Most Americans Clueless Of Biden-Harris Commitment To UN Global Governance Plan

On September 22, unnoticed by most Americans, the Biden-Harris administration adopted the United Nations Pact for the Future to transform global governance, which introduces the foundations of a world government. There was no debate, no media coverage, no press releases, and no interviews about the Biden-Harris administration's surrender of United States sovereignty to the UN.

Americans were apparently not supposed to find out.

The UN bragged that the pact is the "most comprehensive agreement in many years" describing it as "covering entirely new areas and addressing issues where no consensus has been reached for decades." This is concerning.

At the Summit of the Future in September 2024, world leaders passed the UN's Pact for the Future to transform global governance, the Digital Compact and the Declaration on Future Generations. These agreements usher in a dystopian future, where the UN -- an active supporter of terrorism and arguably the world's most corrupt international entity, led by socialists, communists and dictatorships -- in partnership with the unelected and unaccountable World Economic Forum, led by Klaus Schwab and his covey of billionaire business leaders, is given unprecedented power over the peoples of sovereign countries, who have had no say whatsoever on the contents of this pact, because it has been kept hidden from them.

The Pact for the Future seeks to strengthen, empower and "transform" UN global governance -- a fancy way of saying world government -- to seize more power for the UN and its partner globalist elites in the WEF.

"We will transform global governance and strengthen the multilateral system to help us to achieve a world that is safe, peaceful, just, equal, inclusive, sustainable and prosperous," the Pact for the Future proclaims in section V, named "Transforming global governance."

The Pact is full of the familiar and meaningless UN fluff about "eradicating poverty" and "strengthening human rights" that the UN has falsely been promising and peddling for decades, goals that nobody believes the UN even wants to achieve. All the UN seems to be doing is demonizing the Middle East's only democracy, Israel, to the exclusion of all other conflicts on the planet, and sanctifying "climate change," seemingly code for a prospective "transfer of wealth."

A large part of the Pact is dedicated to "turbocharging" the UN's Agenda 2030. Much of this consists of fighting the fake crisis of "climate change" by achieving "net-zero" carbon dioxide emissions. Hidden at the very bottom of the 56-page document -- action point 54 -- is actually one of the most important items: the power-grab of the UN's secretary-general: strengthening "the international response to complex global shocks":

"We will uphold the Secretary-General's role to, inter alia, convene Member States, promote the coordination of the whole multilateral system and engage with relevant stakeholders in response to crises. We request the Secretary-General to: (a) Consider approaches to strengthen the United Nations system response to complex global shocks, within existing authorities and in consultation with Member States...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 UN secretary-general, in other words, is to control responses to "global shocks", which the UN describes as:

"Complex global shocks are events that have severely disruptive and adverse consequences for a significant proportion of countries and the global population, and that lead to impacts across multiple sectors, requiring a multidimensional and whole-of-government, whole-of-society response."

These could presumably be regional conflicts; a pandemic -- or whatever the UN deems a pandemic; a real or invented "climate crisis;" wars, or whatever other pretext the UN secretary-general comes up with to take control and impose measures on the world that the UN sees fit. The corrupt, unelected and unaccountable UN would now like to be the world's policeman -- presumably leaving defendants with no recourse.

The UN proclaimed in a press release last year:

"Our global interconnectedness means that shocks that occur in one country or sector can quickly have cascading consequences elsewhere, often in unforeseen ways. Those shocks are coming at us with greater strength and frequency, with serious implications for peace and security, economic stability, and environmental sustainability. And they can have a disproportionate impact in some areas. Both the COVID-19 pandemic and the global cost-of-living crisis hit the poorest and most vulnerable hardest, throwing SDG progress and Agenda 2030 further off-track. 

The global response to such shocks is often ad hoc, fragmented, and improvised. We need a mechanism to tackle multidimensional threats with a multidimensional response. This policy brief calls for a more formal, predictable, and structured approach. An emergency platform would leverage the UN's convening power and capacities in a timely and predictable way... Crucially, it would promote a global response based on solidarity and equity and the key principle of leaving no one behind. All people and countries hit by a shock must have access to the support they need,"

This would not be optional. The UN makes clear that the new system "is leaving no one behind."

To ensure that all present and future UN and WEF agendas can pass without bothering with pesky dissenting opinions, the UN member states also passed the Digital Global Compact as an annex to the Pact. The Compact is a new totalitarian tool of censorship meant to silence anyone who disagrees with the globalist agenda. Buried near the end of the Digital Global Compact, in paragraph 30, is the only thing you need to know about it:

"We must urgently counter and address... all forms of hate speech and discrimination, misinformation and disinformation... We will establish and maintain robust risk mitigation and redress measures... We commit by, 2030 to: (a) Create a safe and secure online space for all users that ensures their mental health and well-being by defining and adopting common standards, guidelines and industry actions that are in compliance with international law, promote safe civic spaces and address content on digital platforms that causes harm to individuals, taking into account work under way by United Nations entities, regional organizations and multi-stakeholder initiatives... 

Establish regular collaboration between national online safety institutions to exchange best practices and develop shared understandings of actions... Develop, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, effective methodologies to measure, monitor and counter all forms of violence and abuse in the digital space... call on social media platforms to establish safe, secure and accessible reporting mechanisms for users and their advocates to report potential policy violations."

The UN, its member states and the Biden-Harris administration evidently want to establish world-wide censorship that will make any future criticism of their power grab impossible.

The foundations of the censorship are already in place and activated to a worrying degree: In 2021-22, the UN entered into a partnership with Google to ensure that the search engine only display information reflecting UN perspectives. Dissenting views would have to be erased. The UN did not even hide their totalitarian move, and issued a press release about it.

Melissa Fleming, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications, said:

"We are happy to team with Google to ensure that factual, trustworthy content about climate is available to as wide a global audience as possible, Misinformation is so widespread these days that it threatens progress and understanding on many critical issues, including climate. The need for accurate, science-based information on a subject like climate change has therefore never been greater."

At the 2022 World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Fleming innocently revealed the UN agenda behind censoring the internet, making it clear that censoring the internet is for the good of the great unwashed masses, whom the UN deems too dangerous to make up their own minds:

"As long as the social media platforms had become so dominant, there was already a proliferation of mis- and disinformation that was making achieving what we were trying to achieve, a better world and a more inclusive, a more peaceful and harmonious world -- it was making it more difficult. But with Covid-19 we realized very quickly we were in a communication crisis... WHO called it an infodemic... which meant if you were a internet user... you were just confused because there was so much information... some of it good... some of it really, really, bad...

"You know, we partnered with Google, for example, if you Google climate change, you will, at the top of your search, get all kinds of UN resources. We started this partnership when we were shocked to see that when we Googled climate change, we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top. So we're becoming much more proactive, you know we own the science and we think that the world should know it and the [social media] platforms also do. It's a huge challenge that all sectors of society need to be very active in."

The partnership has paid off tremendously for the UN and the globalists: Google is clearly doing the UN's bidding. If you try to google the words "climate change" today, every single dissenting view has been suppressed by the search engine. 

In the first twenty-plus pages of results that come up on Google, not a single of them deviates from the UN/WEF narrative, with most results only containing links to UN bodies or other institutions that partner with the UN, such as the EU, the World Bank, government websites and a few climate-alarmist articles from the Guardian, the New York Times, AP and Reuters.

This is what UN censorship looks like now. Can you imagine what it will be in a few years, if countries do not immediately move to stop it?

Originally published at The Gatestone Institute