The United Nations is going into its 80th annual conference as an organization in decline. Nevertheless, this week, world leaders will meet in New York to discuss how they can exploit the world’s problems for their globalist ends.
Under the guise of reducing disease, combating mental illness, and dealing with the next pandemic, the UN plans to use its waning power to surveil and censor people.
Since its creation, the UN has sought to exploit legitimate societal threats and problems for their ultimate goal, installing a world government. They don’t hide their true intentions. UN Secretary-General António Guterres said last year during his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos that the “only way” to address the world’s needs is through “strong multilateral institutions and frameworks and effective mechanisms of global governance.”
In 2015, just after the UN revealed its Agenda 2030 plan, UN Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs Wu Hongbo cited a long list of problems that only “global governance” can solve. It’s quite the speech. To soothe concerns of so much power in the hands of so few, he even claimed the UN is just, fair, and transparent. “We need a global governance that encompasses a much broader range of development facets and provides long-term solutions for them,” Wu said, adding that “the United Nations can become a locus for such global governance.”
And back in 1962, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor, and former State Department official Lincoln P. Bloomfield wrote a report for the U.S. State Department in which he said:
A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one in which “world government” would come about through the establishment of supranational institutions, characterized by mandatory universal membership.
A draft laying out one of the discussions happening this week indicates the globalists seek more control over how nations respond to disease, mental illness, and the next health “crisis.” In the “political declaration,” they claim they want to reduce death from noncommunicable diseases by 30 percent, make treatment for hypertension and mental illness more accessible, and reduce smoking, all supposedly part of a larger goal to reduce poverty and inequality.
The way they intend to accomplish these goals is by bringing “together governments, civil society and the private sector” — also known as public-private partnerships. That includes funding and empowering the UN’s public health arm, the World Health Organization (WHO). They also plan to “enact within national and, where relevant, regional contexts legislation and regulation.” And they want to develop and implement “multisectoral national plans and, where appropriate, subnational plans.” This is all just a fancy way of saying they want control over sovereign nations’ governments.
The declaration says that accomplishing all this will require censorship and surveillance. The censorship is euphemistically defended as necessary to “counter misinformation and disinformation around the prevention and treatment of noncommunicable diseases and mental health conditions.”
It also mentions their intent to “regulate digital environments.”
The UN wants to keep track of people’s personal data; this is explained under the heading “Strengthen governance.” One of their goals is to:
Improve infrastructure for systematic and ongoing country surveillance on noncommunicable diseases, risk factors and mental health, including death registration, population-based surveys, and facility-based information systems.
And they plan to reverse, or at least censor, the growing skepticism toward the corrupt Western Medical Establishment. The document says that it’s important to “acknowledge that there are evidence-based interventions for preventing, screening, diagnosing, treating, and caring for people with noncommunicable diseases and mental health conditions.” When they say “evidence-based,” that’s a sly way of saying they want to discredit methods and drugs out of the paradigm of the Western medical cabal.
This week’s meeting is happening just as the WHO’s changes to the International Health Regulations go into effect. These changes essentially give WHO more power over how member nations deal with pandemics and other health emergencies.
On Friday, WHO announced the changes in a press release. A central message of the release is that since borders don’t restrain diseases, globalism is the antidote. A WHO press release says:
[The amendments] recognize that infectious diseases and other public health risks do not respect borders, and that coordinated global action is critical.
Among the changes is a new “global alert” that will “trigger stronger international collaboration when a health risk escalates beyond a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) and poses the risk of becoming, or has already become, a pandemic, with widespread impact on the health system and disruption to societies.”
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office this year that withdraws the U.S. out of WHO. The White House said the disastrous way the organization handled the spread of Covid-19 and allowed the Chinese to influence it justified the exit. But the withdrawal comes with a one-year notice period, so, technically, the U.S. is still in the WHO.
A number of Council of Council (CoC) members — the CoC is subagency of the CFR — discussed what the UN looks like now that the United States has leadership that isn’t fully sold on globalism.
Ryan Neelam, the director of the Public Opinion and Foreign Policy Program at the Lowy Institute in Australia, says:
Founded to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” the United Nations now finds itself sidelined as conflicts rage in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, and tensions between major powers escalate. Legal scholars warn of a “catastrophic collapse of norms against the use of force.” Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump’s erratic tariff policies have fractured decades of broad consensus on rules-based trade. Foreign aid budgets are shrinking, military spending is rising, and global momentum to act on climate change and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has slowed.
The forecast is not looking good, especially since the reduction of U.S. funding to the UN. Neelam continued:
Amid those geopolitical rifts, the United Nations is under severe financial strain. The United States, its largest donor ― contributing some 22 percent of the regular budget ― is expected to announce further funding cuts following a review of international organisations ordered by Trump.
The UN secretary-general, Neelam adds, will be reducing the UN budget and workforce by 20 percent.
Michele Valensise, president of the Institute of International Affairs in Italy, also noted the effect of American indifference to the UN:
The United Nations needs to contend with fierce competition and deep divisions between its member states at the international level, along with a decreased interest in multilateralism even as the world becomes increasingly interdependent. The latter is due, in part, to the detachment of the United States from the activities and structures of the United Nations.
Héctor Cárdenas, president of the Mexican CFR, has a similar complaint:
The United Nations is stumbling into its eighth decade with mounting dysfunction. The second Trump administration’s renewed disdain for multilateralism — evidenced by its withdrawal from integral bodies such as the World Health Organization and UN Human Rights Council, and by its steep cuts to humanitarian aid — has deepened a crisis that was already structural.
If this is what the UN looks like with minimal U.S. support, imagine what Americans could accomplish with a full withdrawal.
The United States funnels a lot of money to this subversive organization — but there is no reason for it to exist. By its own admission, it hasn’t maintained peace around the world. And, again, by its own admission, its primary goal is to hijack power from nation-states. If it believes its humanitarian motivations are legitimate, then the catastrophic results alone should disqualify these people. One need look no further back than Covid. At the center of Europe’s response was the UN through the WHO.
The parent company of this magazine, The John Birch Society (JBS), has been fighting to get the U.S. out of the UN since 1962. The JBS deserves credit for the decades of work its members carried out to expose the true nature of this organization and create resistance to it. You can learn more about the UN’s disastrous impact and what you can do to help here.