Covid lockdowns could turn into climate lockdowns next. Whether or not it would mitigate environmental problems, it would effectively widen the growing gap between rich and poor, leading to endless war, privation, famine, and genocide – negating the good intentions upon which the UN was founded. Man-made disasters always starts with Utopian dreams.
UN Power Grab, by Wesley J. Smith, Sept. 16, 2021.
Article from The Epoch Times.
Titles (above) and graphics from Think for Yourself
In 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci advocated that the U.N. be given the power to “rebuild the infrastructures of human existence.” Sounds audacious, right? Not to U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres. He’s all in.
The U.N. apparatchik’s ambition became clear with the release of “Our Common Agenda,” an 85-page report (pdf) that describes Guterres’s vision for the U.N.’s future. It makes for alarming reading.
The text is written in the impenetrable bureaucratese favored by globalists and stuffed to the gills with utopian generalities. But, by squinting one’s eyes—if they can be stopped from spinning in their sockets—it becomes clear that Guterres hopes to apply the same power techniques “temporarily” deployed during the COVID-19 pandemic to enact other agendas that globalists deem paramount.
Guterres engaged the obligatory fearmongering required to accrue increased power.
“We are at an inflection point in history,” he wrote. “In our biggest shared test since the Second World War, humanity faces a stark and urgent choice: a breakdown or a breakthrough.”
Only the U.N. can save us!
“The United Nations presence is global, its membership is universal, and its activities span the breadth of human need,” Guterres wrote. “Its fundamental values are not the preserve of any region. Indeed, they are found in every culture and religion around the world: peace, justice, human dignity, equity, tolerance, and, of course, solidarity. However, while the fundamental purposes and principles of the United Nations endure, the Organization must evolve in response to a changing world to become more networked, inclusive, and effective.”
Translation: This is a power grab to give the U.N. in general—and the secretary-general, in particular—authority over the creation of national and international public policies.
How would that power be deployed? For starters, it would come through the forging of an international taxing system.
“Taxation is one of the most powerful tools of government,” Guterres wrote, stating the obvious. “Taxation can also drive a sustainable and just transition as governments shift subsidies from activities that damage the environment to those that sustain and enrich it. … As discussions continue, the perspectives of all countries must be heeded, including the potential for asymmetrical impacts on countries at different stages of development.”
Translation: We’ll redistribute income to the developing world and use global warming as the pretext to create an international taxing power to bring the world’s economy under our control.
Guterres also goes after free speech.
“Now is the time to end the ‘infodemic’ plaguing our world by defending a common, empirically backed consensus around facts, science, and knowledge,” he wrote. “The ‘war on science’ must end. All policy and budget decisions should be backed by science and expertise, and I am calling for a global code of conduct that promotes integrity in public information.”
Translation: We’ll establish an informational monopoly that will disseminate officially approved “facts” and suppress heterodox opinions.
You think I’m exaggerating? Decide for yourself.
“While vigorously defending the right to freedom of expression everywhere, we must equally encourage societies to develop a common, empirically backed consensus on the public good of facts, science, and knowledge.” Guterres wrote.
“A global code of conduct that promotes integrity in public information could be explored together with States, media outlets, and regulatory bodies, facilitated by the United Nations. With recent concerns about trust and mistrust linked to technology and the digital space, it is also time to understand, better regulate, and manage our digital commons as a global public good.”
I think we all know how that would work out. Social justice would rule the day.
“Racism, intolerance, and discrimination continue to exist in all societies, as seen during the pandemic with scapegoating of groups blamed for the virus,” Guterres wrote. “As a start, the adoption of comprehensive laws against discrimination, including based on race or ethnicity, age, gender, religion, disability, and sexual orientation or gender identity, is long overdue. … Fuller use could be made of human rights mechanisms, including the universal periodic review, in this regard, and I support the update of the modalities of the universal periodic review by the Human Rights Council as part of the new guidelines.”
And, of course, he calls for the “repeal of all gender-discriminatory laws.”
Translation: The new international order will promote critical race theory, abortion rights, and the values of the transgender movement, while suppressing dissent from the reigning global moral order.
Yes, there will be mass migration.
“People on the move require special attention, support, and protection,” Guterres wrote. “Measures to protect, assist, and find solutions for the internally displaced, benefiting from the High-level Panel on Internal Displacement, are essential to leaving no one behind.”
He demanded that “the rights of all persons on the move” be upheld “regardless of status … through the inclusion of refugees and migrants in essential public services.”
Translation: Millions of people will be removed from the destitute southern hemisphere into the developed world—with full access to free social welfare services.
The report even pushes granting children the vote: “To listen to and work with youth, governments are urged to promote political representation for youth, including young women and girls. This could entail lowering the voting age and the eligibility age for standing as a candidate for elected office, as well as strengthening youth participatory bodies.”
Translation: We’ll give children political power. Greta Thunberg will lead us!
The private sector will be engaged in the internationalist growth project.
“The increasing role and influence of the private sector, and its centrality to achieving so many of the actions outlined in this report, will also be taken into account within the United Nations system,” Guterres wrote. “The business and human rights agenda is important in this regard. I also call for a broader range of businesses, from multinational corporations to small and medium-sized corporations, to participate in the Sustainable Development Goals and climate action, including through business models that align with efforts to rethink measures of progress and prosperity.”
Translation: A corporatocracy will reinforce formal international power structures by enforcing correct policies and punishing disapproved behaviors without resort to democratic processes. Or to put it another way, we’ll govern you through your employers and consumption habits.
Guterres even described how the U.N. will deploy techniques of propaganda and social control to gain our acquiescence.
In a different U.N. Secretary-General report, he described this as “behavioural science,” writing: “Behavioural science enables us to diagnose barriers preventing people from adopting a certain behaviour, understand enablers that help people achieve their aims, and design and measure the impact of interventions on the basis of these assessments and the premise of ethical choice and transparency all premised on commitments to human dignity, transparency, and respect for ethical requirements.”
Translation: We’ll manipulate data, social media, and information dissemination to make you want to do what we want.
Right now, thankfully, this is all so much windbaggery. The U.N. doesn’t have the legal or coercive power to compel the implementation of Guterres’s wish list.
But that shouldn’t make us sanguine. The leaders of national and international institutions—and our current federal government—are controlled by people with the same globalist ideology as the secretary-general. Bluntly stated, they want to lead an international technocracy that exercises top-down control over us all.
Unless we stand strong defending national sovereignty and individual liberty—values that “the international community” scorns and that Guterres barely mentions—we could really end up in the collectivist soup.
All-Out War On Free Speech Launched By United Nations
Proving the point that the assault on Free Speech is being driven by Technocracy, the United Nations has openly joined the fray in the name of Sustainable Development, Agenda 2030.
In January, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, tasked his Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide, Adama Dieng, to “present a global plan of action against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis”. Speaking at a press conference about the UN’s challenges for 2019, Guterres maintained, “The biggest challenge that governments and institutions face today is to show that we care — and to mobilize solutions that respond to people’s fears and anxieties with answers…”
One of those answers, Guterres appeared to suggest, is shutting down free speech.
“We need to enlist every segment of society in the battle for values that our world faces today – and, in particular, to tackle the rise of hate speech, xenophobia and intolerance. We hear troubling, hateful echoes of eras long past” Guterres said, “Poisonous views are penetrating political debates and polluting the mainstream. Let’s never forget the lessons of the 1930s. Hate speech and hate crimes are direct threats to human rights…”
Guterres added, “Words are not enough. We need to be effective in both asserting our universal values and in addressing the root causes of fear, mistrust, anxiety and anger. That is the key to bring people along in defence of those values that are under such grave threat today”.
In other words, forget everything about the free exchange of ideas: the UN feels that its ‘values’ are being threatened and those who criticize those values must therefore be shut down. Not only that, but — disingenuously — the UN is comparing dissent from its agendas with the rise of fascism and Nazism in the 1930s.
Now the action plan that Guterres spoke of in January is ready. On June 18, Guterres presented the United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech:
“Hate speech is…an attack on tolerance, inclusion, diversity and the very essence of our human rights norms and principles,” Guterres said. He also wrote in an article on the subject, “To those who insist on using fear to divide communities, we must say: diversity is a richness, never a threat…We must never forget, after all, that each of us is an “other” to someone, somewhere”.
According to the action plan, “Hate is moving into the mainstream – in liberal democracies and authoritarian systems alike. And with each broken norm, the pillars of our common humanity are weakened”. The UN sees for itself a crucial role: “As a matter of principle, the United Nations must confront hate speech at every turn. Silence can signal indifference to bigotry and intolerance…”.
Declare Your Independence!
Profit outside the rigged system! Protect yourself from tyranny and economic collapse. Learn to live free and spread peace!
Naturally, the UN assures everyone that, “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law”.
Except the UN most definitely seeks to limit freedom of speech, especially the kind that challenges the UN’s agendas. This was evident with regard to the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration in which it was explicitly statedthat public funding to “media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants” should be stopped.
In contrast to the UN Global Migration compact, the UN’s action plan against hate speech does contain a definition of what the UN considers to be “hate” and it happens to be the broadest and vaguest of definitions possible:
“Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor”. With a definition as broad as this, all speech could be labelled “hate”.
The action plan, “aims to give to the United Nations the room and the resources to address hate speech, which poses a threat to United Nations principles, values and programmes. Measures taken will be in line with international human rights norms and standards, in particular the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The objectives are twofold: Enhance UN efforts to address root causes and drivers of hate speech [and] enable effective UN responses to the impact of hate speech on societies”.
The UN makes it clear in the plan that it “will implement actions at global and country level, as well as enhance internal cooperation among relevant UN entities” to fight hate speech. It considers that “Tackling hate speech is the responsibility of all – governments, societies, the private sector” and it envisages “a new generation of digital citizens, empowered to recognize, reject and stand up to hate speech”. What a brave new world.