Today, I’m going to identify, and try to help you
understand, the organization that is the primary enemy of humanity and our freedoms
today. I refer to the United Nations.
This is the headpost of a series of essays, which will
address the many perversions of our political environment, that have been
brought about by the UN, its agencies and its cronies. Those cronies include
the EU, multi-national companies, various international organizations including
the World Economic Forum (WEF), and many, if not most, national governments.
Including the UK.
Regardless of which party has been in power, the UK
government has been among the most active in helping along the UN’s mischiefs.
And all four mainstream parties – Tories, Labour, Lib Dems and Greens – have
had their fingers in these pies for decades now.
The genesis of the UN
The United Nations is generally held to have been
instituted in 1945. But its roots lie several years earlier. An “Atlantic
Charter,” a 1941 joint statement between US president Franklin Roosevelt and UK
prime minister Winston Churchill, set out a plan for policies to be implemented
once the nazis had been defeated. These included “the fullest collaboration in
the economic field between all nations,” “economic advancement and social
security,” and that everyone “may live out their lives in freedom from fear and
want.”
At the beginning of 1942, 26 governments, all of which had
declared war on the nazis and their Axis allies, signed up to a “Declaration of
United Nations,” affirming their support for the Atlantic Charter. The USA and
the UK were joined by the Chinese, who had been fighting against Japanese
invaders since 1931. They were joined also by the Russians, as soon as Hitler
had reneged on the Ribbentrop non-aggression pact. These were the “Big Four,”
to which France was added after its liberation in 1944.
The UN Charter
The United Nations formally began in 1945, after the UN
Charter [[1]] was
agreed.
The preamble to the Charter stated its three main goals
affecting ordinary people as follows. “To save succeeding generations from the
scourge of war.” “To regain faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity
and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of
nations large and small.” And “To promote social progress and better standards
of life in larger freedom.” (What “in larger freedom” actually means is rather
unclear). And one way it was to achieve those goals was “to employ
international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social
advancement of all peoples.”
The four stated Purposes of the United Nations, in Article
1, can be summarized as follows. To maintain international peace and security.
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle
of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. To achieve international
co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social,
cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect
for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all. And to be a centre for
harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
Article 7 established the principal organs of the UN. The
General Assembly. The Security Council, comprising five permanent members – the
“Big Four” plus France – and six non-permanent ones, since increased to ten.
The Economic and Social Council. The Trusteeship Council. The International
Court of Justice (ICJ). And the Secretariat. Subsequent articles put some
“flesh” on what each of these organs was to do.
For an overview of the UN’s history, and how the beast
looks these days, Wikipedia is as good a place as any: [[2]].
ECOSOC
It is worth saying a little here about ECOSOC, the UN Economic
and Social Council. The acronym surely has an Orwellian ring to it. Fullthinkers
unbellyfeel ECOSOC! And the organization is responsible, in one way or another,
for many of our woes today.
ECOSOC is “responsible for coordinating the economic and
social fields” of the UN. It provides means for thousands of non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), including many activist ones, to influence what the UN
does. In 2011, it produced a highly activist report called “The Great Green
Technological Transformation.” Additionally, it oversees the implementation of
the UN’s “sustainable development” agendas.
Specialized UN agencies, which report to it, include the
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The International Monetary Fund (IMF).
UNESCO, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. The World
Bank Group. The World Health Organization (WHO). And the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO).
UNESCO and UNEP
UNESCO started the green agenda rolling in the first
place, with a “Man and the Biosphere” project, started way back in 1971, and
still going today.
Since its establishment in 1972, the UN Environment
Programme (UNEP) has taken a leading role. It describes itself as “the United
Nations’ leading global authority on the environment, driving transformational
change on the triple planetary crisis: the crisis of climate change, the crisis
of nature, land and biodiversity loss, and the crisis of pollution and waste.”
UNEP and its director Maurice Strong were responsible,
back in 1982, for the “World Charter for Nature.” A UN resolution (I wrote
about it here: [[3]])
which said, in essence, that “nature” and wildlife were more important than us
human beings. And 111 countries, including the UK, passed it! Is there any
successful non-symbiotic species on this planet that regards other species as
more important than its own? And aren’t governments supposed to be for the
benefit of the people who pay for them – not for anyone, or anything, else?
Moreover, I know there isn’t a climate crisis today. And I’ve
written essays to prove it. I am still waiting for an answer to the question I
have often asked environmentalists: name one species to whose extinction I have
contributed, and tell me what I did, and approximately when, to contribute to
that extinction. And I know about the huge reductions in pollution of many
different kinds, which have been made over the last 70 years. As to waste, the
problem I see is not one of physical waste, but governments wasting taxpayers’
resources on insane agendas like “nett zero.” So, where the heck is the
evidence for a “triple planetary crisis?”
The WHO
The WHO is perhaps the most actively destructive of our
rights and freedoms among all the UN’s agencies.
It has perverted the science of air pollution toxicology,
and so been a major driver (no pun intended) of the anti-car policies we are
subjected to. It has instituted an insatiable, never-ending drive to cut air
pollution to levels so low they can never be met in a free economy. It is also
responsible for the ever-tightening speed limits and regulations with which we
are being bound, because of its unachievable wet dream of reducing road deaths
to zero [[4]].
Moreover, the WHO’s performance over the COVID-19 pandemic
was atrocious. In particular, it was late to recognize human-to-human
transmissibility of COVID-19, and wrongly deferred to the Chinese political
stance of “lockdown at any cost.” And it seems over-keen to get countries to
commit to a common pandemic strategy, regardless of individual countries’
cultures and situations. Indeed, its attitude seems all but dictatorial.
UNECE
ECOSOC includes, as one of its regional commissions, the
UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). This has been extremely active in
providing “collective policy direction in the area of environment and
sustainable development” in Europe. It also promotes so-called “smart cities.”
Wikipedia describes the smart city as “an urban model that
leverages technology, human capital, and governance to enhance sustainability,
efficiency, and social inclusion, considered goals for the cities of the
future.” A smart city uses digital technology to collect data from “citizens,
devices, buildings, or cameras,” and to operate services. Further, as early as
1992 in “Agenda 21,” the UN painted a picture of us all crammed into cities,
using “high-occupancy public transport” and ruled over by a “culture of
safety.”
Yet no-one ever even asked for our consent to these things.
If I had been asked, my response would have been along the lines of “bugger
off.”
No wonder the UK establishment are so intent on forcing
digital ID on to us all! In their eyes, our status is no higher than cameras or
technological devices, or even numbers in a database.
I remember, back in 2005, being told that the databases
they were then proposing would be a “single source of truth.” Otherwise said,
“the computer is always right.” Now think what was the effect on hundreds of
innocent sub-postmasters, who on exactly that premise were wrongly prosecuted
for fraud by the Post Office.
And if you think the UN doesn’t take a positive view of
digital ID, try this: [[5]].
Isn’t that a far cry from the UN Declaration on Human Rights’ recognition of
“the inherent dignity of all members of the human family” and “the dignity and
worth of the human person?”
Political status of the UN
The UN has taken for itself many of the moral
privileges of a sovereign political state. Its property is immune from search
or confiscation by any of its member states. It is exempt from taxes, customs
duties and import/export restrictions. It has diplomatic immunity, and its
officials also have “functional immunity” from prosecution when carrying out
their duties. Its employees, in effect, pay what taxes they pay to the UN
itself. It even issues its own passports.
The UN is like a state, yet beyond all other states. Those
that reach high positions in it are undemocratic, powerful and unaccountable. The
UN looks like a perfect vehicle for psychopaths to take over the world, and
make it into a Big Brother nightmare for us all.
One thing the United Nations has not done, though, is take
anything away from the sovereignty of its member states. Would you not have
expected that an organization, formed to prevent war, ought to have done its
very best to lessen the war-making powers of nation-states, that by their
design are empowered to make wars in the first place? Should they not have
sought agreement on the idea that “states may no longer make aggressive wars?” Or,
at the least, could they not have persuaded their member states to cap military
spending at, say, 1 per cent of GDP? But no. Political states still commit
aggressions, and can get away with them if their military strength is
sufficient.
The UN’s record
What about the UN’s successes and failures on its stated
goals?
Peacekeeping
As a peacekeeper, the UN’s performance has been mixed.
There is a basic problem; how can the UN be an effective peacekeeper, when so
often individual member states have their own agendas on one side of a conflict
or another? This was a particular issue during the cold war.
Beyond this, the UN has not been able to counter political
de-stabilization of other countries by powerful world states, such as US
meddling in Iran, Guatemala, Cuba or Panama.
As to its stated goals: Has the UN managed “to save
succeeding generations from the scourge of war?” Nyet. One condemnatory
resolution apart, it has done nothing to halt or to cut short the Russian
invasion of Ukraine. As to Palestine versus Israel, the UN’s intervention in
1947 not only failed, but led to a civil war. And they are still peddling their
failed solution today!
Human rights
The UN’s record on human rights began reasonably well,
with the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights, billed as “a common
standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.” Though, particularly
from article 22 onwards, some of the claimed rights reflect a collectivist view
of the world, and a few are simply misguided.
Within the UN framework, the Declaration has been carried
forward into the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Both came into
force in 1976. But since then, very little progress has been made. Indeed, the
UN Commission on Human Rights, after years of internal squabbles and lack of
effectiveness, had to be replaced in 2006.
Since then, the UN has set out to advance groups
to whom it is over-sympathetic, notably women. But how does the UN’s desire for
preferential treatment of women over men tally with “the equal rights of men
and women?”
Has the UN, overall, helped us “to regain faith in
fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the
equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small?” Not at all. Our
rights and dignity are being violated on many fronts, for example by Starmer’s
scheme to kill our privacy with compulsory digital ID.
The ICJ climate change opinion
The recent advisory opinion of the ICJ on climate change,
discussed here [[6]],
leads to some interesting considerations.
The opinion says that “the adverse effects of climate
change may impair the effective enjoyment of a wide range of human rights.” Yet
it does not seem to address the human rights aspects of government policies
that are imposed in the name of “protecting the climate system.” Does not the
“nett zero” policy, for example, go against the claimed right to “freedom from
want,” by making it unaffordable for poor people to heat their homes?
Further, the idea that human-caused emissions of
greenhouse gases cause bad consequences to “the climate system” is not a proven
fact, despite incessant claims to the contrary from the UN itself and its
hangers-on. If it was proven beyond doubt, they could point to such a proof,
based on facts alone, without any political influence. But there is no such
proof.
Have not those of us, who refuse to accept such a
statement without proof, been denied our right to the presumption of innocence
until proven guilty? And have we not been denied “a fair and public hearing by
an independent and impartial tribunal?” Particularly since our voices –
including those of our experts – have been suppressed for decades by
organizations like the BBC?
Social progress
And what has become of the UN’s goals “to promote social
progress and better standards of life in larger freedom” and “economic
advancement and social security?”
Our freedoms are being trashed. In large part, by policies
that have been driven by the UN. As to what “larger freedom” means, I am
reminded of George Orwell’s “Freedom is slavery.”
As to better standards of life, food bank usage in the UK
has almost trebled in the last 10 years. That is economic advancement? That is
social progress? Pull the other one.
To sum up
To sum up the UN’s sad story. Far from delivering world
peace, economic advancement and human rights, the UN has, bit by bit, taken on and
promoted agendas that both hold back our economy, and violate our rights and
freedoms. I call “fail” on the UN. And “foul,” too.
Today, like moths around a candle, political parasites
that seek gain for themselves, and pests that want to rule over people harshly
and against their wills, seek to join together to use UN programs to further
their aims. As I listed some of them above: the UN and its agencies, the EU,
multi-national companies, various international organizations, and many, if not
most, national governments.
When, back in 2016, we the people residing in the UK set
about the process of throwing off the chains of the EU, few of us understood then
that the EU was only one part of the problem.
The EU was, in effect, acting as policeman for agendas,
that were ultimately being driven by the UN and its supporting cabals –
including successive UK governments. With hindsight, we can now understand why
we have never enjoyed the fruits of the Brexit we sought, like lower taxes, a
“bonfire of the regulations,” and a government that benefits the people of the
UK rather than globalist élites
and their cronies.
It is high time, in my view, that people come to
understand that the UN today does not deliver, or even support, the high-minded
goals that were initially touted for it. Instead, it is a major driver behind
agendas that are destroying democracy, prosperity and our human rights and
freedoms.
It is time, I feel, to recognize that Brexit, in the eyes
of those who supported it, must be regarded as failed, or at best
incomplete. We the people of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (not
to mention the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands) need to get away from the
malign influence of the scheming globalist élites. The élites,
foreign and domestic, that have brought us “nett zero,” anti-car policies, and an
environment in which we are treated like objects or data, not as human beings.
We may have got away from the ECJ, for a time at least.
But in order to get us back on track and moving forward again, we need to go
further. We need to get away from the ICJ, and from all the other UN agencies
and hangers-on. What we now need is UNexit.
We must re-claim our independence and self-determination, our economy and our human rights and freedoms. Does Reform UK have what it takes to spearhead that movement?