This claims an antagonistic relationship with the UN. I don't see the UN doing anything wrong on a quick skim, but rather this describes FWI abusing their relationship with the UN.
There is also the (much more vague and less specific):
Which is a FWI guide to the UN, but can't be confused for a UN document. Through the game of telephone, this somehow became referenced as if it were in publications attacking FWI.
At least on 5-10 minutes of clicking, I can't find any specific, primary reference to the UN doing anything wrong.
Last time I testified at a major public hearing, the person before me ranted and raved about brains and electromagnetism from household electronics. Were they crazy? Batshit crazy. Did everyone dismiss them? Yes. Did they have a right to do that? Absolutely.
As a footnote, unfairly cutting crazy people out of conversations has two problems:
1) You can't talk to them and convince them otherwise. Conversations are two-way streets.
2) It gives them a huge soapbox. If a person ranting about EM waves impacting brains was shut out of public comments and unfairly oppressed by [corporations / government / etc.], if anything, that oppression would support their argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Watch_International
Which references:
https://politicalresearch.org/sites/default/files/2018-10/Co...
This claims an antagonistic relationship with the UN. I don't see the UN doing anything wrong on a quick skim, but rather this describes FWI abusing their relationship with the UN.
There is also the (much more vague and less specific):
https://politicalresearch.org/sharon-slater-going-global-wit...
Wikipedia makes bold statements from very tentative language. Clicking through references here turns up documents like:
https://familywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/05/R...
Which is a FWI guide to the UN, but can't be confused for a UN document. Through the game of telephone, this somehow became referenced as if it were in publications attacking FWI.
At least on 5-10 minutes of clicking, I can't find any specific, primary reference to the UN doing anything wrong.
Last time I testified at a major public hearing, the person before me ranted and raved about brains and electromagnetism from household electronics. Were they crazy? Batshit crazy. Did everyone dismiss them? Yes. Did they have a right to do that? Absolutely.
As a footnote, unfairly cutting crazy people out of conversations has two problems:
1) You can't talk to them and convince them otherwise. Conversations are two-way streets.
2) It gives them a huge soapbox. If a person ranting about EM waves impacting brains was shut out of public comments and unfairly oppressed by [corporations / government / etc.], if anything, that oppression would support their argument.