Claudia wrote:

“Standing in front of the dais manned by high UN officials, the whole scene set against the stage’s sweeping golden backdrop and UN emblem, he began speaking in a soft voice. He quickly got louder and louder, declaiming, ranting, and finally almost chanting, shaking his finger, slicing his hands through the air . . .”

Normally I don’t like Hitler comparisons . . . but . . .

First, there is the well-known message Mr. Achmadinejab has been spouting, seemingly forever, in which he fingers his scapegoats and promises their annihilation. His threats are naked and credible, yet the egalitarian wonder, the UN, looks on with tolerance, if not downright approval. Hitler’s message was no different, his terms with the world the same as Mr. Achmadinejab’s, yet what does the UN do?

Second, there is the inversion of reality and fantasy, of projecting his own pathologies onto those he demonizes, a twist which unprincipled, agenda driven people would, first, have us take seriously, and secondly, then for us to negotiate with Mr. Achmadinejab, to cut a deal with him, to resolve the current “problem”, a problem of Achmadinejab’s own creation. How different is this from the way the world met Hitler in the 30′s, and tried to appease him, after Hitler had created his grievances himself purely to gain concessions?

Third there is the delivery, which is highly reminiscent of the technique Hitler used to whip his countrymen to a frenzy: the soft, almost awkward beginning, which built to a crescendo of hate against the groups he demonized, the words emphasized by well-practiced hand, arm and body gestures, delivered in a vast hall betokening the power of the state (in this case, the illusory power of the member states). Sounds like the whole thing was demagogic theater at its purest.

(Caveat: Hitler liked to arrive late for his speeches, which boosted the tension of his audience. He also liked dramatic lighting and sets. The Iranian president still has something to learn . . .).

I agree with Claudia that we should send the UN a-packing out of the US, and I’d love for them to resettle in Tehran (it’d almost be worth funding the cost of the move, but only if to Tehran). But I’m not yet — yet — to the point of saying the US should leave the UN altogether.

I think we should decrease our contribution to it from $5.3 billion to, say, perhaps $500,000, and remain on the UNSC for the perverse purpose of exercising our veto.

If UN member states want to kick us off the Security Council, fine. We reduce our contribution to the UN to $0.02 per annum, which is still more than the UN’s worth, and we use our position as a member state as a bully platform.

Then, we use the money we saved — those $5,299,999,999.98 — and use it for something useful. Like, as Claudia suggested, creating institutions that work.

Do I sound pissed? Cynical? Both of the above?

Brian