UNITED NATIONS — Governments and dictators from around the world have met in New York to adopt a far-reaching agreement to expand and strengthen the power of the United Nations. The controversial declaration, known as the “Pact for the Future,” approved by the UN General Assembly, is seen by the UN and its member governments as a major step forward for the cause of globalism.
So the UN is becoming, as the organization's top leader put it, “UN 2.0.” But at least in the United States, lawmakers, state governors and grassroots leaders are growing increasingly uneasy about what they see as a historic power grab, and many attendees at the UN summit are on edge as Donald Trump prepares to return to the White House.
According to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, a former leader of the world's leading coalition of socialist and communist political parties, the UN Future Summit is “an important step towards making the global institution more legitimate, effective and fit for the world of today and tomorrow.”
Meanwhile, Cameroon's President of the UN General Assembly, Philemon Yang, argued that the UN agreement “will lay the foundations for a sustainable, just and peaceful world order for all peoples and nations.”
“Giving” (i.e. empowering) the UN with new powers and responsibilities was one of the main focuses of the mega-meeting and is baked into the agreement. “We cannot build a future fit for our grandchildren with a system that was built for our grandparents,” Guterres continued. The sentence was printed on giant billboards throughout UN Headquarters as delegates debated “reforming” the powerful UN Security Council, with the goal of eventually eliminating the veto power of permanent members.
The final agreement adopted at the Future Summit reflected these sentiments: “We recognize that to meet the changing world, the multilateral system and its institutions, with the United Nations and its Charter at its core, must be strengthened,” the Future Accord stated. The agreement was adopted “unanimously,” despite perfunctory opposition from a minority of governments.
“We renew our commitment to multilateralism and international cooperation,” the agreement adds. “We will transform global governance and strengthen the multilateral system.”
According to the document, only greater globalization can address the real and imagined problems facing humanity. A “recommitment to international cooperation based on respect for international law” is “necessary,” the agreement states, and international cooperation, like “multilateralism,” is a synonym of globalization. “This is not an option, but a necessity,” it continues.
In fact, the agreement explicitly asserts that without the United Nations, nations and their governments would be powerless to address the problems facing humanity. “Our challenges are too interconnected for any one nation to meet them alone,” the agreement states. “They can only be resolved collectively through strong and sustained international cooperation.”
The term “global governance,” often used as a more moderate proxy for world government, is mentioned repeatedly throughout the document, always as a positive step forward. For example, under the heading “Transforming Global Governance,” the agreement calls for a significant expansion of these mechanisms for governing all of humanity.
“Our multilateral system, built after the Second World War, is today under unprecedented strain,” the agreement states, noting the (undefined) remarkable achievements of the past 80 years. “But we are not complacent about the future of the international order and know that it cannot afford to stagnate.”
One of the institutions that won support was a would-be world court known as the International Court of Justice, often derided by critics as a “camouflage court.” “We will fulfill our obligations to comply with the judgments and to abide by the mandate of the International Court of Justice,” the agreement states.
Taxation is another area in which the UN wants to expand its mandate, pledging to “explore options” for “international cooperation” on taxes, particularly on “high-income earners.” “We are committed to strengthening the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of tax cooperation at the UN,” the UN agreement explains, one of many efforts to eventually implement a global tax.
But ultimately, globalism must expand across the board. “We will take action to strengthen and revitalize multilateralism and deepen international cooperation,” the statement continues, expressing an “unwavering commitment to international law” to meet the challenges ahead. “Transformations in global governance are essential if the positive progress made in recent decades across all three pillars of the United Nations' work is not to be undermined. We cannot allow this to happen.”
However, as another New American article highlighted, the UN recognizes that humanity, especially American taxpayers who pay the majority of taxes, are growing tired of the UN: “We must renew faith in our international institutions by making them more representative and responsive to today's world, and more effectively able to deliver on the promises we have made to each other and to our peoples,” the agreement states.
As the agreement makes clear, one of the main ways the UN can help “restore” trust in globalism is through information management. It calls on governments to “counter” so-called “disinformation, misinformation, hate speech and content that incites harm, including content spread through digital platforms.” “Hate speech,” of course, is a term introduced into the UN vocabulary by the genocidal Soviet dictatorship to describe speech that it found abhorrent.
“We will work together to promote information integrity, tolerance and respect in the digital space,” the governments pledged in the UN agreement, laying out a dizzying array of actions they would take afterward. “We will strengthen international cooperation to address the challenges of online misinformation, disinformation and hate speech, and mitigate the risks of manipulation in a manner consistent with international law.”
Restricting information isn't the only way the UN is refuting its claims: Confidential documents sent to public relations officials across the UN system earlier this year and obtained by The New American contain provisions for how the Future Summit and its agenda will be promoted to humanity.
“The upcoming summit is a pivotal moment on our agenda,” the memo said, adding that the UN Department of Global Communications “wants to engage the media in our work, starting with an overview on specific parts of the agenda.” One way the UN has done this is by partnering with Google to hide information that contradicts the UN's claims, particularly on issues like climate.
“The summit will have a booklet with stories and key messages so staff know how to communicate on the issues,” the office added. “More and more people are rallying to overcome skepticism, but some issues are hard to sell. Making multilateralism work is something we should sell. Advertising agencies would be happy to help. We should consider how to 'flood the internet' with positive, fact-based campaigns.”
One of the key exercises of power in the final agreement signed this weekend concerns the UN's response to so-called “complex global shocks” – which could be anything from “climate” and economic issues to environmental crises and unpredictable “black swan” events.
According to proposals outlined by UN Secretary-General Guterres in a policy brief titled “Our Common Future” released last year, Guterres would essentially become world dictator, responding to any real or imagined international emergency he declared at his discretion. The proposals call for nations, businesses and all sectors of society to recognize “the key role of intergovernmental organizations (such as UN agencies) in decision-making.”
While this week's final agreement did not include all of Guterres' demands, member states gave him a “mandate” to vigorously pursue this agenda. “We recognize the need for more coherent, cooperative, coordinated and pluralistic international responses to complex global shocks, and the central role of the United Nations in this regard,” the agreement declared, calling on Guterres to devise new ways to “strengthen the UN system's response to complex global shocks.”
A major theme of the agreement was the reaffirmation of commitments to previous UN treaties and programs, such as the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a tool of tyrants seeking to replace America's understanding of inalienable, God-given rights with revocable privileges granted by the UN.
In particular, the UN Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted in 2015 as a “Master Plan for Humanity” and a recipe for global tyranny, were a focus of the new agreement. “We reaffirm our enduring commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals,” the new agreement states, pledging to “urgently accelerate” its implementation with “concrete political measures” and more taxes.
As part of this, the UN claims to need virtually unlimited powers and funding to do everything from “eradicating poverty” and “eliminating food insecurity” to addressing allegedly man-made “climate change” and reducing “inequalities” both “within” and “between” nations. Ironically, as the magazine documents, many of the real and imagined evils the UN pretends to fight have been created or exacerbated by UN policies and those of its member states.
Annexes were added to the agreement, such as a “Global Digital Compact” for the UN to take the lead in regulating the digital sphere (data, internet, artificial intelligence, etc.) Also, a “Future Generations Declaration” was attached to the final agreement, disguising all efforts to seize power from the UN as if they were actually for “our children” and generations yet to be born.
The UN summit and resulting agreement come after Reps. Ralph Norman (R-SC), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Ronny Jackson (R-TX), Eli Klein (R-AZ), and Bob Good (R-VA), as well as foreign policy experts and faith leaders, met on Capitol Hill last week to protest the impending UN power grab disguised as a “Pact for the Future.”
“It appears they are once again trying to sell our sovereignty with this agreement,” Rep. Eli Klain said at a press conference.
Rep. Biggs, former chair of the House Freedom Caucus, also put it bluntly: “We can no longer cede our sovereignty, our geopolitical integrity, and our economic integrity to a foreign power that has no interest in the United States of America other than to take our power and our money.”
Already, over half of US governors have publicly pledged to resist UN orders in their states, while for the first time, bills are currently being introduced in both houses of Congress that would end US involvement with the UN: House Bill 6645 and Senate Bill 3428, both titled the “DEFUND Act.”
The mainstream US media has barely covered the UN summit or agreement, no doubt by design: if the American public knew what the UN was planning, public outcry would force Congress to, at the very least, cut off funding to the UN altogether.
For local coverage of the event, taking place in New York City on September 22-23, check out The New American.
