New UN “Pact for the Future” Turbocharges Globalism

UNITED NATIONS — Governments and dictators from around the world gathered in New York and adopted a sprawling agreement to expand and further empower the United Nations. The controversial declaration approved by the UN General Assembly, known as the “Pact for the Future,” is seen by the UN and its member governments as a great leap forward for the cause of globalism.

In short, the UN is becoming “UN 2.0,” as top leaders of the organization put it. However, in the United States, at least, lawmakers, governors, and grassroots leaders are growing increasingly restless about what they perceive as a historic power grab, putting many attendees at the UN summit on edge as Donald Trump prepares for a possible return to the White House.

UN General Assembly President Philemon Yang of Cameroon claimed the UN deal would “lay the foundations for a sustainable, just, and peaceful global order – for all peoples and nations.” Other leaders of the organization echoed the sentiment.

According to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, former leader of the world’s preeminent alliance of socialist and communist political parties, the UN Summit of the Future represents “an essential first step towards making global institutions more legitimate, effective, and fit for the world of today and tomorrow.”

“Transforming” (read: empowering) the UN with vast new authorities and responsibilities has been one of the major focuses of the massive gathering and is woven into the pact. “We can’t create a future fit for our grandchildren with systems built for our grandparents,” continued Guterres, a line that was printed out on giant signs throughout UN headquarters as delegates discussed “reform” of the powerful UN Security Council with a goal of eventually eliminating veto powers of the permanent members.

The final agreement adopted at the Summit for the Future formalized those ideas with the backing of virtually every national government and dictatorship on Earth. “We recognize that the multilateral system and its institutions, with the United Nations and its Charter at the center, must be strengthened to keep pace with a changing world,” reads the Pact for the Future, which was adopted by “consensus” featuring token opposition from a handful of governments.

“We renew our commitment to multilateralism and international cooperation,” the Pact adds. “We will transform global governance and strengthen the multilateral system.”

Only more globalism can handle the real and imagined problems facing humanity, according to the document. A “recommitment to international cooperation based on respect for international law,” the pact says, is “required,” with international cooperation, like “multilateralism,” serving as a synonym for globalism. “This is not an option but a necessity,” it continues.

In fact, the agreement specifically claims that nations and their governments cannot possibly handle the alleged problems that face humanity without the UN. “Our challenges are deeply interconnected and far exceed the capacity of any single State alone,” the pact states. “They can only be addressed collectively, through strong and sustained international cooperation.”

The term “global governance,” often used as a less-ominous placeholder for global government, is mentioned repeatedly throughout the document, always as something positive to be advanced. Under the heading “transforming global governance,” for instance, the pact calls for a dramatic expansion of these mechanisms for governing all of humanity.

“Today, our multilateral system, constructed in the aftermath of the Second World War, is under unprecedented strain,” the pact says, pointing to supposed (and undefined) “remarkable achievements” over the last 80 years. “But we are not complacent about the future of our international order, and we know that it cannot stand still.”

One of the institutions that received a shoutout is the would-be global Supreme Court known as the “International Court of Justice,” often ridiculed by critics as a “kangaroo court.” “We will fulfil our obligation to comply with the decisions and uphold the mandate of the International Court of Justice,” the Pact states.

Another area where the UN hopes to expand its power is on taxation, vowing to “explore options” for “international cooperation” on taxes and in particular, on taxing “high net worth” individuals. “We are committed to strengthening the inclusiveness and effectiveness of tax cooperation at the United Nations,” the UN deal explains, one of many efforts to eventually implement global taxation.

Ultimately, though, globalism must expand across the board. “We will take action to strengthen and reinvigorate multilateralism and deepen international cooperation,” it continues, offering “unwavering commitment to international law” for dealing with supposed challenges. “A transformation in global governance is essential to ensure that the positive progress we have seen across all three pillars of the work of the United Nations in recent decades does not unravel. We will not allow this to happen.”

However, as highlighted by The New American in another article, the UN recognizes that humanity — and especially American taxpayers who pay the bulk of the bills — are growing weary of the UN. “We must renew trust in global institutions by making them more representative of and responsive to today’s world and more effective at delivering on the commitments that we have made to one another and our people,” the agreement reads.

One of the major tools to help the UN “renew” trust in globalism is controlling information, as the pact makes clear. It calls on governments to “address” so-called “disinformation, misinformation, hate speech and content inciting harm, including content disseminated through digital platforms.” Of course, “hate speech” was a term introduced into the UN lexicon by the mass-murdering Soviet dictatorship to describe speech it hated.

“We will work together to promote information integrity, tolerance and respect in the digital space,” governments vowed in the UN agreement, followed by a dizzying array of actions they intend to take. “We will strengthen international cooperation to address the challenge of misinformation and disinformation and hate speech online and mitigate the risks of information manipulation in a manner consistent with international law.”

It is not just restricting information that counters the UN narrative. A confidential memo sent to communications executives across the UN system earlier this year and obtained by The New American magazine included provisions on how to propagandize humanity on the Summit of the Future and its agenda.

“The Summit of the future is a pivotal moment on our agenda,” the memo said, adding that the UN Department of Global Communications “wants to make sure we take the media with us – starting with briefs on specific parts of the agenda.” One way the UN has done that is by partnering with Google to hide information contrary to its narratives, especially on issues such as climate.

“The Summit will have a narrative and key message booklet to help staff understand how to communicate on the issues,” it added. “There is an increasingly large group of people who are mobilizing to get past cynicism, but some of the issues are hard to sell. Making multilateralism work is something we should sell. Advertising agencies are happy to help – we should consider how we can ‘flood the internet’ with positive, factual campaigns.”

One of the major power grabs in the final agreement inked this weekend involves the UN response to what it describes as “complex global shocks.” These could be anything from “climate” issues or economic problems to environmental crises or even unpredictable “black swan” events.

Under a proposal outlined in a policy brief dubbed “Our Common Future” released by UN boss Guterres last year, Guterres himself would essentially become a global dictator to deal with real or imagined international emergencies, declared at his discretion. The proposal called for nations, business, and all sectors of society to recognize the “primary role of intergovernmental organs [such as U.N. agencies] in decision-making.”

While the final agreement this week did not contain everything he asked for, it did provide a “mandate” from member states for Guterres to pursue the agenda vigorously. “We recognize the need for a more coherent, cooperative, coordinated and multidimensional international response to complex global shocks and the central role of the United Nations in this regard,” the Pact declared, calling on Guterres to devise new ways to “strengthen the United Nations system response to complex global shocks.”

A key theme of the pact was reaffirming commitments to previous UN agreements and schemes such as the UN “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” a tool of tyrants aiming to replace the U.S. understanding of God-given unalienable rights with UN-granted revokable privileges.

In particular, the UN Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a recipe for global tyranny adopted in 2015 as the “master plan for humanity,” was a focal point of the new deal. “We reaffirm our enduring commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals,” the new agreement states, vowing to “urgently accelerate” its implementation with “concrete political steps” and more tax money.

As part of that, the UN claims it needs virtually limitless amounts of power and money to do everything from “eradicate poverty” and “eliminate food insecurity” to deal with alleged man-made “climate change” and reduce “inequality” both “within” and “among” countries. Ironically, as this magazine has documented, many of the real and imagined evils the UN pretends to fight were created or worsened by UN policies or those of its member states.

Added to the pact were annexes including the “Global Digital Compact” to have the UN take the lead on regulation of the digital realm (data, Internet, Artificial Intelligence, and more). Also attached to the final agreement was the “Declaration on Future Generations” pretending that all the efforts to usurp more power for the UN are really “for the children” and generations yet unborn.

The UN summit and the resulting agreement come on the heels of U.S. Congressmen Ralph Norman (R-SC), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Ronny Jackson (R-TX), Eli Crane (R-AZ), Bob Good (R-VA), foreign policy experts, and faith leaders meeting on Capitol Hill last week to protest the impending UN power grab disguised as a “Pact for the Future.”

“It looks like they are attempting to sell out our sovereignty once again with this agreement,” said Representative Eli Crane at the press conference.

Congressman Biggs, the former leader of the House Freedom Caucus, was also blunt: “We can’t give up any more of our sovereignty, any more of our geopolitical integrity, or any more of our economic integrity to foreign actors who have no concerns for the United States of America other than to take our power and money away.”

Already, more than half of U.S. governors have publicly pledged to resist UN dictates in their respective states. Meanwhile, for the first time, Congress currently has bills to end U.S. involvement in the UN in both houses of Congress: House Bill 6645 and Senate Bill 3428, both labeled the “DEFUND Act.”

There has been virtually no coverage of the UN summit or the pact from the establishment media in the United States — and that is no doubt by design. If and when Americans learn what the UN is up to, Congress would be compelled by a public outcry to stop funding it all at the very least.