Tag: globalism

A Globalism of Ideas – Inside the UN’s “Pact for the Future”

The United Nation’s Summit of the Future is over. The “great and good”  of global leadership got together for four days in New York for what their website called…

a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reimagine the multilateral system and steer humanity on a new course

…which sounds just lovely and not at all creepy and hubristic.

The four day event was split into  two “action days” and two days of “the Summit.”

Both of which are just different names for “people in suits sitting around big tables using bureaucratic jargon while making big time serious important-person faces”.

The result of which is the passing of a document they’re calling the “Pact for the Future” – 81 pages of self-important waffle so crammed with meaningless political language it becomes near-unintelligible (what James Corbett calls “Globalese”).

Here’s a paragraph chosen at random:

Enhancing cooperation with stakeholders, including civil society, academia, the scientific and technological community and the private sector, and encouraging intergenerational partnerships, by promoting a whole-of society approach, to share best practices and develop innovative, long-term and forward-thinking ideas in order to safeguard the needs and interests of future generations.

…it’s all like that. And I read it all. 81 pages.

You’re welcome.

In terms of real content, there are no new ideas here. We have seen  this globalist shopping list of alleged “issues” before.

Climate change, conflict, food insecurity, poverty, misinformation, hate speech. The usual “problems” that collectively form what the document refers to as “complex global shocks”.

These “shocks” – the document tells us – can  be addressed with a series of “solutions” that are again no surprise:

“respect for international law”,

“expanded cooperation”,

“increased role for the UN” and the post-covid buzzword of choice –

“interoperability”.

All of which can be broadly defined as our old friend “global government”.

As you’d expect, there’s a lot of talk about money and finance (massive transfers of public money into private hands is how you win over corporations and hedge funds to your authoritarian cause, after all). For example Action 9(28)(f) promises…

Keep reading

The Pact for the Future Was Adopted Without a Vote

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 objection 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).

The General Assembly then adopted the Pact without a vote![2]

The fact that Russia is involved in a war against Ukraine, and that the supporting nations have autocratic rule, is not exactly beneficial to the genuine opposition to the Pact (for reasons of true democracy, national sovereignty and freedom of speech), as any critique of any kind risks being dismissed as part of Russian intelligence operation and/or supporting the views of totalitarian regimes.

It remains to be seen what happens with the Russian claim that they will distance themselves from the Pact, while the work on implementing it (with the stated goal to “safeguard future generations” and “turbocharge Agenda 2030” with the help of strategic foresight, anticipatory governance, and behavioural design) continues in global forums for cooperation like the G20 and BRICS—with Russian participation.

Despite their expressed dissatisfaction, Russia supports the UN’s central role in “coordinating the positions of member states and searching for collective responses to global challenges”. They did not block the adoption the Pact and will, without a doubt, implement the actions that they did not object to.

Russia especially welcomes The Declaration on Future Generations, the “bridging of the digital divide” for the SDGs, and a reform of the International Financial Architecture.

BRICS (with its ten member states) is chaired by Russia this year. Digitisation is high on the agenda with The Digital BRICS Forum held this week.

The fact is that the BRICS-members Brazil, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, South Africa, United Arab Emirates voted against Russia (and Iran), whereas China abstained.

The main concern of the BRICS countries is that Western Powers will be the main beneficiaries of the pact, not that the digital tools can be used for population control, online censorship, and for influencing our behaviour.

They want to be assured that they are included as equal partners in the emerging new world order with its digital world brain.

As a comment to my article The Media Silence Surrounding the UN Pact for the Future, the Swedish Government finally published a press release this Friday (September 20th, only two days before the Summit) about the delegation that would attend Summit of the Future, probably confident that no media attention would be given before the meeting.

Keep reading

The UN Just Adopted The “Pact For The Future” Which Lays The Foundation For A New “Global Order”

While everyone was distracted, the global elite got exactly what they wanted.  The UN adopted the “Pact for the Future” on September 22nd, and the mainstream media in the Western world almost entirely ignored what was happening.  Instead, the headlines urged us to just keep focusing on Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.  Sadly, the vast majority of the population has never ever heard about the “Pact for the Future”, and so there was very little public debate about whether or not we should be adopting a document which lays the foundation for a new “global order”.  The text of the “Pact for the Future” is available online, but hardly anyone will ever read it and many of the most important provisions are buried toward the end of the 56 page document.  Of course everyone should take the time to actually read this document, because our leaders just committed us to an extremely insidious global agenda that literally covers just about every conceivable area of human activity.

September 22nd, 2024 is a day that will go down in infamy.

Once the “Pact for the Future” was formally adopted, the following was posted on the official UN website…

World leaders today adopted a Pact for the Future that includes a Global Digital Compact and a Declaration on Future Generations. This Pact is the culmination of an inclusive, years-long process to adapt international cooperation to the realities of today and the challenges of tomorrow. The most wide-ranging international agreement in many years, covering entirely new areas as well as issues on which agreement has not been possible in decades, the Pact aims above all to ensure that international institutions can deliver in the face of a world that has changed dramatically since they were created. As the Secretary-General has said, “we cannot create a future fit for our grandchildren with a system built by our grandparents.”

You would think that the “most wide-ranging international agreement in many years” would make headlines all over the planet.

But that didn’t happen.

The UN press release also boldly declares that the “Pact for the Future” will “lay the foundations” for a new “global order”…

“The Pact for the Future, the Global Digital Compact, and the Declaration on Future Generations open the door to new opportunities and untapped possibilities,” said the Secretary-General during his remarks at the opening of the Summit of the Future. The President of the General Assembly noted that the Pact would “lay the foundations for a sustainable, just, and peaceful global order – for all peoples and nations.”

The Pact covers a broad range of issues including peace and security, sustainable development, climate change, digital cooperation, human rights, gender, youth and future generations, and the transformation of global governance.

I don’t want to live in a new “global order” that includes “all peoples and all nations”.

I am sure that most of you feel the exact same way.

Keep reading

Summit of the Future: A push to get nations to submit to a global government with the UN at the helm

In the draft Pact for the Future, the UN describes global crises that call for global governance. But can we trust the scriptwriter who is the only contestant for that governor’s seat?

The trust in the UN was seriously undermined in 2020, as the UN’s World Health Organisation’s policies led to mass impoverishment, loss of education, child marriage, and rising rates of preventable diseases. The response has been to blame the virus, not the unscientific approach.

Although the covid-19 response was ordered by national leaders, the UN actively pushed the disastrous one-size-fits-all measures including border closures, society shutdown, mass vaccination and removal of access to formal education, while simultaneously promoting censorship of dissenting voices. 

While covering up these crimes against humanity and avoiding accountability, the UN and world leaders intend to approve a set of 3 political, non-binding documents:

  1. a Pact for the Future,
  2. a Declaration on Future Generations, and
  3. a Global Digital Compact.

All were placed under “silence procedure” and were planned to be approved with little discussion.

Keep reading

Tony Blair Calls for Global Agreement on Social Media Speech Restrictions

Fresh off the crackdown on so-called “keyboard warriors” over social media posts connected to the recent anti-mass migration riots, leading leftist politicians in Britain are beginning to demand for new speech restrictions on the internet.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose neo-liberal Labour Party government enacted some of the strictest speech laws in modern British history, has joined the chorus of commentators demanding a new crackdown on social media.

Speaking to LBC Radio this week, Blair said: “The world is going to have to come together and agree on some rules around social media platforms.

“It’s not just how people can provoke hostility and hatred but I think… the impact on young people particularly when they’ve got access to mobile phones very young and they are reading a whole lot of stuff and receiving a whole lot of stuff that I think is really messing with their minds in a big way.

“I’m not sure what the answer is but I’m sure we need to find one.”

Keep reading

Competing Powers Shape Our World?

In the grand theater of global affairs, where power, influence, and wealth intermingle, a narrative emerges that is as compelling as it is unsettling—a narrative that suggests a world shaped not by the democratic will of the people, but by the hidden machinations of a powerful elite. Could it be that the events we see unfolding on the world stage are not merely the result of chaotic happenstance or the bumbling of incompetent leaders, but rather the deliberate moves of a carefully orchestrated game, one that we, the common folk, are scarcely aware of?

This idea, though provocative, finds its roots in a persistent undercurrent of speculation and cautious observation. For decades, political analysts, conspiracy theorists, and concerned citizens alike have hinted at the existence of a global power structure—one that operates beyond the reach of governments and the scrutiny of the press. The notion is not new, but it is one that bears revisiting, especially in an era where the lines between truth and fiction, reality and conspiracy, have become increasingly blurred.

The Dialectic of Control

At the heart of this theory lies the concept of dialectic control—a strategy purportedly employed by the elite to manipulate public perception and steer global events. This tactic involves the creation of crises—economic downturns, political conflicts, wars, even pandemics—that induce fear and uncertainty among the masses. In such moments of crisis, the populace, desperate for stability, is more likely to accept solutions that, under normal circumstances, would be met with resistance.

The elite, according to this theory, do not act out of mere opportunism but out of a systematic and calculated plan to consolidate power. They recognize the potential in chaos; they understand that in moments of crisis, the human psyche is malleable, open to suggestions that promise safety and order. But these solutions often come at a cost—a gradual erosion of freedoms, a subtle shift in power from the many to the few.

Keep reading

Globalists Are Trying To Escalate The Ukraine War Into WWIII Before The US Election

The purpose of NATO involvement in the Ukraine War has, to me, always appeared obvious. Ukraine has nothing to do with the interests of the western public, nothing to do with the security of Europe and nothing to do with the economic advancement of the United States. Yet, NATO and the globalists have been politically interfering in the region since at least 2014 and preparing the ground for an eventual war with Russia.

To be clear, I don’t favor Russia any more than I favor Ukraine. The Kremlin has long had its own ties to the globalists, as I have outlined in numerous articles. How deep those ties go is up for debate – Maybe the honeymoon is over and Russia is truly done trying to get a seat at the globalist table. What I do know is that western elites want a world war and they have done everything in their power to start one.

Look at it this way: What if you were to make a list of all the covert and overt NATO operations in Ukraine and then flipped script? What if Russia was pursuing all the same agendas of destabilization, control and arms proliferation in Mexico (as the Soviets did in Cuba in the 1960s)?  If the US invaded Mexico preemptively it would be completely understandable.

Whether or not Putin is acting in the best interests of Russia doesn’t really matter. The war was inevitable anyway because NATO made sure it was impossible to avoid. But what purpose does such a proxy war serve? Well, it doesn’t serve much purpose at all…unless the goal is to instigate a wider world war between the East and the West. In that scenario the globalists benefit greatly.

They get a scapegoat for the economic collapse they’ve already set in motion. They multiply the global fear factor and make the public desperate for the political elites to step in and solve all their problems. And, they can get rid of their domestic enemies (conservatives and patriots) by accusing them of “working with Russia” to undermine the war effort if they dare to rebel against unconstitutional mandates.

Beyond that, they also get an opportunity to send young men (who might rebel) off to the meat grinder in Ukraine so that there’s no new generation of freedom fighters to deal with. World War III is a win-win-win for the Davos crowd, as long as it doesn’t go full-on nuclear holocaust and wipe out their carefully crafted surveillance states.

But how do they turn the proxy war into a world war without looking like the bad guys? That’s the trick, isn’t it?

Keep reading

The U.S. Regime’s Plans to Control the World

The U.S. Government’s plans to control the world are displayed not merely by its lie-based invasions, such as against Iraq in 2003, and against Libya in 2011, and against Syria in 2012; but also by its coups, such as against Honduras in 2009, and against Venezuela in 2012 and again in 2019, and against Ukraine in 2014; and by its sanctions, such as against Iran, Venezuela, Russia, Iraq, and Syria; all of which kill and destroy millions of people, and produce tens of millions of refugees, etc.

An excellent example of the planning that the U.S. Government devotes to expanding still further its empire — the lands that it controls, America’s colonies or ‘allies’ — was provided in a 28 February 2023 hearing by the House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on ‘Defense’ (Aggression):

Betty McCollum, the leading Democrat on the Subcommittee, addressed the U.S. Secretary of ‘Defense’ (Aggression), Lloyd Austin: 

As General Milley [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] said, we don’t go to war alone. So if we include Australia, Canada, NATO, you know, all the great powers that we work with, we would have a multiplying effect that neither China or Russia has.

    Would that be a fair statement, Secretary Austin or General Milley?

    Secretary Austin: That is, in fact, correct, Ranking Member McCollum. We will always fight with our allies and partners. And, again, the capability that they bring to the table magnifies our overall capability. So you could expect that in any instance we would be able to draw upon some of their capability as well. So we work on a routine basis to make sure that we are interoperable and make sure that—-

    Ms. McCollum: Thank you. Thank you.

    I would like you to, a little, go into more importance on the recent–on February 2, the agreement that you signed with the Philippines, whichever one of you gentlemen want to answer that.

    President Marcos seems to have made some deliberate decisions to align more closely with the United States’ interests and away from China. Could you kind of tell the committee more about this agreement with the Philippines and how you see it enhancing our efforts in the region, because I think this goes back to the whole question of the multiplying effect of having resources that China and Russia do not have, and if there are any other nations in Indo-Pac that you see wanting to align more closely with the United States. …

    Secretary Austin: Well, I was, as a matter of fact, out in the Philippines and engaged the President on this particular issue. And I was really pleased that the President made the decision to move forward and increase the number of sites where we could work along with the Philippine forces to increase interoperability and develop their skills as well. And it is actually a benefit to them, as you know. So this really is a significant movement forward. …

    General Milley: Just two points. One is you are correct on the allies and partners, Australia, Japan, but there are many other countries there as well, to include European countries. We have done exercises with the Brits and the French also in the Asia-Pacific region. So they are force multipliers.

    Secondly is our sub force, which is rarely talked about, and I am not going to talk about it in detail right now, but our sub force is incredibly–submarine force–incredibly capable and very deadly and extremely lethal. So those two pieces I think would make a huge difference and help deter any kind of aggression by China.

    The last thing is the Philippines, but the Philippines and other countries in that region, they sit astride the key sea lines of communication that China relies on for their international access to the Middle East oil, et cetera, et cetera.

    So those allies and partners of ours are fundamental. …

Keep reading

UN votes to adopt roadmap for global tax convention

A “landslide” majority of countries at the United Nations voted to approve ambitious parameters for a new global tax convention that could herald a fresh approach to taxing multinational corporations and the super-rich.

Following three weeks of discussions in New York, on Aug. 16, 110 countries voted in favor of adopting the “terms of reference” that will guide future negotiations for a legally binding framework convention on international tax cooperation — a sort of “global constitution” under which rules, known as protocols, are set.

Eight countries rejected the scoping document, including Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States, all of which are members of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Forty-four countries abstained from the vote, including all European Union members and Argentina, the sole participating Latin American country to vote against the draft text.

Keep reading

UN Is Accelerating The Three Outcome Documents For The Summit Of The Future, Namely The Pact For The Future; The Declaration On Future Generations; And The Global Digital Compact – Silence Is Consent

We have not heard anyone mention this yet, and think it’s very important that everyone is up to speed on the details right now, so we assembled this information for you all. We’re at your service!!!

The following information has been made available on the three outcome documents for the Summit of the Future, namely the Pact for the Future; the Declaration on Future Generations; and the Global Digital Compact:

Pact for the Future: 

It is expected that Rev 3 will be released on 26 August and will be put under silence until 29 or 30 August.

The delay is due to the Co-facilitators attempting to deconflict the silence process with those for the Global Digital Compact and the Declaration on Future Generations. 

Keep reading