The United Nations has become a leviathan. It is seeking to dictate the world's economy, migration, monetary systems, digital IDs, environment, agriculture, wages, climate modifications, health. It aspires to “A world order based on a command economy ….. that is …. both socialist and totalitarian”.

Instead of focusing on its charter: peace, ending wars, human rights, etc, the UN wants to eliminate national sovereignty.

The UN, along with the WEF, is bent on establishing ‘stakeholder capitalism’, which means powerful private corporations working with, and controlling governments. We saw examples of this during Covid and, in Australia, the Voice referendum.

Global governance is the aim of the United Nations.

In 2015, member countries signed up to the ‘2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” agreement, which contains goals that would lead to world governance. There are around 170 targets involving the areas in paragraph one.

According to the UN, the agenda is “accepted by all countries and is applicable to all”.

Most people will know nothing about this “new world order”, but the UN has signed agreements with the largest organisations, corporations and world powers/governments to achieve their “utopia” - rule by unelected, faceless United Nations officials.

United Nations “surrogate”, the World Health Organisation, after “failing to manage Covid”, is looking for more money and power to take over pandemic management from sovereign countries in future, controlling travel and vaccine passports.

Another UN ‘sub-branch’, the IMF, thinks that the Covid disruption would justify the creation of central bank digital currencies.

This is all a “gross violation of the individual's right to privacy, national sovereignty, and the UN Charter. (https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/pandemics-as-a-catalyst-for-a-new)

Dag Hammarskjold the Swedish economist and
diplomat who served as the second Secretary
General of the United Nations from April 1953
until his death in a plane crash in September 1961
said that the United Nations was created not to
lead mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from
hell.

And, it would not have been hard to imagine in the
wake of a world war and with the atom bomb's
shadow spreading across the globe - how important
at that time the creation of the UN must have been.

How much of a part the UN played in holding nuclear
Armageddon at bay divides historians.

However, there should be little doubt that the United
Nations in the lifetime that's passed since it was set up
in 1945 the important part it has played in helping save
millions from the deepest poverty, The United Nation's
children's organization - UNICEF. - has provided an
education and a path to a better life for so many.

The UN's developmental programs helped countries freed
from colonial rulers govern themselves. And the list goes
on.

Of course the UN's enforcement mechanisms were a constant
criticism - of its inability to enforce mandates. The UN
was only as effective as its member states allowed - and
members went to gre4at lengths to ensure their national
sovereignty.

Therefore the General Assembly resolutions were typically
considered to be recommendations only.

How much the United Nations has changed and the problems
it is now facing can be found in a book by Australian
Roland Rich. The following link explains:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/united-nations-leviathan-global-governance-post-american-world

Once upon a time all this stuff was labelled 'conspiracy theory' and denied, laughed at as the stuff of tin-foil hat wearing nutjubs.
(I remember, because I was one of them)
- But the architects knew there would be a time as they slowly implemented their plans where the conspiracy was laid bare for all to see and they wouldn't be able to deny it.

Their plan for when this happened?

Instead of being caught out, and looking guilty, they would SELL IT to the masses.

Just like the neoconservatives starting all these wars ttbn
- These people do not have a reverse gear.

The worst part about it is that democracy allows them to install new leaders and forever keep shifting the goalposts.

They like democracy, not because it works for us, but because it works for them, think about it.

They call the sovereign countries who won't play ball 'authoritarian'
And our so-called 'sovereign' nations, are actually vassal states under globalism.

Airbus Albo, well he's not the leader of a sovereign country.
He's a branch-manager of this particular world government region.

Back 15 years ago when I got into this stuff, we all thought that once it was exposed, the house would come crashing down on all their plans.
- Looking at the kids of today, how easily they can be manipulated by fear and buy into what they've been taught, I think their games already mostly been won.

I suspect that politicians in Australia and other similar countries wouldn't mind world government; they would keep their jobs and perks, but would not have to take the responsibility/blame when we plebs complained. I wonder what they really talk about when they get together on all those overseas trips; all that "confidentiality" they can't tell us about.

Conspiracy theories? Yes, there are some. But there are also actual conspiracies among the 'great and powerful'. And let's face it: democracy can be such a drag for politicians of all brands.

Hi Foxy,
"How much of a part the UN played in holding nuclear
Armageddon at bay divides historians."

I think the thing that saved us there were the nuclear treaties which had UN weapons inspectors.
Did you know that the worlds main nuclear superpowers US and Russia have been within seconds of launching all out nuclear armageddon on each other already?
- At least once, maybe twice, but within seconds;
That's how close the world has already come to destroying itself.

As for the UN, votes in the general assembly are non-binding, but votes in the security council are.
What often happens for example is that one of the 5 permanent members of the UNSC will have a resolution to vote on...
If say the Russians proposed the resolution, the Chinese will support it or abstain, and the UK and France will abstain and the US will veto it.
- So the resolution is rejected.
(There are also 10 non-permanent members of the UNSC)

But what happens then for example is that Russia may then take the same resolution to the 192 members of the general assembly.
- And while that same resolution may have been vetoed and rejected in the UNSC, it may instead be shown to have majority support in the non-binding UNGA.
When this happens, it shows how the world as a whole feels about the issue, and may also show that the US who vetoed in my example, is then isolated in its veto position, when the world as a whole supports it.

There's a video I watched that discussed how close we got once to nuclear armageddon already.
I think it was this Jeffrey Sachs video about JFK below, and if I remember correctly it was well worth the watch.
I'll watch it again later and see if it was the right one.

What JFK tried to do before his assassination w/Jeffrey Sachs
http://youtu.be/Wqm9Yl1gGEY

Hi AC,

Yes, I'm very familiar with the JFK period in American
history.

As for the problems with the United Nations?
I'm looking forward to getting hold of a copy of the
book by Roland Rich. It sounds like an interesting read.

Great problems usually come to the UN because governments
have been unable to think of anything else to do about
them. The UN is usually a last ditch and it's not
surprising that the UN gets blamed for failing to solve
problems that have already found to be unsolveable by
governments.

Enforcement mechanisms are a recurring criticism of the
United Nation's inability to effectively enforce mandates.
And as we know the United Nations is only as effective as
its member states allow. Members go to great lengths to
ensure their national sovereignty.

Therefore General Assembly resolutions are typically
considered to be recommendations only.

Still, I for one am glad that the UN exists - problems and
all. The UN's Human Development Index selected literacy
as one of the keys to human development. It was decided
that there was a no more important human achievement than the
ability to read and write.

That it was necessary to read widely to discover the words of
those who seek the truth and to separate the wheat from the
chaff. Dictators burn books , so great is the danger of
accumulated wisdom put in print. Those afraid of the truth
continue this practice, if not by burning - by other means
of censorship.

Thanks for your comments AC - they are appreciated. As is
the amount of time that you spend in researching topics.
I hope that you shall keep on posting for a long, long, time.