.  The reason no one wants to invest in Mexico is because the 

country is run by Mexicans.

In other words, the same people who talk about how much they want the Mexican culture in 

America are the very people who are not about to put real money in Mexico.   

But anybody would rather put his money into Mexico than he would into 

Mozambique or Haiti.

“Put your money where your mouth is.”   Michael Douglas talks tearfully about how great the

United Nations is, so we should take all of his money and let the All-Wise United Nations 

invest it for him.

If anybody tried to make Douglas put all his investments into the UN every Hollywood leftist

would go ballistic.   

Barbara Streisand loves to talk about her love of the poor folks, but she will kill before 

she loses a dime in royalties.  Streisand and Douglas are happy to put American lives in the

hands of the United Nations, but you had better not try to put any money they really need to

live on into the United Nations.

American liberals and conservatives are willing to put American soldiers' lives into the 

hands of the United Nations, but not their own money.

A Man with a Memory Looks at “Territorial Integrity”

No cliché is too silly for Americans to get their soldiers killed for.  General Wesley 

Clark announced that he would cheerfully kill his men to keep any country in Europe from 

being what he calls “ethnically pure.”   

Clark is a pro-busing Democrat.   He would like to call in his troops to force third world 

immigration into any European country.

See June 12, 1999 - BUSING BY BOMBER.

But being willing to kill for anti-racism is not a purely liberal trait.  In fact, 

respectable conservatives want to be known for that.  The reason Serbia invaded its former 

Yugoslavian neighbors like Bosnia was because someone in the first Bush State Department 

gave them the go-ahead.

Serbia was trying to restore the "territorial integrity" of Yugoslavia after it broke up.  

A Bush (Senior) appointee told them that the United States had done the same thing under 

Lincoln, so we would not object.

I am probably the only human being alive who remembers what Saddam said right after he had 

taken over Kuwait.  He was asked in an interview seen by most Americans whether he would 

withdraw from Kuwait after Bush's warning that the United States would attack if he didn’t.

Sadam didn’t even mention Kuwait.  He said that he would fight any attempt to break up the 

“territorial integrity” of Iraq, just as Lincoln had.   Sadam referred to "the seventeen 

provinces of Iraq," Kuwait being the seventeenth.

You see, a Bush rep had also told Saddam that America wouldn’t intervene if he invaded

Kuwait. 

Lincoln again.

After his visit to the White House, the Chinese president pointed out that Formosa was 

recognized as the southern part of China by the United States.   He said we should either 

stop objecting to a Chinese invasion of the place or take down all those Lincoln monuments, 

pictures, and quotations.

The New Colonialism Fights for the Old Colonial Borders

The Kurds want their freedom.   The Shiites want their freedom.   But the United States is 

willing to kill off an unlimited number of its soldiers to maintain Iraq’s “territorial 

integrity.” 

No one is more fanatical about this than conservatives.

They want to show they’re for Lincoln and against racism.

Once again, I am the only living American who has a memory.  I remember that what we call 

“Iraq” was created by the British colonial administration as a very random administrative 

collection of people and territories.   

Looking at Iraq’s history since Britain owned it, a rational person would conclude that 

this particular administrative unit was not a successful lineup after independence.  

But “territorial integrity” is a blind monster and no human consideration enters into it.

So the Wesley Clark liberals and the Lincolnite conservatives are agreed that no sacrifice 

is too great to destroy real group identity and force people to live together.

And in an age where one hostile resident could have a weapon of mass 

destruction, what could be better than jamming mutually hostile people together by force?

Please see September 11, 2001 - LEFTISTS SHOW US HOW NOT TO DEAL WITH TOMORROW'S TERRORISM 

(originally published April 1, 2000).

Home | Current Articles | Article Archive | About Bob Whitaker | Contact Bob | Links | Privacy Policy