America's Perpetual Violations

What is inconsistent in American policy is the inconsistency of them living up to the principles that they talk about and the values that they talk about, but but there is an absolute consistency in the reality of their implementation of policy for colonialist imperialist purposes. In that in that regard, if you look beyond the rhetoric, if you if you only look at the rhetoric, then it will look like America is very hypocritical, and it will look like they have a lot of double standards and a lot of inconsistencies in the implementation of policy. But if you look at the actual objectives of their policy, the actual objectives, not the rhetorical objectives. If you look at the actual objectives of their policy, they're completely consistent. It's a warmongering, imperialist, colonialist, western supremacist objectives to pillage and plunder and exploit and subjugate and dominate the planet.

So this is very consistent on their part. What what you're talking about with the UNRWA situation, this is a perfect example of exactly why you need to get The US money out of the UN in the first place because this is what they've always used their money for is just to control and manipulate the organization, to dominate the organization through their money, to to threaten to withdraw their money, to threaten to withdraw their funding, and we'll fund this, we won't fund that, and so on, just as a mechanism of control. The best thing you can do is get American money out of the UN, and the the UN won't suffer from that at all. Aside from the fact that the the the obvious impact of it will be that the organization can actually operate with some kind of, integrity and, and independence in the way it's supposed to. Then there's the other side of it, which is that the majority of UN spending goes for so called peacekeeping missions.

Peacekeeping missions in conflict zones that were either created by The United States or are perpetuated by The United States. These are conflicts that could be resolved if the UN was allowed to resolve them, but America wants those conflicts to continue because they also utilize the United Nations as a mechanism or as an instrument for creating conflicts around the world that they can use to funnel money into the military industrial complex because that has long been the engine of their economy. If you look at the actual money that The United States gives to the UN, it's about $2,500,000,000. That's what they give to the UN. Okay.

Well, the amount of money they spent on if you just if you just resolve three conflicts, three of the conflicts that The United States has started and is perpetuating. I think it's a $1,200,000,000 in Mali that they're spending, 1,200,000,000.0 in South Sudan, and another billion in The Congo. If the UN was allowed to resolve just these three conflicts, they would end up having more money in their budget to spend than they have from the 22% that America gives them. They would end up having more money in their budget if they got rid of The United States and were actually able to resolve the conflicts that America starts. Most of the money that they're spending is on is is spent on the conflicts that America is perpetuating.

So if they were able to resolve those conflicts, then that is a drastic reduction in their annual expenditures. So they would end up having more money in their budget by losing that 22% that America is paying into it because, anyway, as I said, that's just hush money and bribe money and extortion money that America is using to try to control and dominate the UN. The United States violates article two of the UN Charter as a matter of policy. This is a matter of foreign policy. This is the the entire foreign policy of The United States is based upon violating the self determination of other countries.

It's based upon violating the internal and interfering with the internal domestic political situation and conditions and policy of any country in the world. This is their this is their foreign policy by definition. So, I mean, like, you can look throughout the entire Cold War period, the whole, rhetoric about, fighting communism, trying to prevent the spread of communism. It's none of your business. What any country in the world wants to do, what kind of a government they want to have, it's none of your business, and it's illegal for you to make it your business.

According to the article two of the UN Charter, it is none of your business. You don't get to do regime change. You don't get to decide which what kind of a government Pakistan should have, whether it should be Imran Khan or someone else. You don't get to decide what kind of a government Iran should have, whether it should be the Shah or it should be the Ayatollah. You don't get to decide what kind of a government The Philippines should have.

You don't get to decide what kind of a government Indonesia should have or anywhere else. This isn't up to you, and they're doing it endlessly. Mean, I just the very fact that you have an organization called the National Endowment for Democracy that supports so called opposition groups in countries all around the world, and they the National Endowment for Democracy is nothing but a front organization for the CIA going into country after country after country everywhere on earth to try to foster opposition groups, to try to get their parties into government. This is a violation of the UN Charter. Everything that they do by design, as I said, by definition rather, by definition, American foreign policy is always a violation of article two of the UN Charter.