THEIR PACT TO CONTROL OUR FUTURE
The UN moves to corral governments into their globalist future
In January this year, I started the challenging process of reading through the various United Nations (UN) documents associated with the proposed Summit of the Future, with its adopted catchphrase: Mulitlateral Solutions for a Better Tomorrow. I have asked dozens of people what they understand by this and no-one has any idea. Perhaps that was the point.
Eleven Policy Briefs were published and the UN Secretary General, António Guterres sounded a note of alarm when he said:
“Our Common Agenda is aimed at turbocharging the 2030 Agenda and making the Sustainable Development Goals real in the lives of people everywhere.Because halfway to 2030, we are far off track.”
What the Summit of the Future was all about was making the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals “real in the lives of people everywhere” - and we better believe it!The organization is doing this through: (as of the time of writing) “169 Targets, 3968 Events, 1351 Publications and 7865 Actions”. The organization is clearly trying to overwhelm us with quantity rather than quality.
Because all the documents are almost incomprehensible, this must be the main aim of the more than 80,000 UN staff, whose KPIs must involve the number of reports and documents produced that won’t cause any international ripples.
Figure 1. UN Information about staff numbers, as at the end of December 2022.
The UN process seems to be a cunning one where hundreds of pages of anodyne documents are produced that appear to have little substance and therefore can obtain the support of the 193 UN countries. The Policy Briefs were circulated almost one year in advance and although difficult to understand, at their heart contained a simple message: more power for the UN.
Now the flurry of documents have been amalgamated into a 61-page “Pact for the Future”, ratified last weekend by the UN General Assembly.
Pact for the Future
The draft 56 page Pact for the Future was passed “unanimously”, without a vote being taken (this is global democracy in action). Dr Jacob Nordangård noted:
“The Pact for the Future and the annexed Global Digital Compact and Declaration of Future Generations was adopted after a short round of statements, where Russia (backed by Iran, North Korea, Belarus, Syria, Venezuela, and Nicaragua) issued their discontent with the negotiation process and called for the inclusion of an amendment.
Russia’s key objections was that United Nations should not be allowed to “intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”. Apart from that, they don’t want to give more power to the High Commissioner on Human Rights, they object to the speeding up of nuclear disarmament, and they don’t want to “equate non-governmental actors with states when making decisions on international technological agenda”.1
As a countermeasure, the Republic of the Congo (speaking on behalf of the African Union) proposed a motion that no action would be taken on the draft amendment, which was accepted by all but seven nations (and fifteen that abstained).”
It is worthwhile looking through the final 61 page document, to understand that no area of life will be left untouched by the UN overlords. The UN has released the highlights of the “pact”, which you can read here.
One of the key overarching commitments in the preamble to the mind-numbing list of Action Plans is phrased as follows:
“We recognize that the multilateral system and its institutions, with the United Nations and its Charter at the centre, must be strengthened to keep pace with a changing world. They must be fit for the present and the future – effective and today’s world, inclusive, interconnected and financially stable.”
In the first section: Sustainable development and financing for development, there are 12 action areas including great commitments like: “Action 3. We will end hunger and eliminate food insecurity and all forms of malnutrition.”
The second section is titled: International Peace and Security. It contains many utopian ideas including “Action 25. We will advance the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.”. This must have been a relief to Iran and North Korea.
The “pact” has further sections on “Science, technology and innovation and digital cooperation”, “Youth and Future Generations”, and “Transforming Global Governance” (give more power to the UN). The 56 actions outlined are followed by two Annexes - Global Digital Compact and Declaration on Future Generations.
The goal of the “Digital Compact” is: “an inclusive, open, sustainable, fair, safe and secure digital future for all.” To achieve this goal, the “pact” declares:
“To achieve our goal, we will pursue the following objectives:
Close all digital divides and accelerate progress across the Sustainable Development Goals;
Expand inclusion in and benefits from the digital economy for all;
Foster an inclusive, open, safe and secure digital space that respects, protects and promote human rights;
Advance responsible, equitable and interoperable data governance approaches;
Enhance international governance of artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity.”
As I read through the document, I realized that the clever people who drafted the “pact” had done so in such a way that it is difficult to find objections. Most of the statements are broad and the goals unrealizable. However, the "pact” emphasizes the central role of the UN and their global governance agenda, which was the vision of the UN founders. Interestingly, the Soviet spy who worked at the top of the US State Department, Alger Hiss, had an important role in the UN’s founding.
I will discuss this more next week with Dr Jacob Nordangård when I interview him about his new book: The Global Coup D’État.
Figure 2. Dr Jacob Nordangård’s new book - The Global Coup d’État, due for publication on 15 October, 2024.
We all need to be concerned about the UN’s Pact for the Future, a bureaucratic document that has been agreed to without any democratic process or even awareness by the citizens of most nations. The “agreements and actions” will find their way into a range of government documents and incorporated into planning undertaken by groups such as local councils.
As I commence my new role as a local councillor (final vote tallies will be released next week), I will keep a key eye on the documents presented. Like the UN, the local bureaucrats have mastered the art of incomprehensible and encyclopaedic length documentation. Undoubtedly, there will be attempts to ensure that in our local region, we meet the 17 Sustainable Development Goals even though no-one knows what they are! I may even find out what “Multilateral Solutions for a Better Tomorrow” actually means.
ARTICLES THAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION THIS WEEK
Politics Brings Conflict While the Market Brings Peace
The Mises Institute is a US based think-tank that describes itself this way:
“The Mises Institute is a non-profit organization that exists to promote teaching and research in the Austrian school of economics, and individual freedom, honest history, and international peace, in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard. These great thinkers developed praxeology, a deductive science of human action based on premises known with certainty to be true, and this is what we teach and advocate. Our scholarly work is founded in Misesian praxeology, and in self-conscious opposition to the mathematical modeling and hypothesis-testing that has created so much confusion in neoclassical economics.”
I came across an article from the institute, written by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jnr this week and thought that my readers would be interested in the article and some extracts that I include below. Mr Rockwell raises the contemporary issues of racism, Marxism, the women’s movement, environmentalism and religion. The answer to dealing with competing ideas and philosophies is more freedom and letting the market work. He writes to conclude his article:
“What freedom has illustrated is that differences among people do not need to lead to intractable conflicts. More and more social cooperation is possible and fruitful to the extent that people are granted the freedom to associate, trade, make contracts, and work together toward their mutual advantage.
Sadly, however, among many people in this country, there is still the impression that state-mandated institutional change, even revolution, is required to end intractable conflicts. They believe that the very essence of the social structure captures this racial conflict. Some blacks hold this view; some whites hold this view; some Latinos hold this view — the ideology of racism does not elude any group.
It should be no surprise, then, that Mises’s ideas have drawn fire from white racialists who insist that by talking about markets and freedom, we are evading the real issue, which is who will dominate. And there is the view that prosperity is not really about the question of freedom, but about the purity of the genetic stock. Such views are not limited to whites; black activists too speak as if the only issue that really matters is gaining legal preferences for their group. In either case, the agenda is all about who has power over whom, rather than ending the ability of any group to have power over any other group.
The state is not a neutral observer. It will pass environmental legislation. It will regulate relations between races and sexes. It will put down this religion in order to raise that one up. In each case, the intervention only exacerbates conflicts, which in turn creates the impression that there really is an intractable conflict at work. For example, if the state taxes one group to give to another group, it fuels conflict and gives the impression that legislation is the route to liberation.
But who is the real winner in this game? The state and the state alone. By purporting to be the great social referee, it accumulates more power unto itself and leaves everyone else with less freedom to work out their own problems. And here is the real problem with racism or any ism that fails to understand the capacity of the free society to work out its own problems through exchange and mutual benefit.
Thus can we see that racism is not a unique problem in society but part of a larger misconception about the basis of social cooperation.”
It reminds me of the important quote by President Reagan in his inaugural speech in 1981: “Government is not the solution to the problem: government is the problem”.
Evolutionary Kakistocracy
Sir Steven Wilkinson writes the excellent Pitchfork Papers on substack and had an interesting overview of where we are as as a society in this week’s post.
At the beginning of his post, Sir Steven writes:
“There are three questions currently preoccupying me. How did we get here? Where is here? And what happens next or at least soon?” The background to his questions goes back to the draconian approaches taken by governments during the COVID-19 pandemic.
These are great questions and I recommend that my readers grapple with his article which is titled: Evolutionary Kakistocracy. Kakistocracy is an interesting word, the origins of which were discussed in an article in The Atlantic magazine. In the Atlantic article by Norm Ornstein, he writes:
“Kakistocracy is a term that was first used in the 17th century; derived from a Greek word, it means, literally, government by the worst and most unscrupulous people among us. More broadly, it can mean the most inept and cringeworthy kind of government.”
In his discursive essay, which draws on three other substack writers, Sir Steven writes:
“For many, the COVID pandemic response changed the comfortable concept of a benign balance of power between the various previously deemed independent beams of the national superstructure irreparably and gave rise to an initially uneasy and then visceral fear that the previous paradigm had been altered radically. At least to me it appeared as if the compact between citizen and state had been broken and reframed without any discussion or negotiation having taken place.”
This paragraph captures the sense that many of us had about having the “rug pulled out from under us”, as we all realized that our assumed freedoms were an illusion when an overbearing state can force people to be injected with an experimental “vaccine”. At the heart of everything, is “evolution” into a poorly managed bureaucracy and it is evident that this is the global vision of the United Nations.
As I grapple with the challenges of the local council bureaucracy and wonder how we evolved to this kakistocracy, unresponsive to local citizens and seeking to dominate people’s freedom with restrictive planning codes, this final section of Sir Steven’s article captured my thoughts:
“There appears to be a broad consensus emerging that the inherent inconsistencies and insustainabilities of the managerial state, its grotesque inefficiencies, its incapacity of managing the public finances and consequent degradation of the value of money, its usurpation by oligarchic financial interests whose fiefdoms appear more to resemble Mafia organisations than capitalist corporations, the staggering incompetence of its officers and their mediocrity, the suppression of dissent, the stifling of entrepreneurial and creative spirit, its antagonsim to Christianity, its absurdly complex and burdensome tax codes and it ethos of operational bossiness exercised with sadistic delight compound to the point of exhaustion and “snap”’.
I suppose that the old saying is right: we get the leaders we deserve. One wonders what it will take for us all to throw out the kakistocracy?
Islamism and Immigration in Germany and Europe
The dramatic increases in immigration, particularly from Muslim countries, has dominated political thought in Europe and the UK over the past nine years, since the immigration crisis of 2015. While EU and UK citizens have been assured that all is well, the massive numbers of immigrants and their cultural differences, has resulted in a rise in support for political parties that want to restrict immigration. This has been seen throughout the EU and was the main factor that caused recent UK riots.
The liberal New World Order is committed to globalism and changing the racial mix of countries and so has largely ignored the dramatic increases in crime and social disorder that have resulted from immigration from Muslim majority countries.
Rusell A. Berman from the Hoover Institution has published an interesting overview article this week which is worthwhile reading in full. I will quote sections from the article below.
“In contemporary European discourse, the challenges of immigration are inextricably tied to questions of Islam and Islamism. Of course not all immigrants come from Muslim majority countries–many more are Christians from Ukraine. Nor are all Muslim immigrants Islamists, i.e. advocates of radical political views shaped by particular strains of Islam. Nonetheless, the dissemination of Islamism in Europe overlaps significantly with immigration patterns……..it is important to recognize how Europe has not succeeded in integrating the Middle Eastern immigrant population, elements of which cling to Islamist viewpoints incompatible with liberal Western societies.”
“Germany is a particularly instructive case in point. It is the dominant political force in the European Union with the largest economy. It is also the country with, in absolute terms, the largest foreign-born population, as it has long been an attractive destination for immigrants, whether from other EU countries or from outside the EU. Today about one in five residents was born outside Germany, and of those born outside the EU, most come from Muslim majority countries, especially Turkey and Syria.”……
Mr Berman notes that in previous periods, prior to the extensive 21st century mass migration, assimilation was always seen as desirable. This is no longer the case.
“However, for the large-scale immigration, especially from the Middle East, of the early twenty-first century, different attitudes and circumstances have made integration more difficult to achieve. Among the immigrants, various strands of neo-traditionalism in the Muslim communities have contributed to a preference for separatism and the development of “parallel societies,” hostile to modern social norms. The expectation to identity with and enter into German mainstream culture, a Leitkultur, has come to be denounced as an illegitimate imposition. In other words, cultural assimilation is no longer necessarily regarded as an unquestionable desideratum or an opportunity for improvement. On the contrary, in April Islamist demonstrators in Hamburg, for example, called for replacing Germany’s liberal democracy with a “caliphate.”
Immigration will be an ongoing challenge for the UK and Europe and no solution is in sight. Governments lack the will to restrict immigration but the rise of anti-immigration political parties may change the equation. However, as the Conservative Party found in the UK, the legal system can be used by immigration groups to thwart governments’ ability to enforce immigration law.
COVID mRNA Vaccines Cause 74% of All COVID Deaths?
Frank Bergman from Slay News definitely caught my attention with his article this week, titled: Explosive Study: Covid ‘Vaccines’ Caused 74% of ALL Deaths. He reported that:
“An explosive study has sent shockwaves through the medical and scientific communities after finding that Covid mRNA shots are “directly” linked to 74% of all recorded deaths.
The damning study uncovered evidence in autopsy data showing that Covid injection contributed to a staggering 73.9% of all deaths around the world.
However, the study has been met with unprecedented censorship.
After being peer-reviewed, the study was pulled from major medical journals as “fact-checkers” scrambled to overrule the leading experts behind the research.”
The article that evaluated a number of studies had some “heavy hitter” academics who contributed to the scientific study, including Harvey Risch, Paul Alexander and Peter McCullough.
The research team initially identified 678 studies. After screening for inclusion criteria, the researchers included 44 papers for the study that contained 325 autopsy cases and one necropsy case.
“The mean average age of death was 70.4 years. The most implicated organ system among cases was the cardiovascular (49%), followed by hematological (17%), respiratory (11%), and multiple organ systems (7%).
Three or more organ systems were affected in 21 cases.
The mean time from vaccination to death was 14.3 days.
Most deaths occurred within a week from last vaccine administration.
A total of 240 deaths (73.9%) were independently adjudicated as directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination.
Among those directly linked to Covid shots, the primary causes of death include:
Sudden cardiac death (35%)
Pulmonary embolism (12.5%)
Myocardial infarction (12%)
VITT (7.9%)
Myocarditis (7.1%)
Multisystem inflammatory syndrome (4.6%)
Cerebral hemorrhage (3.8%).
In the “Conclusions” section of the paper, the authors write:
“The consistency seen among cases in this review with known COVID-19 vaccine mechanisms of injury and death, coupled with autopsy confirmation by physician adjudication, suggests there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death.”
It is not surprising that the article was withdrawn from Forensic Science International, given that the findings threatened the closely guarded promotion of the “safe and effective” mRNA vaccines.
One hopes that the publication will see the light of day again but even so, the findings that have been highlighted continue to shine the light on the potential dangers to health from the mRNA vaccines.
Thank you, Reuben, for reading and summarizing the masses of unreadable documents so we don’t have to. I am in awe of your tenacity to bring some light into the darkness.