I used to work at UN during the Boutros Boutros Gali days. I worked with UNICEF, but I dated a girl who worked at UNESCO, so I know the intimate
details of both. I'm not trying to say anybody's ideas are wrong, this is just what I saw. Maybe I wasn't privy to the NWO, whatever. When I worked
there, the UN had a hard time paying it's electricity bills. I mean, whether we would have lights to do our work was an issue. I hope the Illuminati
pays better than that, anyway, my view on UNESCO. The taking over of our national parks. It means that Yellowstone, for example, is no longer the
property of the US, but that it is such a specatular place, on our planet, that it belongs to the planet. It's a World Heritage Site. Same as say,
the Banks of the Seine, in France. Or, Australia's Great Barrier Reef. What that means is, that the host country cannot put a highway through
Yellowstone, build condos on the Seine, or drill for oil on the Great Barrier Reef, because those places are so wonderous, that they belong to the
world now. They define our planet. It's just a way to recognize great places on Earth. In theory, it's supposed to stop destroying these landmarks.
In actual practice, it's just a suggestion. If the US wanted to build a highway, or condos, in Yellowstone, could anybody stop us, because it's a
UNESCO World Heritage Site? No. Could anyone stop France from putting a WalMart on the Seine, no. UNESCO 'owns' it in a similar way that the Queen
'rules' England. You would hear an international outrage, that's it. Just as when the Taliban destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas ( UNESCO 'owned').
Everyone made a big noise, then quietly went about their ways. Or did they...
EDIT: spelling
[Edited on 27-4-2004 by curme]