UN Pact for the Future: zero draft, 26 January 2024

The UNITED NATIONS, claiming to represent the peoples of the world, plans to take action to safeguard the future for present and coming generations! DID YOU ELECT THEM TO DO THIS?

Coming in September:

https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/sotf-co-facilitators-zero-draft_pact-for-the-future.pdf

In 20 pages, this linked draft plan covers 148 points. If you have trouble sleeping at night, I suggest reading these as an effective sleep aid. Below, I provide you the first 4 points to give you a taste of the sheer hubris of the bureaucrats who crafted it.

1. We, the Heads of State and Government, representing the peoples of the world, have gathered at United Nations Headquarters to take action to safeguard the future for present and coming generations.

2. We are at a moment of acute global peril. Across our world, people are suffering from the effects of poverty, hunger, inequality, armed conflicts, violence, displacement, terrorism, climate change, disease, and the adverse impacts of technology. Humanity faces a range of potentially catastrophic and existential risks. We are also at a moment of opportunity, where advances in knowledge and technology, properly managed, could deliver a better future for all.

3. The challenges we face far exceed the capacity of any single State to manage alone. Left unaddressed, the risks threaten the well-being of present and future generations and the welfare of our planet, while the advances may benefit only a few.

4. We recognize that challenges such as these can only be addressed through strong and sustained international cooperation. To enhance our cooperation, we need a multilateral system that is fit for the future, ready to address the political, economic, environmental and technological changes in the world, and with the agility to adapt to an uncertain future. We know that multilateral institutions – especially the Security Council and the international financial architecture – have struggled to address the scale of the challenges they face and live up to the world’s expectations of them. Too often, international commitments that are made, remain unfulfilled.

Unfulfilled?

This last sentence caught my attention. If “international commitments remain unfulfilled”, who is at fault, and why?

Perhaps the clues are in the plan itself.

• Agreements like these DO NOT REPRESENT THE PEOPLES of the world. Heck, few people even know they exist and those that do know would never agree with their 148 points. Would these agreements even see the light of day is average citizens could partake directly in their own representation?

• The “planners” are senior government officials who, in their capacity as national leaders, were likely party to many of the threats facing humanity. For example, how many wars can you think of that were declared, funded and equipped by your local barber, farmer or candlestick maker? These “planners” appear to live in their own self-made bureaucratic bubble that is impervious to external inputs.

• Those same “planners” claim environmental threats like climate change. They refuse to hear arguments against the Climate Change Crisis Theory from anyone who is not an acknowledged “climate scientist” that has been anointed as such by one of their government institutions. By the same token, how many members of the UN Security Council hold a PhD in Climate Science and are therefore qualified to make global plans regarding this alleged threat?

• Will the authors of this document agree to a global referendum by “the peoples of the world” who they claim to represent on topics like Climate Change? To eliminate bias, this referendum should only be answered by people who are NOT employed in the public sector and/or not associated with any NGO that receives government subsidies. The referenda questions must be clear, unbiased, straightforward and easily answered. For example: “Do you know for certain that man-made CO2 sources, generated by burning fossils fuels for energy, represents a serious threat to humanity?” YES or NO, and “If governments were not involved in addressing the alleged threats associated with the Climate Change Crisis Theory, how much of your personal annual earnings would you voluntarily contribute to non-governmental organizations which could exists to address this issue? ____ %”

• Point 2 makes claims of human suffering from “poverty, hunger, inequality, armed conflicts, violence, displacement, terrorism, climate change, disease, and the adverse impacts of technology.” The United Nations has acknowledged most, if not all, of these problems since it was created 75 years. On their watch, these problems have become more severe according to their own reports. Would the UN Security Council subject itself to a Performance Report referendum from the “Peoples” they claim to represent under the same bias-eliminating conditions as above? These questions may include: “The existence of the United Nations increases my confidence that the world if a safer, fairer and more prosperous place that would be if the UN were abolished. YES or NO?” and “How much of your annual earnings would you voluntarily contribute to a non-governmental version of the UN which would be funded entirely by personal donations like yours? ____ %”

The CITIZENS PREFERENCES DATABASE for referenda.

Questions to citizens like those posed above are how I predict the goal to REGENERATE DEMOCRACY could be achieved in a meaningful way if Digital Direct Democracy becomes our future reality.

Needless to say, the participants in UN Pact for the Future: zero draft, 26 January 2024 would not approve.

Too many cushy jobs would be at stake - THEIRS.

Too bad. So sad.