I don’t know about you, but I sure wonder why the United States continues to prop up the United Nations, which, among its many other recent failures, did nothing to stop Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The United States is still by far the largest donor to the U.N., contributing more than $12 billion in 2021, almost one-fifth of the generally anti-American organization’s budget. President Trump, you may recall, tried to cut funding, but that’s because he was a bigot and a xenophobe in Putin’s pocket.
No, that’s not a digression: the United Nations is so incompetent that it allowed a fake nation to attend two of its meetings recently. Above is Vijayapriya Nithyananda, who said she was representing Kailasa as its “permanent ambassador” to the UN at one of those meetings. There is no “Kailasa,” though it has a website. Does that make it a “virtual nation”? I don’t know and don’t care. The site claims that Kailasa includes “two billion practicing Hindus” among its population, and that it has a flag, a constitution, a central bank, and passports.
Come to think of it, Kailasa would probably be a better U.N. member than Iran, among others.
The United States of Kailasa was created in 2019 by Indian guru, fugitive and self-proclaimed deity Nithyananda Paramashivam as a sovereign state for Hindus, though no one seems to know where it is. Nithyananda claimed it had been established on a tiny island off the coast of Ecuador, but Ecuador denied selling the island to the guru, if he can be called that. A better word might be “criminal.” Nithyananda was facing charges of rape when he fled India. A separate police complaint charged him with kidnapping and confining children at his ashram in India’s western state of Gujarat.
At least the U.N. was competent enough to refuse to let the US of K vote, though in response to an inquiry by the BBC, a UN official confirmed that “USK representatives attended two UN public meetings in Geneva in February.”
10 thoughts on “The Unethical Fake Country Of “The United States of Kailasa””
The city of Newark attempted to become sister cities with this place. (Eye roll). I think you already talked about that.
This doesn’t surprise me at all. As insane as the U.N. is, they probably didn’t want to rock the boat and claim that a country they’d never heard of, especially a country run by the important diversity checkpoint brown and Hindu peoples, didn’t exist.
Truly Babylon Bee worthy. Guffaw of the day. Fredonia is a permanent member of the security council. Groucho’s cigar is its ambassador.
I was thinking of “The Mouse That Roared.”
As opposed to Morton Downey Jr.? (sometimes referred to as the mouth that roared)
Another performance artist!
America’s Dairyland FUN FACT:
Fredonia WESconsin is a small Ozaukee County town.
Its mail-route includes unincorporated Waubeka, through which the Milwaukee River meanders AND just so happens to be the birthplace of Flag Day!
Wouldn’t the United States averse U.N. like to wipe THAT blot off’n the map…?
From the article:
While the conductors of the meeting probably should have said “Wait…Kailasa?” and called the “ambassador” out sooner, at least this wasn’t a case of her sneaking into member-delegates only meetings.
But she’s shown seated in a seat with a microphone. I’ve never been to a meeting where all random attendees get one of those…
It appears she was a random visitor at a random public hearing sponsored by the UN. I serve on a local committee that so infrequently has members of the public at large, that we usually do just put them at the table in the center of the conference room with the regular members (the alternative would be to shove them into a corner). She was potentially seated at a desk with a microphone as a mere courtesy for showing up and indicating she wished to address the committee during public comments.
I would liken this to the Massachusetts On The Civility/Free Speech Dilemma. If her comments are on-topic, she should be allowed to speak at the public hearing. Introducing herself with a fake title labels her an asshole, but as a purported representative of an international non-governmental organization (itself purportedly founded to address persecution of Hindus), she plausibly had something relevant to say regarding human rights.
This seems to be the appropriate response. Her comments were off-topic comments were excluded. She an unethical hack for disrupting the proceedings, but a public hearing doesn’t work if the public is not allowed to speak. Disruptive members of the public are an inherent risk when opening the floor to unscheduled guests.