UN-ism: The New McCarthyism

The era of “UN-ism” has arrived.

UN-ism is a new form of McCarthyism. The target of UN-ism is not alleged communist infiltrators but, rather, so-called “conspiracy theorists.” The parallels between MCCarthyism and UN-ism are numerous, as we shall see throughout this analysis.

McCarthyism was a politically motivated witch hunt and national propaganda campaign spearheaded by the influential US politician, Sen. Joseph McCarthy. UN-ism is a politically motivated witch hunt and international propaganda and censorship campaign fronted by the powerful intergovernmental organisation, the United Nations (UN).

Like McCarthyism, UN-ism is a product of the Establishment’s fear. In both cases—McCarthyism and Un-ism—while the fear was and is genuine enough, the claimed reason for that fear was and is a lie. McCarthyism exploited “the Red Scare” and today UN-ism claims that purported “conspiracy theorists” present a danger to society.

The prosecutors of McCarthyism actually feared that the potential failure of their foreign policy platform would cripple their ability reallocate US spending commitments to their military, industrial and intelligence complex “partners.” The UN is terrified of losing control of the “infosphere.” McCarthyism fostered fear of “commies” and UN-ism sets “conspiracy theorists” as the omnipresent “threat.”

McCarthyism was not founded upon evidence or intellectual honesty. Instead, it was founded on allegation, fabrication and politically motivated persecution in defence of the Establishment. It was driven by mythology, not by a plausible assessment of any genuine risk. It was oppressive—opposed to the democratic principles widely valued in the US polity.

These same attributes are common to UN-ism.

The primary difference between McCarthyism and UN-ism, beyond the claimed “reason” to target individuals, is scale. While McCarthyism was largely restricted to the US, UN-ism is global.

Instead of being a national authoritarian political movement that attacks individuals and constitutional principles, UN-ism stands as a worldwide assault on democratic rights and freedoms at the behest of an international parasite class.

McCarthyism accused US citizens of being Communist Party infiltrators, but its real objective was to convince all Americans to fear the Soviet Union during its Cold War with the US, thereby enabling McCarthyites to sell their cold war policy platform to the electorate.

Similarly, UN-ism, on one level, demonises certain individuals and groups, but its real purpose is to indoctrinate Earth’s people to believe in and fear an imaginary threat, thereby persuading them to accept the global suppression of their inalienable rights. In addition, the UN’s intention is to brainwash people into “trusting” information, but only if it emanates from the UN and its “partners.”

Sen. McCarthy – pointing at things on maps and making claims

Disinformation: Rejecting The Obvious Solution

Disinformation means “false information spread in order to deceive people.” Engaging in disinformation is a deliberate act.

The origins of the word’s common usage are disputed. It was evidently in use in the US during the 19th century. In 1901, Viscount Long, in a UK House of Commons debate concerning the 1899 Small Dwellings Acquisitions Act, accused local authorities of peddling “disinformation” to gain additional funding from the Treasury:

Disinformation is limited to cases of applications by local authorities to the Board for sanction when loans are required for the purposes of the Act.

Later, a high-level Romanian defector to the US, General Ion Mihai Pacepa, alleged that the word “disinformation” came from the Soviet “dezinformatsiya.” Certainly, in the early 1920s, the Soviet Politburo was concerned about the use of “dezinformatsiya” by their enemies. In response, they formed the Disinformation Bureau (Dezinfoburo), which aimed to “supply the enemy” with:

Compilation [and] technical production of a whole series of false information, documents giving wrong ideas to opponents about the internal situation in Russia, about the organisation and state of the Red Army, about political work, about the leading party and Soviet bodies, about the work of the People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs, etc.

Supplying—”leaking”—false information to deceive one’s enemy—including domestic political opponents—is an information warfare strategy as old as civilisation itself. It is a common practice in public relations. To that extent, then, “disinformation” is simply a propaganda technique that all governments and other organisations routinely employ.

The advent of the internet has led governments and intergovernmental organisations to claim that disinformation now presents some sort of new or additional threat. This claim is itself “disinformation.” In reality, “disinformation” has been used throughout human history.

The United Nations (UN) asserts that disinformation, alongside misinformation and malinformation, creates what it calls “information pollution“:

Information pollution refers to false, misleading and manipulated online and offline content, which is created, produced and disseminated intentionally or unintentionally, and which has the potential to cause societal or physical harm. An overabundance of information and a high incidence of low-quality information within an ecosystem reduce our ability to find and trust information.

Handily, the UN provides its definition of these alleged pollutants:

Disinformation: Information that is false and deliberately created to harm a person, social group, organization or country.

Misinformation: Information that is false but is not created with the intention of causing harm.

Malinformation: Information that is based on real facts but is manipulated to inflict harm on a person, organization or country.

The UN’s take on “information pollution” initially sounds like a reasonable description of how various forms of erroneous information can cause confusion or lead to incorrect assumptions, possibly with damaging or even disastrous results. A closer investigation, however, reveals that the UN has deliberately embellished the dictionary definition of “disinformation.”

The UN version adds to the deceptive purpose of disinformation the further intention of causing “harm”—harm not just to individuals but also to organisations and nation-states. In the UN’s self-interested opinion, disinformation and malformation both represent a significant threat to entire countries and to supranational and intergovernmental organisations. This definition appears to be part of a UN strategy to shied itself from criticism.

From here on, we will focus on the “pollutant” that the UN calls “disinformation,” but keep in mind that we’re referring equally to misinformation and malinformation.

Disinformation is an age-old problem. So is the obvious solution: critical thinking.

Critical thinking is a skill that can first be acquired and then, with practice, honed. It is a clear, methodical approach to comprehending, logically ordering and analysing information. Whether the information we’re being asked to believe is accurate or not, the use of our critical thinking skills allows us to analyse that information and thus better inform our decision-making.

The three basic components of critical thinking are sometimes referred to as the Trivium:

The Trivium is presented to methodically gather raw, factual data into a coherent body of knowledge (grammar); then to gain understanding of that body by systematically eliminating all stated contradictions within it (dialectic or logic); and, finally, to wisely express and utilise that valid knowledge and understanding in the objective, real world (rhetoric).

Except for the few who lack capacity, we are all capable of critical thinking and constructing our own “coherent body of knowledge.” By thinking critically, we can build upon our knowledge and can learn to easily identify “information pollutants.” Where disinformation isn’t immediately apparent but our knowledge alerts us to its possible presence, we can use critical thinking to research further and find out if our suspicions are justified.

The easy and simple solution, then, to the UN’s perceived “information pollution” problem is to make the development of critical thinking skills the primary objective of our children’s education. If we did that, the next generation and all subsequent generations would be much better equipped to spot so-called “information pollution” and could deal with it accordingly, with relative ease.

UN Secretary General António Guterres

 

Speaking in 2019, UN Secretary-General António Guterres appeared to agree that critical thinking was essential:

Students need not just to learn, but to learn how to learn [critical thinking]. Education today should combine knowledge, life skills and critical thinking. All these elements are included in Youth 2030, the United Nations strategy to increase our engagement with young people[.]

If Guterres actually meant what he said, then he was spreading disinformation. “All these elements” are not “included” in the UN’s Youth 2030 strategy. Indeed, critical thinking is notable only for its absence!

A quick read of the UN’s Youth 2030 “umbrella framework” strategy document reveals that “critical thinking” doesn’t warrant a single mention in it. Instead, the emphasis is on “educating” the children of the world to “value” the issues that concern the UN. There is nothing in Youth 2030 about helping children and young people “to learn how to learn.”

Youth 2030 aims to create public-private partnerships that deliver “disaster risk re-education initiatives” to children—whatever that is. The stated objective is to teach children and young people to “play an active role” in an “international community” that the UN defines in terms of its commitment to “peace, security, justice, climate resilience and sustainable development.”

UNESCO calls this “education for sustainable development” (ESD). [More on UNESCO shortly.] Supposedly, ESD constitutes “critical thinking,” which, UNESCO alleges, should be based on Sustainable Development Goal 4’s promise to deliver “inclusive and equitable quality education” (including ESD).

ESD will supposedly create “authentic resources for learning” with the aim of “equipping students with the knowledge and skills they need to become responsible and engaged citizens.” This has absolutely nothing to do with developing critical thinking skills.

The UN will “authenticate” the information provided to pupils, giving the UN content control and equipping the children with the knowledge the UN wishes to impart. Allegedly this knowledge will manufacture “responsible and engaged citizens.” Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with developing the students’ critical thinking skills.

The UN isn’t the least bit interested in promoting critical thinking, despite the deceptive language used by its Secretary-General. We can only conclude that, by refusing to incorporate critical thinking skills into Youth 2030, the UN, a self-described a global governance regime, has wholeheartedly rejected the obvious solution to “disinformation.”

Instead, its preferred remedy to information pollution is UN-ism.

What Do We Mean by “the Establishment”?

To unpick UN-ism, we first need to explore some important concepts. For starters, let’s consider what the term “the Establishment” means.

In 1955, the British political journalist Henry Fairly wrote:

[W]hat I call the ‘Establishment’ in this country is today more powerful than ever before. By the ‘Establishment’ I do not mean only the centres of official power—though they are certainly part of it—but rather the whole matrix of official and social relations within which power is exercised.

According to the widely used sociology reference text, the New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, co-edited by Lord Bullock and the film maker Stephen Trombley, “the Establishment” is:

. . . [a] term, usually pejorative, for an ill-defined amalgam of those institutions, social classes and forces which represent authority, legitimacy, tradition and the status quo.

During WWII, Alan Bullock was a senior BBC European Service correspondent. Even the BBC called the European Service “insistently propagandist.” He came to wider public attention by making frequent radio appearances on the popular BBC panel discussion “The Brains Trust,” which ran throughout the 1940s and ’50s.

Julian Huxley was among the original Brains Trust panellists, and Bullock often broadcast alongside him. The pair also co-authored History: Civilization from Its Beginnings. Huxley, an avowed eugenicist, was the founding Director General of the UN’s aforementioned Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).

In 1970, Bullock received the French award of the Chevalier, Legion of Honour. In 1972, he was knighted Sir Alan Bullock for his major contributions to the Order of the British Empire. Four years later, he was made a life peer as Baron Bullock of Leafield in the County of Oxfordshire.

Despite Fairly’s concise description of “the Establishment,”and the public’s broad understanding of what it meant, Bullock—former BBC propagandist, knight of the realm and associate of the UNESCO eugenicist Julian Huxley— inexplicably considered “the Establishment” to be an “ill-defined” term.

Was he spreading disinformation? It would appear so, given that even Wikipedia is able to define the term:

The Establishment is a term used to describe a dominant group or elite that controls a polity or an organization. It may comprise a closed social group that selects its own members, or entrenched elite structures in specific institutions. One can refer to any relatively small class or group of people who can exercise control as The Establishment. [. . .] Anti-authoritarian anti-establishment ideologies question the legitimacy of establishments, seeing their influence on society as undemocratic.

Thus, irrespective of Lord Bullock’s propaganda, it’s safe to say that most of us know what we mean when we refer to “the Establishment.”

In its report on how COVID-19 “disinformation” had allegedly increased the spread of violent extremism, the UN noted that there were “vocal or organized groups that advocate anti-Government and anti-establishment ideologies.” Adding that these “ideologies” were “growing conspiracy theories and anti-Government sentiments.”

The UN concluded:

An international response is required to combat this spread of misinformation/dis – information through coordinated interventions, capacity building efforts to counter the spread of conspiracy theories.

Since the UN is hyper-concerned about supposed anti-establishment conspiracy theory, its own comprehension of “the Establshment” isn’t “ill-defined.” Otherwise, how could the UN identify those who oppose it?

Today, an international Establishment has coalesced around the global “centres of official power”—most notably the UN itself. The current Establishment operates through stakeholder “partnerships” as averse to “social relationships.” The “whole matrix [. . .] within which power is exercised” can best be described as a global public-private partnership (G3P).

From an international perspective, the G3P is the Establishment.

What is An Anti-Establishment Opinion?

Real democracy, as originally conceived in 6^th century BCE Greece, rendered the decisions of policy makers subservient to those delivered by lawfully convened, randomly selected juries of the people. In a real democracy, juries have the ultimate power to “annul” any and all legislation. This is a power that still exists, to a very limited degree, in Common Law jurisdictions.

Thus “democracy” actually means governance by trial by jury. In a democracy, the legislature, in whatever form, is not the “supreme legal authority,” as claimed by the UK Parliament. Rather, the people are the ultimate authority, through a system of jury-led trials.

So-called “representative democracy,” then, is not democracy. We are misled by the Establishment into believing it is.

That said, there are some democratic ideals, ostensibly common to “representative democracies,” that most of us value. In his 1949 essay Citizenship and Social Class, T. H. Marshall described how these ideals were expressed through a functioning system of rights. These “ideals” included the right to freedom of thought and expression, the right to free speech and to peaceful protest, the right to equal access to justice and to equal opportunity under the law, and so on.

Despite them not being democracies at all, democratic ideals are said to underpin representative democracies. With this caveat in mind, we can therefore evaluate modern “representative democracies” through the lens of some of the theoretical democratic models found in political science.

* Majoritarian electoral democracy suggests that policymakers respond to the will of the majority. Concerned for their electoral prospects, politicians make policies that address issues that are important to the public and that promote the values and interests of the majority.

* Economic-elite domination proposes that policies are made in the interests of those with significant economic and financial resources. The politician’s primary objective is to secure the favour of the “economic elite” in order to enjoy electoral success. By controlling the mainstream media (MSM), the elites’ propaganda campaigns can sway public opinion toward supporting a chosen politician. Economic-elite domination theory forms part of the field of study called “elite theory.” You can read more about elite theory here.

* Majoritarian pluralism theory submits that policy is shaped by the competing influence of interest groups. As collectives, these interest groups carry more political weight than the individuals that comprise them. By combining their efforts, organisations and groups of people can lobby policy makers to promote specific interests, such as land rights. Theoretically, this mechanism also expresses the will of the majority to policymakers.

* Biased pluralism suggests that majoritarian pluralism is corrupted by the wealth, power and influence of the economic-elite and their corporations. Multinational corporations can marshal resources to effectively drown out other pluralist groups. They can control lobbying and bend policymakers’ decisions toward their interests and away from the peoples’ interests. Such powerful interest groups, representing the interests of the financial and economic “elite,” can manipulate policy for their benefit, frequently to the detriment of wider society.

In 2014, political scientists Professor Martin Gilens and Professor Benjamin I. Page conducted a multivariate analysis of nearly 1,800 policy decisions made by the US government. In light of the theoretical democratic models of political science, their team assessed the influence of various groups and individuals on policymakers in the US.

Their objective was to understand:

Who governs? Who really rules? To what extent is the broad body of U.S. citizens sovereign, semi-sovereign, or largely powerless?

They concluded:

Economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

The scientific evidence clearly indicates that the Establishment rules in the US. As we have just discussed, the US is not a democracy. It is a “representative democracy” that delivers a biased pluralist society dominated by a so-called economic-elite.

Many of the democratic ideals identified by T. H. Marshall, such as equal access to justice and equal opportunity for all, do not and cannot exist in a system of government dominated by the Establishment, no matter what you choose to call that political system.

Anti-establishment opinion opposes the rule of the Establishment. It argues in favour of democratic ideals and rejects the biased pluralism of an economic-elite. It overwhelmingly stands for majoritarian electoral democracy, in preference to the biased pluralism of an economic-elite, and is open to the notion of majoritarian pluralism.

Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa – “desinfomatsiya”?

 

What is an Anti-Establishment Conspiracy Theory?

Now that we know what an anti-establishment opinion is, we need to understand what conspiracy theory is supposed to be. According to UNESCO (and its parent, the UN), a conspiracy theory is:

. . . [t]he belief that events are secretly manipulated behind the scenes by powerful forces with negative intent.

A “conspiracy theory,” then, is in part a belief that representative democracies are undermined by an economic-elite exploiting biased pluralism. To that extent, it is an opinion based upon well understood political theory derived from observable reality.

The addition of “secret” is crucial to the UN’s creative definition of “conspiracy theory.” However, there is nothing “secret” about the manipulation central to biased pluralism. The UN’s apparent insinuation that the biased pluralism of an economic-elite is a “secret” is not true.

That a conspiracy isn’t reported by the MSM heavyweights or admitted by the authorities doesn’t render it a “secret.” Operation Gladio, the Lavon Affair and the Iran-Contra Affair were but three conspiracies that were exposed long before they were “officially” admitted.

A “conspiracy theory,” continues the UN definition, can allegedly be identified through a six telltale traits.

#1 One telltale trait is that a conspiracy theory alleges a “secret plot.”

#2 Another trait is that “[e]vidence . . . seems to support the conspiracy theory.

Let’s stop right there. It’s impossible to provide evidence that “seems to support” the existence of a “secret plot.” If there is any evidence that “seems to support” the existence of a conspiracy, then the claimed evidence certainly isn’t “secret”—which means the alleged conspiracy can’t be either.

This doesn’t mean that the evidence proves the existence of the possible conspiracy. It is just evidence that, as the UN points out, “seems to support” the notion that biased pluralism is at work. The determining factor, to ascertain if the plot or conspiracy actually exists, is the evidence and only the evidence.

#3 A third trait, avers the UN, is that the conspiracy theory alleges the existence of “group of conspirators.” The UN acknowledges that “real conspiracies large and small do exist” and that they require “conspirators.” The possible identification of conspirators, the UN states, defines both theoretical conspiracies and real conspiracies. There doesn’t appear to be a distinction between the two, in this regard.

#4 The fourth trait, the UN claims, is that conspiracy theorists assume there is no such thing as coincidence or random events.

#5 The fifth trait is that so-called conspiracy theorists see the world only in terms of good and bad.

#6 The sixth trait is that conspiracy theorists “scapegoat” people and groups. The UN’s clear suggestion is that there’s something irrational, even sinister, about the conspiracy theory worldview.

These last three supposed “traits” stem from the comical psychological experiments conducted by “conspiracy theory researchers.” Experimental psychology is notoriously inaccurate and regularly fails to produce any kind of reliable results. This is not to say that verifiable results aren’t possible. But the field is particularly prone to bias. Nothing illustrates this point more clearly than the absurd conclusions of the “conspiracy theory” experimental psychologists.

For example, in a seminal paper in the field of conspiracy theorist “research,” titled Understanding Conspiracy Theories (Douglas et al., 2019), the psychologists start from the following premise:

Conspiracy theories are attempts to explain the ultimate causes of significant social and political events and circumstances with claims of secret plots by two or more powerful actors.

This opening salvo is preposterous. It’s an absurd assumption—a vacuous claim for which there is no evidence and for which, logically, there can never be any evidence.

No one on Earth can explain anything, be it an event, a policy, an economic situation or any “circumstances,” by referencing “secret plots.” Clearly, trying to do so would be nonsensical. Which is why no one does. In fact, it is not unreasonable to ask if any such purported “conspiracy theorists” even exist!

Douglas et al., continue:

Conspiracies such as the Watergate scandal do happen, but because of the difficulties inherent in executing plans and keeping people quiet, they tend to fail. [. . .] When conspiracies fail—or are otherwise exposed—the appropriate experts deem them as having actually occurred.

Bear in mind, dear readers, this paper is supposed to be based on science.

Starting from the above ludicrous suppositions, the “researchers” then use the logical fallacies of personal incredulity and appeal to authority in an attempt to supposedly define the difference between their weird concept of “theoretical” conspiracies and the “real” conspiracies that evidently occur relatively often. They contend, in all seriousness, that conspiracies remain “secret plots” and therefore cannot possibly be discerned, until such time as they are acknowledged by the appropriate “experts.”

This childlike comprehension of the world, utterly oblivious of biased pluralism and economic-elite domination, exemplifies the so-called psychological research that the UN cites as “evidence” in its determination of the nature of “conspiracy theory.” It is incoherent gobbledegook.

To their credit, the Douglas et al., researchers correctly note:

It is important for scholars to define what they mean by “conspiracy theorist” and “conspiracy theory” because—by signalling irrationality—these terms can neutralize valid concerns and delegitimize people. These terms can thus be weaponized. [. . .] Politicians sometimes use these terms to deflect criticism because it turns the conversation back onto the accuser rather than the accused.

You can read about a history of the “weaponisation” of the “conspiracy theory” label here. The evidence supposedly defining a “conspiracy theorist” is weak to non-existent and is almost exclusively based upon farcical experimental psychology, baseless assumptions and politically motivated claims.

We can safely conclude, then, that what the UN deems to be anti-establishment “conspiracy theory” is actually anti-establishment “opinion,” pure and simple.

This does not mean that all such opinion is credible. Some may be wrong, even wacky or lack supporting evidence. Other anti-Establishment opinions will be well evidenced, accurate, expose wrongdoing , etc. Such is the nature of “opinion.”

UN-ism is a witch hunt created to censor the opinions of anyone and everyone who questions the Establishment (G3P). UN-ism’s plan is first to silence all critics by “weaponising” the conspiracy theorist label and then to prosecute the most ardent and influential “conspiracy theorists” as criminals.

An Introduction to UN-ism

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), stipulating the “human rights” that the UN then refers to nine times in its Charter, is most assuredly not a declaration of “rights.” Human beings do not define “rights.” So-called “human rights” are government and intergovernmental behavioural “permits.”

Article 29.2 and Article 29.3 of the UDHR make this clear. Article 29.2 decrees that “human rights” can be ignored by government for any reason if it claims it is doing so to defend “morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.” Article 29.3 declares that even governments are limited if the UN decides that observing human rights is contrary to its “purposes and principles,” the determination of which is at the UN’s sole discretion.

This is not the case with real rights, namely “inalienable rights.” Collectively, humanity has no authority to offend against the inalienable rights of a single human being. Consequently, rather than publicly admit they are powerless, the UN and its stakeholders simply pretend that inalienable—sometimes referred to as “unalienable”—rights don’t exist. Unfortunately, the vast bulk of humanity concedes this point.

The democratic ideals of free speech and freedom of expression are inalienable rights, not human rights. Inalienable rights are inviolable and immutable and ours in equal measure from the moment we are born. Or, as the UN itself acknowledges in the preamble to its UDHR:

[Recognition of the] equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

The full text of the UDHR doesn’t even mention inalienable rights. If we consider that inalienable rights are “the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,” then what need was there to create an entirely separate declaration of alleged rights that studiously ignored freedom, justice and peace in the world?

The purpose of the UDHR, presumably, was to manufacture “human rights,” make them the antithesis of inalienable rights, and offer them to humanity instead. Given that inalienable rights already existed and were acknowledged to be the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, it is difficult to imagine what other reason there might have been.

It is important to appreciate what humanity’s lamentable acceptance of the UN’s “human rights” concept means in terms of policy and practice. Human rights, which are permits, not rights, enable the G3P Establishment, with the UN at its heart, to ignore all human rights—conditionally restricting the issuance of permits—while simultaneously claiming that it is protecting human rights.

By ignoring the fact that democratic ideals are inalienable rights, not human rights permits, this also means that the G3P Establishment can obliterate the principles that supposedly underpin “representative democracy,” all the while claiming it is upholding “democratic ideals.” Framed as “human rights,” democratic ideals can be discarded whenever the G3P Establishment wishes.

This is all made possible by virtue of the UN’s incessant disinformation—its claim that “human rights” are “rights inherent to all human beings.” The UN has already admitted that it is “inalienable rights,” not “human rights,” that are actually “inherent to all human beings.” The UN dare not mention this distinction.

Tackling anti-establishment conspiracy theory is a key component of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 16 (SDG16). This isn’t immediately apparent, because the subtext of the SDGs is routinely masked. Nonetheless, as we shall see, it is the case.

Let’s take SDG16.10, for example. It aims to:

. . . [e]nsure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements[.]

You will note that “fundamental freedoms” are only “protected” if government legislation or international agreements permit it. This is because the UN recognises only “human rights”—which, as we have just established, are completely worthless. What possible value could our so-called “fundamental freedoms” have in the face of the UN’s information war against the “conspiracy theorist” bogeymen? None.

Looking even more precisely at SDG 16.10.2, we see that UNESCO will oversee the global adoption and implementation of “constitutional, statutory and/or policy guarantees for public access to information.” This SDG “indicator” is not saying or even implying that we will have public access to all information, but, rather the “public information” approved by the G3P Establishment.

UNESCO defines “public information” as follows:

“Public access to information” refers to the presence of an effective system to meet citizens’ rights to seek and receive information, particularly that held by or on behalf of public authorities. [. . .] Within the perspective of the 2030 Agenda, access to information is critical for empowering the public to make decisions, holding governments accountable, evaluating public officials in implementing and monitoring the SDGs, and facilitating effective public participation.

Here and elsewhere, UNESCO makes it clear that “public information” is information provided by governments and other UN stakeholder partners. Even more particularly, it is information that promotes the UN’s sustainable development agenda, period! According to the G3P Establishment, that is the full extent of our “human right” to access information.

There is a direct connection between SDG16.10 and the UN’s 2017 joint declaration on Freedom of Expression, which was issued in partnership with the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Organization of American States (OAS) and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR).

According to that declaration:

States may only impose restrictions on the right to freedom of expression in accordance with the test for such restrictions under international law, namely that they [. . .] serve one of the legitimate interests recognised under international law, and be necessary and proportionate to protect that interest.

Hold up a minute! There is no “human right” to freedom of expression. So there cannot be a “human right” to freedom of information, either.

There is, however, an “inalienable right” to both freedoms—and we possess both. Indeed, freedoms of speech and expression are among the foundational principles of all alleged representative democracies. But the UN and its G3P Establishment partners don’t care about that.

Consider UNESCO’s Think Before Sharing campaign, for instance. Its intent is to “stop the spread of conspiracy theories.” UNESCO notes:

They [conspiracy theories] spread mistrust in public institutions [and] they spread mistrust in scientific and medical information[.]

And not only do these “conspiracy theories” question the public institutions that accommodate the biased pluralism preferred by the G3P Establishment, they also cast doubt on the hallowed “public information” provided by this omnipotent Establishment. How dare they!

We Westerners have been taught since birth that our right to question power is the most fundamental of all democratic ideals. Yet here we are being told that the UN regime considers this enshrined right of ours now verboten. It’s now drilled into us that all information questioning the Establishment is “disinformation,” since it erodes our “trust” in the that very Establishment.

So, let’s see where we stand: Information from the UN-controlled global public-private partnership, aka the G3P Establishment, is the only information we have a “human right” to access. Furthermore, any information that questions the G3P Establishment can be censored in order to protect our “human rights.”

Can it be any more obvious how the “human rights permit” system works?

The UN’s efforts to stop dangerous anti-establishment conspiracy theorists obviously confirms that our “representative democracies” and our “human rights” are expendable. These ideas don’t mean anything to the UN and its stakeholder partners because the G3P Establishment understands that they are empty constructs. We are the only people who cling to these myths.

We’ve already discussed that there’s nothing new about anti-establishment opinions. Why, then, is the UN now labelling contrarian views “conspiracy theories”? What has changed to make the UN suddenly so concerned about the sacrosanct right to speak our minds?

It’s not as though more people are rebellious these days. Recent scientific research (Uscinki et al., 2022) found no evidence to suggest that, as a proportion of the population, more people hold anti-establishment views today than during previous generations. The researchers, who called this view “conspiracism,” reported:

In no instance do we observe systematic evidence for an increase in conspiracism[.] [. . .] [W]e observe little supportive evidence for such growth.

Well, then, perhaps it’s not an increase in anti-establishment views the UN is worried about, but, rather, the dangerous mentality of those who hold such views?

Research that Uscinski and his colleague Joseph Parent did almost a decade ago took up that very question. In 2014 the two political scientists conducted a large-scale survey that looked at the demographics of the people labelled “conspiracy theorists” in the US.

Uscinski and Parent

 

They found virtually nothing to distinguish these people from the general population. In terms of gender, ethnicity, economic status, educational attainment, occupation, political ideology and employment status, so-called “conspiracy theorists” could not be categorised.

Their marginally distinguishing demographic traits were that they tended to be older than the average population age, that they apparently shunned jobs in academia—despite 23% of them being university-educated—and that they were somewhat more likely to hold anti-establishment views if they were black or Hispanic. Also, they had a slight inclination to favour independent political candidates.

OK, let’s set aside anti-establishment views for a minute and ask if there’s anything else that defines or differentiates people whom the G3P Establishment labels conspiracy theorists.

No, not really. In actuality, all humans are considered either threats or potential threats if they dare question authority. As UNESCO puts it:

Conspiracy theories cause real harm to people, to their health, and also to their physical safety. They amplify and legitimise misconceptions[,] [. . .] reinforce stereotypes[,] [and] fuel violence and violent extremist ideologies. [. . .] [T]hey spread mistrust leading to apathy or radicalisation.

So, your mum, the bloke who sorts mail in the post office, Samantha from human resources, Sanjay the pharmacist, you and I—all of us are supposedly conspiracy theorist extremists in the fevered imagination of the G3P Establishment. And we’re potential terrorists if we exercise our democratic rights and presume to question authority.

In 2016 UN Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson issued a report on efforts to counter extremism. In it, he noted:

[M]any programmes directed at radicalisation [are] based on a simplistic understanding of the process as a fixed trajectory to violent extremism with identifiable markers along the way. [. . .] [T]here is no authoritative statistical data on the pathways towards individual radicalisation.

There is nothing to substantiate the UN’s claim that anti-establishment views “fuel violence and violent extremist ideologies.” Broadly, the evidence suggests that these are the very people who advocate majoritarian electoral democracy.

Nothing has changed with regard to the evidence since Emmerson issued his report. The UN still doesn’t have a clue as to how people are “radicalised.” The only thing that has changed is its increasingly frantic rhetoric.

Just as the fear-mongering of McCarthyism was exaggerated, so is there no basis for today’s alarmist assertions of the UN and its stakeholder partners.

Why, then, is the UN so afraid of us? In the UN’s own words, here’s a hint:

Information is the engine of development in the 20th and 21st century. This is fuelled by independent news media that can act as a trusted guardian of public interest [. . .] But recent developments have put journalism under fire. Political, technological, economic and social transformations are inexorably reshaping the communications landscape and raising many questions about the quality, impact and credibility of journalism.

When the UN speaks of “independent news media” acting as “the trusted guardian of public interest,” it is referring to the mainstream media (MSM). This point is spelled out in more detail in the UN’s Information Mapping Report:

Access to quality information plays a critical role in public trust, democracy, peace and social cohesion. [. . .] As information becomes more accessible, it also becomes more open to influences from non-traditional actors in the infosphere — in most contexts anyone can create and disseminate information. As a consequence, the traditional actors and gatekeepers of information and news — established media and government institutions —are struggling to compete with this new reality.

The MSM “guardians” and “government institutions,” being “gatekeepers of information,” defend the UN against interlopers, who have swooped in and taken advantage of the internet to “create and disseminate information” that questions its decisions and authority.

We’ve finally nailed the source of the UN’s fears. It’s not that there are more people with anti-establishment views nor is it these people present a realistic threat to anyone’s “safety.” No, it is that the internet threatens the G3P Establishment’s centralised control of information.

When German political scientists recently reviewed the academic literature on this subject, they concluded that the centralised control of information, especially online, is favoured by autocracies but not by democracies:

A growing body of research has studied how autocratic regimes interfere with internet communication to contain challenges to their rule. [. . .] In most autocratic regimes, governmental interference in digital infrastructure and communication is commonplace. [. . .] This influence occurs for political motives—to ban opposition activists from mobilizing their followers online, to contain the spread of information that is critical of the regime, or to spy on the population to identify potential dissenters. [. . .] [A]utocrats make systematic use of digital tools and interfere with online communication to contain challenges to their rule.

The G3P Establishment, which represents a network of shared interests, may not technically be an autocracy, but it is the next closest thing: an oligarchy. The way oligarchies operate is exactly the same as the autocratic regimes described by those German political scientists.

It certainly goes without saying that the G3P Establishment will not brook any challenges to its “rule.” The challengers—the “non-traditional actors”—which means anyone and everyone who opposes them—must be silenced.

Welcome to UN-ism.

UN-ism

The UN Secretary General António Guterres told the October 2022 Global Media and Information Literacy Week summit about the risks posed by “conspiracy theorists.” Addressing the so-called “infodemic”—the UN term for any information that questions its pandemic narrative—and noting that the theme of the summit was “mis- and disinformation, pseudoscience [and] conspiracy theories,” Guterres said:

Trust is the bedrock of every society. It connects people to their leaders. It builds faith in institutions. [. . .] [M]isinformation caused suffering and even death. That’s why we launched the “Verified” initiative to reach millions worldwide with facts and science about the virus.

UN Verified is a global public-private partnership (G3P) that aims to share “verified” messages and stories across the world:

Verified is an initiative of the United Nations, in collaboration with Purpose. [. . .] Organisations, businesses, civil society and media platforms around the world collaborate with Verified to spread information[.]

The objective of Purpose is to “use public mobilization and storytelling” to “shift policies and change public narratives” in order to “remake the world.” Some of the many philanthropic foundations and global corporations that have come together, under the umbrella of Purpose, include the Rockefeller Foundation, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the European Climate Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, Luminate, Nike, the World Wildlife Fund and Google.

The UN/Purpose G3P is engaged in a global information war, the purpose of which, it claims, is to defeat the dangerous anti-establishment conspiracy theorists. We know this isn’t its real intention.

Whether the G3P Establishment is even bothered about the people it labels “conspiracy theorists” is a pertinent question. In fact, from its perspective, the more people it can call “conspiracy theorists” the better. There is no real risk presented by anti-Establishment opinion. Indeed, expressing such opinion is genuinely our most treasured democratic ideal.

The concept of the “conspiracy theorist” is simply the manufactured “threat” the G3P Establishment is using to re-seize the information control that the advent of the internet wrenched from it. Of course, like the McCarthyists before it, the UN and its stakeholder partners will censor, attack and prosecute its fictitious villains wherever it can to achieve its hidden agenda.

Again, speaking in October 2022, announcing the Verified project, Guterres said:

As the world fights the deadly COVID-19 pandemic [. . .] we are also seeing another epidemic, a dangerous epidemic of misinformation. [. . .] The global “misinfo-demic” is spreading. [. . .] Wild conspiracy theories are infecting the Internet. Hatred is going viral. [. . .] The world must unite against this disease, too. [. . .] First, trust in science. [. . .] Second. Trust the institutions.

There was no evidence to back up Guterres claim that misinformation caused “suffering and death” nor to support his later asserted link between alleged “conspiracy theories” and viral hatred. Perhaps even more striking was his bizarre suggestion that “trust” in institutions is the “bedrock” of society. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Representative democracies are supposedly based upon our “right” to question power. Our ability to scrutinise, oversee and ultimately control democratic “institutions” is the “bedrock” of our society. Perhaps Guterres and Purpose wish to “remake” a different kind of society?

Beyond Natural Law and Natural Justice, there can be no crime unless there is legislation enacted to deem it so.

That is why, for instance, there was no such thing as a criminal computer hacker in Britain until the UK government created Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990. This doesn’t mean that computer hacking “shouldn’t” be a crime—under Natural Justice it would certainly be judged to be so. It simply means that computer hacking is now a specific crime in the UK only because the government passed legislation to make it a crime.

The problem is that governments, which routinely ignore Natural Justice, can make anything a crime. Lawmakers in most countries, being stakeholder partners within the G3P Establishment, are actively participating in biased pluralism and often creating crimes at the behest of the “economic-elite.”

The aim of SDG16.a is to:

. . . [s]trengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, for building capacity at all levels, in particular in developing countries, to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime[.]

This sounds fine on the surface. But the subtext is extremely concerning, especially when we learn that the UN has selected INTERPOL to be an “implementing partner” for a number of SDGs—in particular, SDG16.

To complement the SDGs, INTERPOL created its Global Policing Goals (GPGs), explaining:

We developed seven Global Policing Goals (GPGs) to address a range of issues related to crime and security. [. . .] INTERPOL’s Global Policing Goals are therefore aligned with the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This applies especially to Goal 16 (SDG 16) “Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.”

The ambition of GPG4 is to “secure cyberspace for people and businesses.” To this end, INTERPOL has established “partnerships to secure cyberspace.” It has expanded its “cybercrime investigative expertise” in order to protect “critical infrastructure.”

INTERPOL has formed a number of global public-private partnerships as part of its Global Cybercrime Programme. Among them is its partnership with the World Economic Forum (WEF), called the “Partnership Against Cybercrime” (WEF-PAC).

The 2020 WEF-PAC report on cybercrime reads:

[T]he effects of cybercrime can be just as devastating as physical crimes, impacting numerous individuals and organizations everywhere. [. . .] We must create barriers to entry, such as raising the cost of engaging in criminal activities and the overall risk for cybercriminals. Law enforcement agencies worldwide are actively investigating cybercrimes with the aim of prosecuting cybercriminals. [. . .] Threat actors range from individuals, to loosely connected cross-national collectives. [. . .] Criminals use internet based infrastructure to uphold terrorism and drug trafficking, and spread disinformation to destabilize governments and democracies. [. . .] Cybercrime is an enormous barrier to digital trust.

So we should be cognisant that, in order to safeguard its “traditional actors and gatekeepers” of information, the UN and its G3P Establishment stakeholders, such as INTERPOL and the WEF, intend to lead their government partners to prosecute the people labelled as “conspiracy theorists” for the “cybercrime” of spreading “disinformation.”

In March 2022 the General Assembly Human Rights Council issued resolution A/HRC/49/L.31/Rev.1. on the “Role of States in countering the negative impact of disinformation on the enjoyment and realization of human rights.” Despite its meaningless rhetoric about respect for “human rights,” the UN urges all States to:

[. . .] facilitate an environment supportive of countering disinformation through multidimensional and multi stakeholder responses[.] [And it] [i]nvites States to encourage business enterprises, including social media companies, to address disinformation while respecting human rights.

In other words, the UN, in partnership with its G3P stakeholders, intends to police and censor the internet, especially the social media companies and internet search providers.

We can see the results of this resolution in the actions of various governments. The UK government and the EU, for example, have since embarked upon tyrannical censorship programmes.

We can also see the resolution’s rank hypocrisy. Though it forcefully asserts (see A/Res/HRC/47/L.22) that “encryption and anonymity” are crucial to “ensure the enjoyment of all human rights offline and online,” those are just words written on bits of paper that mean nothing to the UN or its G3P partners.

How do we know?

For one, the UK government’s Online Safety Bill seeks to effectively eradicate online “encryption and anonymity.”

For another, the EU, whose 27 constituent nations are UN member states, plans to issue “detection orders” that would also render end-to-end encryption technology a practical impossibility.

For yet another, the Spanish government, both an EU and a UN member state, has gone even further: It has suggested banning “encryption and anonymity” completely. That most EU legal opinion suggests Spain’s proposed censorship legislation will be “unlawful” is irrelevant.

Thus, the anonymity that enables people to “enjoy” their “human rights” is being snatched away. The UN-led Establishment’s goal is to identify—with a view to prosecuting—anyone who dares to question it.

The Twitter Files, although an extremely limited hangout, have already exposed the early phases of this operation. The US biased pluralist government, for example, colluded with the social media giants, which are G3P Establishment “stakeholder partners,” to silence legitimate medical and scientific opinion throughout the co-called “pandemic.” We also know how biased pluralism suppressed stories about political scandals.

Grasping onto the UN’s addition of “harm” to the definition of “disinformation” the UK government is among those to already propose legislation to “outlaw” alleged “information pollution.” There is no sign of any meaningful resistance from the people’s so-called representatives—members of parliament (MPs).

Cited in the House of Commons reading list for the misnamed Online Safety Bill, MPs who might want to inform themselves before passing the legislation, thereby committing the population to dictatorship, can read the expert legal opinion reported by the Index on Censorship:

The provisions in the Online Safety Bill that would enable state-backed surveillance of private communications contain some of the broadest and powerful surveillance powers ever proposed in any Western democracy. [. . .] The Bill as currently drafted gives Ofcom the powers to impose Section 104 notices on the operators of private messaging apps and other online services. These notices give Ofcom the power to impose specific technologies (e.g. algorithmic content detection) that provide for the surveillance of the private correspondence of UK citizens. [. . .] No communications in the UK – whether between MPs, between whistleblowers and journalists, or between a victim and a victims support charity – would be secure or private.

To sum up: the term “conspiracy theory” is nothing more than a propagandist label. It has been documented that theoretically democratic governments favour the biased pluralism model and operate in service to an economic elite.

The UN regime seeks to protect and serve, not our interests, but the interests of a global economic-elite. Members of the public who point out these facts are not a threat to anyone. On the other hand, the UN regime and its public-private partners are most assuredly a threat to everyone.

UN-ism creates fictional caricatures that serve as propagandist props to facilitate the widespread distribution of disinformation. The purpose is to justify censorship and oppression. And though the nature of disinformation has not changed through the years, the scale of the disinformation program the UN and its partners are now engaged in has grown immense.

We must not fall victim to UN-ism or the disinformation and propaganda it is based upon. We must remember its sole purpose: to seize back the information control that the economic-elite have lost and, in so doing, to consolidate the dictatorial power of the global public-private partnership “Establishment.”

The Establishment rules exclusively in its own interest, not ours. We must never cease to exercise our inalienable rights. These can neither be lost nor stolen from us. There is no greater authority than us.

Subscribe to Iain Davis