The Ad Hominem Based Politics of the Populist Superhero Effect: Shifting the Blame on the UN

Argumentum ad hominem, defined by Wikipedia, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself (bold mine)

Today’s headline. From GMA (bold mine)

President Rodrigo Duterte threatened to "separate from the United Nations" amid continuing criticism from rights experts over the rising death toll attributed to his administration's campaign against drugs.

Duterte made the pronouncement early Sunday morning following a statement from UN special rapporteurs Agnes Callamard and Dainius Puras calling on the Philippine government to stop the extrajudicial killings of persons linked to illegal drugs.

"Maybe we'll just have to decide to separate from the United Nations. When were you here the last time? Never. Except to criticize," he said.

The issue is certainly NOT the UN.

But the focus has been shifted to the UN in order for the latter to take the heat for censuring the government. This has been designed to deflect on the argument or the object of criticism. It is a sign of logical infirmity. It is also a sign of the administration’s emotional paroxysms. And most importantly, this represents intolerance for diverse opinion.

As for anyone who criticizes the government, the mechanical response by the administration has been to burn the critics as though they are witches during the witch hunt era. For now, the response have been about isolationism. Don't like my way then we leave (applies to UN or media in June). Eventually things may turn out worse. 

Of course, this has been channeled through the politics of populism through trial by publicity.  

Once again the politics of populism has been founded on the superhero effect, which also finds roots on the halo effect. For avid followers anything said by this administration represents gospel truth. The administration, thus is, infallible and morally immaculate therefore above the institutions

For now this things work. Eventually they won’t. The law of diminishing returns ensures this.

As for the issue of leaving the UN, that may be a good proposition.

Instead of a collegial body pretending to work for the interest of the world, the UN have signified as an instrument of hegemonic powers designed to intervene in local affairs to promote the former's interest. Example, UN proposes a uniform global tax regime and a global tax authority intended to remove tax competition. Doing so prevents firms from moving out of bankrupt western nations and places the onus or discriminates on emerging markets.

But then again the issue is NOT the UN.

UN’s FAO on World Hunger: Let them eat insects

Many nasty side effects of inflationism has not only been to reduce the quality of products and services (value deflation) as well as to promote fraud, for instance in food (rat meat, horse scandal) but has also prompted policymakers to desperately scamper for solutions based on absurd premises. 

From the BBC.com (hat tip Zero Hedge)

Eating more insects could help fight world hunger, according to a new UN report.

The report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization says that eating insects could help boost nutrition and reduce pollution.

It notes than over 2 billion people worldwide already supplement their diet with insects.

However it admits that "consumer disgust" remains a large barrier in many Western countries.

Wasps, beetles and other insects are currently "underutilised" as food for people and livestock, the report says. Insect farming is "one of the many ways to address food and feed security".

Remember these multilateral institutions are taxpayer funded. This means that such bureaucracies have been benefiting from wealth transfers (taxpayers to bureaucrats) which should have been redirected instead to “hunger”.

Yet in order to sustain their privileges, they recommend bizarre elixirs instead of promoting real market based reforms. Such is an example of ‘social justice’ based on central planning.

The UN and her subsidiary the FAO should set an example.  UN-FAO leaders should require all their employees to have insects as part of their daily fare.

The last time a political leader allegedly declared sarcastically “let them cake”…such led to a bloody revolution.

Ron Paul: UN Membership No Guarantee of Sovereignty Recognition

Ron Paul’s take on Palestinian Authority's application for UN membership (bold emphasis added)

I have reservations about the Palestinian drive for UN recognition. Personally I wish the United States would de-recognize the United Nations. As most readers already know, in every Congress I introduce legislation to end our membership in that organization. The UN is a threat to our sovereignty-- and as we are the main source of its income, it is a threat to our economic well-being. Increasingly over the past several years, we see the United Nations providing political and legal cover for the military aspirations of interventionists rather than serving as an international forum to preserve peace. Neoconservatives in the US have grown to love the United Nations as they co-opt the organization under the guise of endless "reform." Under the sovereignty-destroying doctrine of "Responsibility to Protect," adopted at the 2005 World Summit, the UN takes it upon itself to intervene in internal conflicts of its member states whenever it believes that human rights are being violated. Thus under "Responsibility to Protect," the UN provides the green light for a kind of global no-knock raid on any sovereign country.

If asked, I would personally counsel the Palestinians to avoid the United Nations. UN membership and participation is no guarantee that sovereignty will be respected. We see what happens to UN members such as Iraq and Libya when those countries' leaders fall out of favor with US administrations: under US and allied pressure a fig leaf resolution is adopted in the UN to facilitate devastating military intervention. When the UN gave NATO the green light to bomb Libya there was no genocide taking place. It was a purely preventative war. The result? Thousands dead, a destroyed country, and extremely dubious new leaders.

Read the rest here

The UN has been a tool for global political-economic elites to advance their interests around the world.

War on Commodities: UN Endorses Price Controls

UN endorses more price controls on commodities

Reports the Bloomberg,

Commodity markets need international oversight, more transparency and intervention to deflate bubbles because increasing speculation means prices are no longer driven by supply and demand, the United Nations said.

Increased investment in commodity markets has encouraged “herding behavior” and creates bubbles, the UN’s Conference on Trade and Development said in a report published today. Anticipation of the global economic recovery played a “disproportionate role” in higher commodity prices, it said.

“Prices can move far from levels justified by the fundamentals for extended periods, leading to an increasing risk of price bubbles,” the UN said in the report. “Due to these distortions, commodity prices do not always provide correct signals about the relative scarcity of commodities.”

By how exactly does the UN determine “prices are no longer driven by supply and demand”? Their math models?

It’s an irony because earlier they had been warning about a US dollar collapse

From the IBTimes FX

Rob Vos, a senior UN economist involved with the report, said if emerging markets "massively start selling off dollars, then you can have this risk of a slide in the dollar."

Are they assuming that “selling off dollars” and “prices are no longer driven by supply and demand” are not at all connected?

Put differently, that there is absolutely no connection between debasing one’s currency and rising prices?

Maybe Zimbabwe did not experience a socio-economic depression from hyperinflation (2004-2009).

Instead Zimbabwe could have suffered from the herding effects of speculators. Speculators cratered the Zimbabwe dollar and caused consumer prices to double every day

Such is UN's prism of economics.

In the real world, rising commodity prices in response to government’s continued debasing of a currency is a symptom known as the “Flight to Real Values”.

From Mises.org

The frantic rush to spend all monetary savings and other available cash, buying goods, whether needed or not, in order to avoid holding, even for a short time, any rapidly depreciating monetary units. This occurs at that point in the development of inflation when the public is convinced that prices will continue to rise endlessly and at an accelerated pace. The flight into goods or real values is also known as a "Crack-up boom" (q.v.) and marks the complete breakdown of a monetary system.

The UN can only pretend. But they will not succeed in controlling prices if they do not treat the root of the problem—government’s inflationism.

As Ludwig von Mises warned in Planning for Freedom

those engaged in futile and hopeless attempts to fight the inevitable consequences of inflation-the rise in prices-are masquerading their endeavors as a fight against inflation. While fighting the symptoms, they pretend to fight the root causes of the evil. And because they do not comprehend the causal relation-between the increase in money in circulation and credit expansion on the one hand and the rise in prices on the other, they practically make things worse.

Fearing A Slap On The Face, UN Sanctions A No-Fly Zone

Faced with the prospects of a victorious comeback by Libya’s 42 year dictatorship under Muammar Gaddafi, the UN approves a No-Fly zone over Libya.

The Marketwatch reports,

The United Nations Security Council voted 10 to 0 supporting the use of "all necessary measures" including the use of a no-fly zone to protect civilians and rebel forces in Libya from forces loyal to Col. Moammar Gadhafi. Russia and China, which held veto powers, abstained from the vote, along with three other council members. The passing of the measure is expected to lead to U.N.-backed military strikes in Libya within hours, according to media reports.

UN’s action represents a response to a potential slap on the face if Gaddafi forces wins.

Writes Lew Rockwell's Eric Margolis,

In a huge embarrassment for President Barack Obama, who has been demanding Gadaffi resign, the gutsy new US national intelligence director, Gen. James Clapper, told Congress that Gadaffi’s forces were winning. Fortunately, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates put the brakes, at least for now, on Republican hawks and the-only-good-Arab-is-a-dead-Arab neocons who were urging the US impose a no-fly zone over Libya.

There will also be many red faces in Europe. Libya is a major oil supplier. If Gadaffi survives and reconsolidates his rule, Europe will have to continue buying oil from him. Germany’s Angela Merkel and her pal Sarko will look very foolish.

That means the leaders of France, Germany, and Britain, who have been calling for the overthrow of Gadaffi, may have to make nice to him again, and even, horror of horrors, go to Tripoli and be filmed holding hands with the smirking Libyan dictator, decked out in one of his Marx Brothers military outfits. Revenge, Libyan-style, will be oh so sweet.

To save face means to intervene militarily which is what the No-fly zone is all about. Libya’s civil war will now evolve into an international war.

So the UN’s foreign policy appears designed to boost the self esteem needs of political authorities by getting their soldier’s hands bloodied and also by shifting away of resources from productive activities. In short, the self interest of politicians matter more than the public.

Also, reputational needs of political heads translates to benefits for the military industrial complex. So if it isn’t the banking elites, it is the military industrial elites that mostly benefits from government interventionism. Of course the banking elite is also tied to the military industrial complex indirectly since the banking elites has been the chief financers of government expenditures.