TRUTH
it's the new hate speech
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
9/11Truth
IAmTheFaceofTruth.com
WASHINGTON, D.C. — This article is prefaced with a shout-out to the good Dr. Carrie Madej (maa-DAY).
She is one of thousands of doctors and scientists worldwide suddenly labeled “conspiracy theorists” and “disinformation” by mainstream and social media. Dr. Madej tells peer-reviewed truth about COVID-19 and experimental shots. She is still on Twitter and Facebook for now. Dr. Madej is also featured in a viral video warning people about experiment mRNA and viral vector shots.
“The Supreme Court ruled that if there is anything synthetic, not from nature, inside of our genome, then whoever owns the patent on those synthetic parts now owns part or all of you as a human. That means Bill and Melinda Gates, The Department of Defense, [and others] can literally own a human being. If this synthetic code is taken up into your genome, by law, you could be owned overnight.”
Dr. Madej told The COVID Blog via email that she learned about gene patenting from Dr. Craig Venter. He spoke about it during a world symposium presentation. All legitimate doctors and scientists welcome fact-checking and peer-review. Turns out Dr. Madej is onto something, and further affirms every reason not to volunteer for these experimental injections.
Man-made bacteria and genetically-modified mice are patentable
The case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980) is the first time the U.S. Supreme Court heard a patent case involving naturally-occurring processes and/or organisms. Dr. Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty invented a species of oil-eating bacteriawhile working at General Electric in 1971. His invention streamlined the process of cleaning up oil spills.
He filed a first-of-its-kind patent for the new genetically-modified bacteria species. The United Kingdom had already granted the patent. But the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied the patent because it determined the invention was a living organism. The U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (now the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) reversed the decision. It ruled that just because micro-organisms are alive doesn’t mean they cannot be patented.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, affirmed. It ruled, in part:
Living, man-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter as a “manufacture” or “composition of matter” within the meaning of the Patent Act of 1952. The fact that the organism sought to be patented is alive is no bar to patentability.
Scientists have since created an entire discipline on “transgenic non-human mammals.” Of course there are serious ethical concerns. But the practice continue.
Patentability of human genes (mRNA and DNA)
The case that provides the blueprint for pharmaceutical companies claiming ownership of your genes is Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013). This case originated from a Utah-based company called Myriad Genetics.
The company isolated the location and sequence of naturally-occurring genes called BRCA1 and BRCA2. Mutations in these genes positively correlate with predispositions to breast and ovarian cancers. Myriad filed patents on these genes in 1994 and 1995, respectively. The patents gave Myriad exclusive rights to cancer genetic testing that isolated natural DNA strands and created synthetic complementary DNA (cDNA) that resembled the original isolated strands.
The USPTO granted both patents in 1998. At least 2,000 other human genes had been patented through 2010, according to the New York State Bar. But the Myriad patents hindered other scientists from doing research on naturally-occurring BRCA1 and BRCA2, and thus hindered breast and ovarian cancer testing by other companies.
Supreme Court permits patentable cDNA
Several Plaintiffs, including Yale, Columbia, individual patients, and patient advocacy groups filed a lawsuit against Myriad and the University of Utah in May of 2009. The Plaintiffs argued that BRCA1 and BRCA2 are not patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are naturally-occurring. Myriad argued that it isolated the sequences of the DNA and that the Patent Office had issued patents for other companies doing the same thing.
A long legal battle ensued that included two writs of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Federal Circuit twice affirmed that both isolated DNA and cDNA are patentable. Ultimately the Supreme Court ruled that only cDNA (synthetic DNA) is patentable. Isolated, natural DNA is not patentable. Breast and ovarian cancer screening got much cheaper after the ruling since Myriad no longer owned patents on naturally-occurring genes and thus the testing.
Myriad did not create or alter any of the genetic information encoded in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. The location and order of the nucleotides existed in nature before Myriad found them. As the Supreme Court made clear, neither naturally occurring compositions of matter, nor synthetically created compositions that are structurally identical to the naturally occurring compositions, are patent eligible.
Pfizer, Moderna, et al. and your genes
Yes, this article contains a lot of scientific and legal mumbo-jumbo. But in a nutshell, biotechnology companies can own living things if said things are genetically-modified and not naturally-occurring. No mouse is born in nature like the OncoMouse. It is thus patentable. Oil-eating bacteria come from genetic manipulation, thus patentable.
Notice how all these so-called doctors and scientists avoid pointing fingers at Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson et al. when someone dies within hours, days or weeks of receiving their shots. It’s almost as if said doctors and scientists are carefully navigating the trademark and patent landscape. They don’t want to trespass on someone else’s property, if you will. Moderna owns several mRNA patents. Doctors and hospitals wanting a piece of the mRNA pie cannot bite the hand that feeds them.
The synthetic mRNA of Pfizer and Moderna, along with the viral vector DNA delivery systems of Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca, change your genetic code, making you “genetically-modified.” Granted mainstream media say the foregoing is “conspiracy theory.” But Moderna Chief Medical Officer Tal Zaks tells you straight up that 1) the shots change your genetic code and 2) the shots do not stop the spread of COVID-19. He says the Moderna shot is “hacking the software of life” (at the 0:43 second mark, but the whole video is…disturbing).
Viral vectors do the same thing.
So do these companies “own you” once you get the shots? Well, they own mice and bacteria created with their inventions. Once you get these shots, you are no longer a “naturally-occurring” human being. Prosthetic limbs, breast implants, etc. are not “natural” per se. But they are removable and not part of what fundamentally makes you human. Gene therapy is irreversible. Do the math yourself.
Stay vigilant and protect your friends and loved ones.
DUA PERTIGA (2/3) wilayah Makkah adalah milik Siti Khadijah binti khuwailid, istri pertama Rasulullah ﷺ. Ia wanita bangsawan yang menyandang kemulia'an dan kelimpahan harta kekaya'an. Namun ketika wafat, tak selembar kafan pun dia miliki. Bahkan baju yang dikenakannya di sa'at menjelang ajal adalah pakaian kumuh dengan 83 tambalan.
"Fatimah putriku, aku yakin ajalku segera tiba," bisik Khadijah kepada Fatimah sesa'at menjelang ajal. "Yang kutakutkan adalah siksa kubur. Tolong mintakan kepada ayahmu, agar beliau memberikan sorbannya yang biasa digunakan menerima wahyu untuk dijadikan kain kafanku. Aku malu dan takut memintanya sendiri."
Mendengar itu Rasulullah berkata, "Wahai Khadijah, Allah menitipkan salam kepadamu, dan telah dipersiapkan tempatmu di syurga."
Siti Khadijah, Ummul Mu’minin (ibu kaum mukmin), pun kemudian menghembuskan nafas terakhirnya dipangkuan Rasulullah. Didekapnya sang istri itu dengan perasa'an pilu yang teramat sangat. Tumpahlah air mata Mulia Rasulullah dan semua orang yang ada di situ.
Dalam suasana seperti itu, Malaikat Jibril turun dari langit dengan mengucap salam dan membawa lima kain kafan.
Rasulullah menjawab salam Jibril, kemudian bertanya, "Untuk siapa sajakah kain kafan itu, ya Jibril?"
"Kafan ini untuk Khadijah, untuk engkau ya Rasulullah, untuk Fatimah, Ali dan Hasan," jawab Jibril yang tiba-tiba berhenti berkata, kemudian menangis.
Rasulullah bertanya, "Kenapa, ya Jibril?"
"Cucumu yang satu, Husain, tidak memiliki kafan. Dia akan dibantai, tergeletak tanpa kafan dan tak dimandikan," jawab Jibril.
Rasulullah berkata di dekat jasad Khadijah, "Wahai Khadijah istriku sayang, demi Allah, aku tak kan pernah mendapatkan istri sepertimu. Pengabdianmu kepada Islam dan diriku sungguh luar biasa. Allah Mahamengetahui semua amalanmu. Semua hartamu kau hibahkan untuk Islam. Kaum Muslimin pun ikut menikmatinya. Semua pakaian kaum Muslimin dan pakaianku ini juga darimu. Namun begitu, mengapa permohonan terakhirmu kepadaku hanyalah selembar sorban!?"
Tersedu Rasulullah mengenang istrinya semasa hidup.
Khadijah.
Dikisahkan, suatu hari, ketika Rasulullah pulang dari berdakwah, beliau masuk ke dalam rumah. Khadijah menyambut, dan hendak berdiri di depan pintu, kemudian Rasulullah bersabda, "Wahai Khadijah, tetaplah kamu di tempatmu."
Ketika itu Khadijah sedang menyusui Fatimah yang masih bayi. Sa'at itu seluruh kekaya'an mereka telah habis. Seringkali makanan pun tak punya, sehingga ketika Fatimah menyusu, bukan air susu yang keluar akan tetapi darah. Darahlah yang masuk dalam mulut Fatimah r.a.
Kemudian Rasulullah mengambil Fatimah dari gendongan istrinya, dan diletakkan di tempat tidur. Rasulullah yang lelah sepulang berdakwah dan menghadapi segala caci-maki serta fitnah manusia itu, lalu berbaring di pangkuan Khadijah hingga tertidur.
Ketika itulah Khadijah membelai kepala Rasulullah dengan penuh kelembutan dan rasa sayang. Tak terasa air mata Khadijah menetes di pipi Rasulullah hingga membuat beliau terjaga.
Dahulu engkau wanita bangsawan, engkau mulia, engkau hartawan. Namun hari ini engkau telah dihina orang. Semua orang telah menjauhi dirimu. Seluruh kekaya'anmu habis. Adakah engkau menyesal, wahai Khadijah, bersuamikan aku ?" lanjut Rasulullah tak kuasa melihat istrinya menangis.
"Wahai suamiku, wahai Nabi Allah. Bukan itu yang kutangiskan," jawab Khadijah.
"Dahulu aku memiliki kemulia'an, Kemulia'an itu telah aku serahkan untuk Allah dan Rasul-Nya. Dahulu aku adalah bangsawan, Kebangsawanan itu juga aku serahkan untuk Allah dan Rasu-lNya. Dahulu aku memiliki harta kekaya'an, Seluruh kekaya'an itupun telah aku serahkan untuk Allah dan Rasul-Nya."
"Wahai Rasulullah, sekarang aku tak punya apa-apa lagi. Tetapi engkau masih terus memperjuangkan agama ini. Wahai Rasulullah, sekiranya nanti aku mati sedangkan perjuanganmu belum selesai, sekiranya engkau hendak menyeberangi sebuah lautan, sekiranya engkau hendak menyeberangi sungai namun engkau tidak memperoleh rakit atau pun jembatan, maka galilah lubang kuburku, ambillah tulang-belulangku, jadikanlah sebagai jembatan bagimu untuk menyeberangi sungai itu supaya engkau bisa berjumpa dengan manusia dan melanjutkan dakwahmu."
"Ingatkan mereka tentang kebesaran Allah, Ingatkan mereka kepada yang hak, Ajak mereka kepada Islam, wahai Rasulullah."
Rasulullah pun tampak sedih.
"Oh Khadijahku sayang, kau meninggalkanku sendirian dalam perjuanganku. Siapa lagi yang akan membantuku?"
"Aku, ya Rasulullah!" sahut Ali bin Abi Thalib. jawab, menantu Rasullulah.
Di samping jasad Siti Khadijah, Rasulullah kemudian berdo'a kepada Allah.
"Ya Allah, ya ILahi Rabbiy, limpahkanlah rahmat-Mu kepada Khadijahku, yang selalu membantuku dalam menegakkan Islam, Mempercayaiku pada sa'at orang lain menentangku, Menyenangkanku pada saat orang lain menyusahkanku, Menenteramkanku pada sa'at orang lain membuatku gelisah."
Kirim ini ke 5 grup dan semampumu dan seikhlasmu kepada sesama Muslim, sampaikanlah walau hanya pada 1 orang.
Saya do'akan semua yang membaca dan mengaminkan do'a ini, di beri rezeki melimpah 7 turunan seperti air mengalir ini.. dan diundang segera oleh Allah menunaikan Haji dan Umroh dengan cara-caranya.
Russian ambassador urges US to repatriate its overseas nukes
The US should bring its foreign-based nuclear weapons back to American territory and stop training troops from non-nuclear countries to use the arms, Russia’s ambassador to Washington said on Saturday.
Anatoly Antonov was speaking in response to an article published by Politico on Wednesday, claiming the US was planning to speed up the deployment of B61-12 nuclear bombs to NATO bases in Europe.
According to diplomatic cables seen by the outlet, the upgraded, more accurate bombs will start arriving on the continent as soon as December, instead of spring 2023 as previously planned. The $10 billion B61-12 life extension program is expected to replace several earlier versions of the weapon, including about 100 bombs at air bases in Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey.
In a message released by the Russian embassy, Antonov said officials in Washington call B61-12 munitions “tactical”and “speculate that the Russian arsenal of the same class is several times larger than that of the US. However, they fail to mention the fact that all our tactical nuclear weapons are stockpiled in centralized storage facilities on Russian territory and cannot pose a threat to the US.”
“The US bombs, on the other hand, are deployed in European countries with a short flight time to Russian borders. Therefore, despite their limited yield, B61-12 play a strategic role,” he added.
The ambassador also rejected claims by the US and NATO that Washington's regular nuclear warfare training exercises with the involvement of non-nuclear countries are not directed against Russia. “The question arises: against what other country the alliance, whose Strategic Concept calls Russia ‘the most significant and direct threat,’ trains to use nuclear weapons?” he asked.
The world is currently going through a period of “tension and heightened risks” due to the conflict in Ukraine, and nuclear powers such as the US and Russia “bear a special responsibility for preventing escalation,”Antonov insisted.
“With this in mind, I once again urge Washington to return all of its nuclear weapons deployed abroad to the national territory and eliminate foreign infrastructure for their storage and maintenance. As well as to abandon the practice of training military personnel from non-nuclear states to use such weapons as part of the so-called nuclear-sharing missions that contradict the fundamental principles of the NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons),” he said.
Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin slammed “some senior officials in NATO states” for suggesting that deploying nuclear weapons against Russia was justified. He warned that Moscow was ready to “use all means” to defend itself in case of such an attack. His words were interpreted by the US and its allies as a “veiled threat” by the Kremlin to use atomic weapons during Russia’s military operation in Ukraine.
Numerous Russian officials have since insisted that the country was not threatening anybody with atomic weapons and pointed to Russia’s military doctrine, which states that such weapons can only be used if weapons of mass destruction are being deployed against the state, or it is faced with an existential threat from conventional warfare.
(Natural News) Russia’s “special operation”-turned-“demilitarization” effort in Ukraine is so upsetting to the deep state power structure oppressing the West that the Pentagon is now threatening nuclear war if Vladimir Putin does not immediately withdraw all Russian troops from Ukraine.
The Pentagon’s new “National Defense Strategy” has rejected all limits on using nuclear weapons in the event that Putin refuses to obey its orders to leave Ukraine’s biological weapons laboratories, money laundering operations, and whatever other deep state operations are taking place there alone.
“By the 2030s, the United States will, for the first time in its history, face two major nuclear powers as strategic competitors and potential adversaries,” announced the Department of Defense (DoD) in a long-awaited document – that second power, of course, referring to communist China.
The U.S. response to this, that document goes on to explain, will be to “maintain a very high bar for nuclear employment.” This could include deploying a nuclear response to a non-nuclear strategic threat either to the “homeland” or to U.S. military forces and their allies abroad.
Biden once again caught in LIES after having promised to only use nukes in response to an actual nuclear attack
These statements by the DOD fly in the face of what fake “president” Joe Biden said back in 2020 during his presidential campaign, promising to only use nuclear weapons in response to an enemy’s use of nuclear weapons.
Since Putin has yet to take the bait, Western deep state powers are getting antsy for the nuclear holocaust they seem to crave. This is why they are now threatening to use nukes even if no other country uses them first in violation of the U.S. “no first use” policy.
All of this is amazing to see unfold, especially since it was the Democrats claiming that Donald Trump was going to lead us all into World War III. It turns out that Trump was a peace-loving president, and it is Biden and his cronies that are desperate to hit the nuke button.
These psychopaths want a global nuclear war, but they appear to have wanted Putin to strike first so they could use this as an excuse to unleash nuclear hell on the world. Since Putin is refusing to play ball, the narrative is now escalating into first strike territory.
Keep in mind that the Left used to be the party of “peace, not war” – at least when George W. Bush was president. A lot has changed since that time, as the Left is now the party of war hawks ready to drop nukes because Putin is disrupting their bioweapons and child trafficking operations in Ukraine.
The Biden regime claims that continuing to adhere to a “no first use” policy for nukes “would result in an unacceptable level of risk in light of the range of non-nuclear capabilities being developed and fielded by competitors that could inflict strategic-level damage” to the U.S. and its allies.
Putin responded to this by emphasizing the fact that the only real threat to the world in this current scenario is the U.S., which is still the only country in the world that has used nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state.
The Western deep state is desperate to maintain the stranglehold on power that it has enjoyed and used for seemingly limitless evil for decades. This is why we are now seeing absolute derangement flow out of the Pentagon as those in charge are coming to the realization that their time is almost up.
Will the world soon descend into a nuclear World War III caused by the deep state that controls the West? Find out more at WWIII.news.
The military White Hats, together with their Russian, Chinese and international allies, have declared war on HMM all over the world and with good reason.
For example, last week, US special forces staged a shootout at the FBI headquarters.
"It was an attempt to seize the headquarters of the FBI. The Alliance had special forces. The sound comes from an automatic weapon. Several dark agents have been eliminated. This is not the end, CIA sources say.
https://youtu.be/OUqkqouXymE
https://is.gd/1dw40I
Here is an example of why HMM needs to be tracked down and brought to justice: Did you know that George H.W. Bush signed the Babylonian Rules of Noah in 1991, which, among other things, call for the execution of all Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.?
https://is.gd/delwVq
This is because the first and second laws of Noah prohibit idolatry and blasphemy, which are punishable by beheading. HMM considers the worship of Jesus Christ, Buddha, etc. idolatry and blasphemy according to the Talmud.
https://youtu.be/A-ztldaCBpc
https://is.gd/2j8Jd9
That's why a hunt is underway to force all members of the HM to surrender to the war crimes tribunals.
For example, the Russian government has declared the Rockefeller Front, known as Meta, a terrorist organization and is therefore punishable by death.
Meta, or Facebook, as it used to be called, has always been Rockefeller's cover for mind control and propaganda. When I started a Facebook page, I immediately had a maximum of 5,000 subscribers, and many interesting people contacted me, including Japanese diplomats. However, I was forbidden to correspond with them or even post messages on my own Facebook page. Then I deleted it and left Facebook. After that, at least four Facebook pages appeared posing as me. These people are too afraid to have an open debate based on facts, and always resort to such dirty tricks. That's why I agree that Meta is a type of criminal organization and should be banned worldwide.
Elon Musk was also recognized as a terrorist for supporting Starlink telecommunications services in Ukraine.
Since HM has been assassinating Russian officials inside Russia, this means that Musk is now a legitimate target for Russian special forces. He and his CG Space X scam will no longer exist.
Poor Musk found himself in a difficult position, as he was also added to the well-known Ukrainian "suicide list" after he threatened to cut funding for Starlink satellite Internet services deployed in Ukraine. In any case, when the Russians attack his satellites with lasers, etc., Musk was forced to admit that "Starlink can still be destroyed", despite his offer to renew support.
China Announces New 100-Year Plan as West Descends into Chaos
The "rules-based world order" ruled by the Khazar mafia is sliding into anarchy and civil war. On the contrary, China has just announced a new 100-year plan to enrich its nation in harmony with nature. If the West doesn't overthrow its satanic leadership, hmm, China will rule the world whether it likes it or not.
Before we talk about China, let's take a look at the civil war raging in the West. After the assassination of Queen Elizabeth II (the head of the Committee of 300), HM either blackmailed King Charles III. or a similar puppet was used. According to MI6 sources, Elizabeth's murder was the revenge of the German DVD for the execution of George H.W. Bush and his family. According to Asian royal family sources, the assassination was probably ordered by Heinz Kissinger.
Here is the message I sent to MI6 about Kissinger:
Heinz Kissinger tried to kill me when I started exposing his boss David Rockefeller. He is also the one who created the so-called trading platforms that fake the financial system to create money out of thin air for the Nazi group he works with. Therefore, he has the strongest motive to prevent any attempts to wrest control of the financial system from his group, hence the murder of Her Majesty, as well as many other leaders over the years. He must be arrested, interrogated and then put on trial.
According to Japanese military intelligence, Kissinger and his deputy Richard Haas, head of the Council on Foreign Relations, ordered the assassination of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. For this reason, an international arrest warrant was issued for Kissinger, who is known as a serial killer of heads of state. Haas has already announced his withdrawal from CFR, presumably because he has already been arrested or executed.
https://is.gd/4K5s7d
Needless to say, the Rockefeller family bosses are in trouble too. According to a senior CIA source, "The Rockefeller Foundation and the family will be thrown under the bus. The rest of the elite decided that the Rockefellers should be responsible for the development of vaccines and the associated negative consequences, since they own pharmaceutical companies. Their total net worth is about $15 trillion. It will be confiscated. The Satanic elite will continue to rebel against each other, one at a time." The CIA is working with the Russian FSB to make this happen, he adds.
In any case, the contract HMM murder of Queen Elizabeth has serious consequences. History shows that when a monarch reigns for more than 50 years, a period of power struggle and unrest usually follows after his death. It's like this in England now. There is a triple power struggle raging between the anti-monarchist Gnostic Illuminati (who control Charles), monarchists who want King William V to be enthroned, and native Britons who want the first King Harold since 1066. The only thing that can be predicted with certainty is the turbulence during this power struggle.
80 years since its foundation: the German furniture manufacturer Hülsta is insolvent.
85 years after its foundation, the Thilmann bakery chain went bankrupt.
125 years after its foundation: the German construction company Wolff Hoch- und Ingenieurbau went bankrupt.
130 years since its foundation: German confectionery manufacturer Bodeta has gone bankrupt.
156 years after its foundation: German car supplier Borgers went bankrupt.
170 years since its foundation: the German soap manufacturer Kappus has gone bankrupt.
No wonder there are rumors that Germany, along with many other countries, wants to join the BRICS.
https://t.me/Conspirology1/19
As a visible sign that something has changed, CIA sources note: "Germany can bring down the bitch [EU head] Ursula von der Leyden." That is why the German authorities are investigating them for embezzlement and conflict of interest.
https://is.gd/qYQ9ic
Last week, people took to the streets in more than 500 cities and communities in Germany. There are protests every day.
However, it looks like Rishi Sunak, who was elected by the World Economic Forum, controlled by HM, is going to become prime Minister. If Sunak wants to survive, he must sever his ties with the WEF. To understand why, take a look at the members of the WEF, who openly declare that they want to wipe out most of humanity from the face of the earth.
Sunak will also need to seek advice from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Modi will tell him how to transform the British Commonwealth from a "white man's burden" into a cosmopolitan family of nations. Sunak will also have to lead the desatanization of the UK. If he does anything in support of the KM, for example, tries to return the UK to the EU, he will be removed, MI6 sources promise. Of course, desatanization must first continue in the USA. It is here that the white hats in the US armed forces will have to accuse General Mark Milley of treason for allowing the blatant theft of election results in 2020.
https://t.me/Conspirology1/18
Here you can see how Millie says that the United States is fighting in Ukraine to preserve the "rules-based world order."
Israeli businessmen participate in Saudi investment conference: Report
US media outlet, the Wall Street Journal, released a report on 28 October detailing the Israeli participation in a Saudi economic investment conference in Riyadh this week.
Saudi Arabia’s Future Investment Initiative Conference, which took place in the kingdom’s capital from 25 October to 27 October, was attended by a number of leading US business representatives, despite the heated dispute between the two longtime allies. Several Israeli businessmen were also present.
“The Middle East’s shifting dynamics were on display inside the marble halls of Riyadh’s Ritz-Carlton Hotel, host of the Future Investment Initiative, where businessmen in kippahs, the brimless cap worn by religious Jews, could be seen shaking hands with Saudis in traditional white robes,” the report states.
“In recent years, Saudi Arabia has hosted Jewish leaders in an interfaith-tolerance push and deepened covert business and security ties with Israel, which shares a common rival with the Saudi kingdom in Iran,” it adds.
Avraham Berkowitz, a Jewish US businessman who attended the conference, said that it “will become more normal to see members of the Jewish people that have been coming anyway, but now will feel more comfortable.”
The Israeli participation in this conference comes as part of a recent opening up of ties between Tel Aviv and Riyadh that was in part facilitated by US President Joe Biden’s visit to the kingdom in July, which centered on the “national security” of Israel, as Biden himself admitted.
This visit resulted in a number of agreements between Israel and Saudi Arabia, including the transfer of two Red Sea islands to Saudi control, and the opening of Saudi airspace to Israeli airliners.
Aside from this latest conference, as well as recent cooperation between the two, Israeli media has suggested that several senior security and political figures from Israel have visited the kingdom over the past decade.
One of these secret meetings was between former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) in November of 2020.
Last week, an Israeli media outlet quoted a Saudi source to have said that “representatives of Israeli companies and Israeli businessmen come to Riyadh daily, and participate in major projects, including the future city of NEOM,” referring to the controversial, futuristic megacity the kingdom is planning to construct.
Israeli official suggests fining Palestinians for having more than four kids
The head of Cardio-Thoracic surgery at Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba, Prof. Gideon Sahar, was heavily criticized on 24 October, after raising concerns about the high birth rate among the Bedouin population during a factional meeting in the southern Omer with Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked, according to Middle East Eye.
“On the one hand, we understand that the birthrate is decisive – the Arab womb; and on the other hand, we encourage it with all the child allowances. That’s why I think we should consider a child allowance that is regressive: the first child receives one, the second child receives one, perhaps the third child; the fourth child does not, and the fifth child perhaps triggers a fine. We have to figure out something,” said Prof. Gideon Sahar.
Sahar suggested imposing a fine on Bedouin families upon the birth of a fifth child. Shaked replied that such a policy “won’t work,” citing her program for fighting polygamy among the Bedouin community, wherein “westernization” encourages women to have fewer children.
“The best solution would be to simply westernize them, to emancipate Bedouin women,” she said. “The more they study and the more they work, the more they will live a Western life – and in that life, there will be less room for children.”
On the other hand, a group representing Arab physicians in the Naqab has filed a formal complaint with the administration of Soroka hospital, expressing outrage at Sahar’s description of Palestinians and the “Arab womb” as “problematic,” according to Middle East Eye.
The Association of Arab Doctors of the Negev demanded that Sahar be “dismissed immediately.” In a letter, the group stated that “anyone who views ‘Arab women’s wombs’ as a threat has no place in the healthcare system and they should not be able to take care of Arab heart problems under any circumstances.”
Meanwhile, a report released on 18 October by the UN’s Special Rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, has recommended that UN member statesdevelop “a plan to end the Israeli settler-colonial occupation and apartheid regime.”
“The realization of the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination requires the definitive dismantling of Israel’s colonial occupation and apartheid practices,” wrote Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur.
According to the report, nearly 4,500 Palestinians are currently detained, 730 of whom are held without charge and largely on the basis of secret evidence, while children as young as 12 are subjected to arbitrary arrests and detention measures – between 500 and 700 minors are detained by the Israeli government each year.
Bombing attempt foiled in Shiraz coincided with ISIS shooting: IRGC
Officials of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced on Friday, 28 October, that its intelligence unit foiled a bomb attack in the southern city of Shiraz.
The bomb was discovered on Maali Abad Street in Shiraz, and successfully defused.
An unnamed security source told Fars Newsthat the “remote incendiary bomb” was found on 26 October after the deadly ISIS shooting at the Shah Cheragh shrine that claimed the lives of 15 people, among them women and children.
Several other news reports confirm that the bomb was found and neutralized on the same day as the attack.
According to the governor of Shiraz, Lotfallah Shibani, “a person who intended to carry out a sabotage operation in one of the busy streets of Shiraz was identified and arrested with the timely knowledge of the security and police forces.”
Large demonstrations were held after Friday prayers across the country, condemning the attack on the shrine.
“We will take revenge for the blood of the martyrs of Shiraz,” said Friday prayer Imam Haj Ali Akbari in reference to the shooting.
The deadly ISIS shooting also coincided with the 40-day anniversary of the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini, for which masses of people gathered at her burial site in Saqez to commemorate her passing, and held protests in the streets.
Amini’s death sparked nationwide protestsacross the Islamic Republic – but many of the peaceful demonstrations quickly turned violent, resulting in clashes between rioters and security forces.
The numbers of protester, police, and security personnel casualties remain unclear, as both media outlets and human rights groups have issued conflicting reports, while Iran has yet to officially update the death toll.
The Oslo-based rights group, Iran Human Rights (IHR), said in an updated toll on 25 October, that at least 141 protesters have died as a result of security crackdowns. Amnesty International has recorded 144, while the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) places the toll at 244. Other unverified reports across social media claim the number of deaths has in fact exceeded 400.
On 24 October, Tehran charged over 300 people in connection with violent demonstrations and riots, four of whom could face the death penalty.
Several IRGC members and commanders, as well as police officers, have reportedly diedat the hands of armed rioters since the start of these protests, suggesting organized chaos and incitement to violence.
Fars News reported that on Wednesday, 26 October, a 21 year old IRGC member, Arman Ali Vardi, was killed by rioters in Ekbatan Complex, west of Tehran.
A day earlier, Iranian news outlet Etemad reported that two IRGC members were shot and killed by unidentified gunmen in Zahedan, the capital of the southeastern province of Sistan and Baluchestan.
Important analysis. You usually have to be a UK Column member for Extra but UKC have released this report because it needs to be seen. The "dirty bomb" in Ukraine, who is behind it and when it might be produced as a false flag. https://rumble.com/v1qe82j-from-uk-column-news-extra-a-ukrainian-dirty-bomb-false-flag.html
However, it looks like Rishi Sunak, who was elected by the World Economic Forum, controlled by HM, is going to become prime Minister. If Sunak wants to survive, he must sever his ties with the WEF. To understand why, take a look at the members of the WEF, who openly declare that they want to wipe out most of humanity from the face of the earth.
Sunak will also need to seek advice from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Modi will tell him how to transform the British Commonwealth from a "white man's burden" into a cosmopolitan family of nations. Sunak will also have to lead the desatanization of the UK. If he does anything in support of the KM, for example, tries to return the UK to the EU, he will be removed, MI6 sources promise. Of course, desatanization must first continue in the USA. It is here that the white hats in the US armed forces will have to accuse General Mark Milley of treason for allowing the blatant theft of election results in 2020.
https://t.me/Conspirology1/18
Here you can see how Millie says that the United States is fighting in Ukraine to preserve the "rules-based world order."
Russia’s war with Ukraine is first and foremost a tragedy for the people of both countries, especially those who live—and die—in the battle zones. The priority for humanity, though apparently not for the political class, is to encourage Moscow and Kyiv to stop killing men, women and children and negotiate a peace deal.
Beyond the immediate confines of the conflict, the war is also seen by some as representative of an alleged clash between great powers and, perhaps, between civilisations. All wars are momentous, but the ramifications of Ukrainian war are already global.
Consequently, there is a perception that it is the focal point of a confrontation between two distinct models of global governance. The NATO-led alliance of the Western nations continues to push the unipolar, G7, international rules-based order (IRBO). It is opposed, some say, by the Russian and Chinese-led BRICS and the G20-based multipolar world order.
In this 3 part series we will explore these issues and consider if it is tenable to place our faith in the emerging multipolar world order.
There are very few redeeming features of the unipolar world order, that’s for sure. It is a system that overwhelmingly serves capital and few people other than a “parasite class” of stakeholder capitalist eugenicists. This has led many disaffected Westerners to invest their hopes in the promise of the multipolar world order:
Many have increasingly come to terms with the reality that today’s multipolar system led by Russia and China has premised itself upon the defense of international law and national sovereignty as outlined in the UN Charter. [. . .] Putin and Xi Jinping have [. . .] made their choice to stand for win-win cooperation over Hobbesian Zero Sum thinking. [. . .] [T]heir entire strategy is premised upon the UN Charter.
If only that were so! Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear to be the case. But even if it were true, Putin and Xi Jinping basing “their entire strategy” upon the UN Charter, would be cause for concern, not relief.
For the globalist forces that see nation-states as squares on the grand chessboard and that regard leaders like Putin, Biden and Xi Jinping as accomplices, the multipolar world order is manna from heaven. They have spent more than a century trying to centralise global power. The power of individual nation-states at least presents the possibility of some decentralisation. The multipolar world order finally ends all national sovereignty and delivers true global governance.
World Order
We need to distinguish between the ideological concept of “world order” and the reality. This will help us identify where “world order” is an artificially imposed construct.
Authoritarian power, wielded over populations, territory and resources, restricted by physical and political geography, dictates the “world order.” The present order is largely the product of hard-nosed geopolitics, but it also reflects the various attempts to impose a global order.
The struggle to manage and mitigate the consequences of geopolitics is evident in the history of international relations. For nearly 500 years nation-states have sought to co-exist as sovereign entities. Numerous systems have been devised to seize control of what would otherwise be anarchy. It is very much to the detriment of humanity that anarchy has not been allowed to flourish.
In 1648, the two bilateral treaties that formed the Peace of Westphalia concluded the 30 Years War (or Wars). Those negotiated settlements arguably established the precept of the territorial sovereignty within the borders of the nation-state.
This reduced, but did not end, the centralised authoritarian power of the Holy Roman Empire (HRE). Britannica notes:
The Peace of Westphalia recognized the full territorial sovereignty of the member states of the empire.
This isn’t entirely accurate. That so-called “full territorial sovereignty” delineated regional power within Europe and the HRE, but full sovereignty wasn’t established.
The Westphalian treaties created hundreds of principalities that were formerly controlled by the central legislature of the HRE, the Diet. These new, effectively federalised principalities still paid taxes to the emperor and, crucially, religious observance remained a matter for the empire to decide. The treaties also consolidated the regional power of the Danish, Swedish, and French states but the Empire itself remained intact and dominant.
It is more accurate to say that the Peace of Westphalia somewhat curtailed the authoritarian power of the HRE and defined the physical borders of some nation states. During the 20th century, this led to the popular interpretation of the nation-state as a bulwark against international hegemonic power, despite that never having been entirely true.
Consequently, the so-called “Westphalian model” is largely based upon a myth. It represents an idealised version of the world order, suggesting how it could operate rather than describing how it does.
Signing of the Peace of Westphalia, in Münster 1648, painting by Gerard Ter Borch
If nation-states really were sovereign and if their territorial integrity were genuinely respected, then the Westphalian world order would be pure anarchy. This is the ideal upon which the UN is supposedly founded because, contrary to another ubiquitous popular myth, anarchy does not mean “chaos.” Quite the opposite.
Anarchy is exemplified by Article 2.1 of the UN Charter:
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
The word “anarchy” is an abstraction of the classical Greek “anarkhos,” meaning “rulerless.” This is derived from the privative prefix “an” (without) in conjunction with “arkhos” (leader or ruler). Literally translated, “anarchy” means “without rulers”—what the UN calls “sovereign equality.”
A Westphalian world order of sovereign nation-states, each observing the “equality” of all others while adhering to the non-aggression principle, is a system of global, political anarchy. Unfortunately, that is not the way the current UN “world order” functions, nor has there ever been any attempt to impose such an order. What a shame.
Within the League of Nations and subsequent UN system of practical “world order,”—a world order allegedly built upon the sovereignty of nations—equality exists in theory only. Through empire, colonialism, neocolonialism—that is, through economic, military, financial and monetary conquest, coupled with the debt obligations imposed upon targeted nations—global powers have always been able to dominate and control lesser ones.
National governments, if defined in purely political terms, have never been the only source of authority behind the efforts to construct world order. As revealed by Antony C. Sutton and others, private corporate power has aided national governments in shaping “world order.”
Neither Hitler’s rise to power nor the Bolshevik Revolution would have occurred as they did, if at all, without the guidance of the Wall Street financiers. The bankers’ global financial institutions and extensive international espionage networks were instrumental in shifting global political power.
These private-sector “partners” of government are the “stakeholders” we constantly hear about today. The most powerful among them are fully engaged in “the game” described by Zbigniew Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard.
Brzezinski recognised that the continental landmass of Eurasia was the key to genuine global hegemony:
This huge, oddly shaped Eurasian chess board—extending from Lisbon to Vladivostok—provides the setting for “the game.” [. . .] [I]f the middle space rebuffs the West, becomes an assertive single entity [. . .] then America’s primacy in Eurasia shrinks dramatically. [. . .] That mega-continent is just too large, too populous, culturally too varied, and composed of too many historically ambitious and politically energetic states to be compliant toward even the most economically successful and politically pre-eminent global power. [. . .] Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. [. . .] [I]t would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state.
The “unipolar world order” favoured by the Western powers, often referred to as the “international rules-based order” or the “international rules-based system,” is another attempt to impose order. This “unipolar” model enables the US and its European partners to exploit the UN system to claim legitimacy for their games of empire. Through it, the transatlantic alliance has used its economic, military and financial power to try to establish global hegemony.
In 2016, Stewart Patrick, writing for the US Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a foreign policy think tank, published World Order: What, Exactly, are the Rules? He described the post-WWII “international rules-based order” (IRBO):
What sets the post-1945 Western order apart is that it was shaped overwhelmingly by a single power [a unipolarity], the United States. Operating within the broader context of strategic bipolarity, it constructed, managed, and defended the regimes of the capitalist world economy. [. . .] In the trade sphere, the hegemon presses for liberalization and maintains an open market; in the monetary sphere, it supplies a freely convertible international currency, manages exchange rates, provides liquidity, and serves as a lender of last resort; and in the financial sphere, it serves as a source of international investment and development.
The idea that the aggressive market acquisition of crony capitalism somehow represents the “open markets” of the “capitalist world economy” is risible. It is about as far removed from free market capitalism as it is possible to be. Under crony capitalism, the US dollar, as the preferred global reserve currency, is not “freely convertible.” Exchange rates are manipulated and liquidity is debt for nearly everyone except the lender. “Investment and development” by the hegemon means more profits and control for the hegemon.
The notion that a political leader, or anyone for that matter, is entirely bad or good, is puerile. The same consideration can be given to nation-states, political systems or even models of world order. The character of a human being, a nation or a system of global governance is better judged by their or its totality of actions.
Whatever we consider to be the source of “good” and “evil,” it exists in all of us at either ends of a spectrum. Some people exhibit extreme levels of psychopathy, which can lead them to commit acts that are judged to be “evil.” But even Hitler, for example, showed physical courage, devotion, compassion for some, and other qualities we might consider “good.”
Nation-states and global governance structures, though immensely complex, are formed and led by people. They are influenced by a multitude of forces. Given the added complications of chance and unforeseen events, it is unrealistic to expect any form of “order” to be either entirely good or entirely bad.
That being said, if that “order” is iniquitous and causes appreciable harm to people, then it is important to identify to whom that “order” provides advantage. Their potential individual and collective guilt should be investigated.
This does not imply that those who benefit are automatically culpable, nor that they are “bad” or “evil,” though they may be, only that they have a conflict of interests in maintaining their “order” despite the harm it causes. Equally, where systemic harm is evident, it is irrational to absolve the actions of the people who lead and benefit from that system without first ruling out their possible guilt.
Since WWII, millions of innocents have been murdered by the US, its international allies and its corporate partners, all of whom have thrown their military, economic and financial weight around the world. The Western “parasite class” has sought to assert its IRBO by any means necessary— sanctions, debt slavery or outright slavery, physical, economic or psychological warfare. The grasping desire for more power and control has exposed the very worst of human nature. Repeatedly and ad nauseam.
Of course, resistance to this kind of global tyranny is understandable. The question is: Does imposition of the multipolar model offer anything different?
Signing the UN Charter – 1948
Oligarchy
Most recently, the “unipolar world order” has been embodied by the World Economic Forum’s inappropriately named Great Reset. It is so malignant and forbidding that some consider the emerging “multipolar world order” salvation. They have even heaped praise upon the likely leaders of the new multipolar world:
It is [. . .] strength of purpose and character that has defined Putin’s two decades in power. [. . .] Russia is committed to the process of finding solutions to all people benefiting from the future, not just a few thousand holier-than-thou oligarchs. [. . .] Together [Russia and China] told the WEF to stuff the Great Reset back into the hole in which it was conceived. [. . .] Putin told Klaus Schwab and the WEF that their entire idea of the Great Reset is not only doomed to failure but runs counter to everything modern leadership should be pursuing.
Sadly, it seems this hope is also misplaced.
While Putin did much to rid Russia of the CIA-run, Western-backed oligarchs who were systematically destroying the Russian Federation during the 1990s, they have subsequently been replaced by another band of oligarchs with closer links to the current Russian government. Something we will explore in Part 3.
Yes, it is certainly true that the Russian government, led by Putin and his power bloc, has improved the incomes and life opportunities for the majority of Russians. Putin’s government has also significantly reduced chronic poverty in Russia over the last two decades.
Wealth in Russia, measured as the market value of financial and non-financial assets, has remained concentrated in the hands of the top 1% of the population. This pooling of wealth among the top percentile is itself stratified and is overwhelmingly held by the top 1% of the 1%. For example, in 2017, 56% of Russian wealth was controlled by 1% of the population. The pseudopandemic of 2020–2022 particularly benefitted Russian billionnaires—as it did the billionaires of every other developed economy.
According to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report 2021, wealth inequality in Russia, measured using the Gini coefficient, was 87.8 in 2020. The only other major economy with a greater disparity between the wealthy and the rest of the population was Brazil. Just behind Brazil and Russia on the wealth inequality scale was the US, whose Gini coefficient stood at 85.
In terms of wealth concentration however, the situation in Russia was the worst by a considerable margin. In 2020 the top 1% owned 58.2% of Russia’s wealth. This was more than 8 percentage points higher than Brazil’s wealth concentration, and significantly worse than wealth concentration in the US, which stood at 35.2% in 2020.
Such disproportionate wealth distribution is conducive to creating and empowering oligarchs. But wealth alone doesn’t determine whether one is an oligarch. Wealth needs to be converted into political power for the term “oligarch” to be applicable. An oligarchy is defined as “a form of government in which supreme power is vested in a small exclusive class.”
Members of this dominant class are installed through a variety of mechanisms. The British establishment, and particularly its political class, is dominated by men and women who were educated at Eton, Roedean, Harrow and St. Pauls, etc. This “small exclusive class” arguably constitutes a British oligarchy. The UK’s new Prime Minister, Liz Truss, has been heralded by some because she is not a graduate of one of these select public schools.
Educational privilege aside, though, the use of the word “oligarch” in the West more commonly refers to an internationalist class of globalists whose individual wealth sets them apart and who use that wealth to influence policy decisions.
Bill Gates is a prime example of an oligarch. The former advisor to the UK Prime Minister, Dominic Cummings, said as much during his testimony to a parliamentary committee on May 2021 (go to 14:02:35). As Cummings put it, Bill Gates and “that kind of network” had directed the UK government’s response to the supposed COVID-19 pandemic.
Gates’ immense wealth has bought him direct access to political power beyond national borders. He has no public mandate in either the US or the UK. He is an oligarch—one of the more well known but far from the only one.
CFR member David Rothkopf described these people as a “Superclass” with the ability to “influence the lives of millions across borders on a regular basis.” They do this, he said, by using their globalist “networks.” Those networks, as described by Antony C. Sutton, Dominic Cummings and others, act as “the force multiplier in any kind of power structure.”
This “small exclusive class” use their wealth to control resources and thus policy. Political decisions, policy, court rulings and more are made at their behest. This point was highlighted in the joint letter sent by the Attorneys General (AGs) of 19 US states to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink.
The AGs observed that BlackRock was essentially using its investment strategy to pursue a political agenda:
The Senators elected by the citizens of this country determine which international agreements have the force of law, not BlackRock.
Their letter describes the theoretical model of representative democracy. Representative democracy is not a true democracy—which decentralises political power to the individual citizen—but is rather a system designed to centralise political control and authority. Inevitably, “representative democracy” leads to the consolidation of power in the hands of the so-called “Superclass” described by Rothkopf.
There is nothing “super” about them. They are ordinary people who have acquired wealth primarily through conquest, usury, market rigging, political manipulation and slavery. “Parasite class” is a more befitting description.
Not only do global investment firms like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street use their immense resources to steer public policy, but their major shareholders include the very oligarchs who, via their contribution to various think tanks, create the global political agendas that determine policy in the first place. There is no space in this system of alleged “world order” for any genuine democratic oversight.
As we shall see in Part 3, the levers of control are exerted to achieve exactly the same effect in Russia and China. Both countries have a gaggle of oligarchs whose objectives are firmly aligned with the WEF’s Great Reset agenda. They too work with their national government “partners” to ensure that they all arrive at the “right” policy decisions.
US President Joe Biden, left, and CFR President Richard N. Haass, right.
The United Nations’ Model of National Sovereignty
Any bloc of nations that bids for dominance within the United Nations is seeking global hegemony. The UN enables global governance and centralises global political power and authority. In so doing, the UN empowers the international oligarchy.
As noted previously, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter declares that the UN is “based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” The Charter then goes on to list the numerous ways in which nation-states are not equal. It also clarifies how they are all subservient to the UN Security Council.
Despite all the UN’s claims of lofty principles—respect for national sovereignty and for alleged human rights—Article 2 declares that no nation-state can receive any assistance from another as long as the UN Security Council is forcing that nation-state to comply with its edicts. Even non-member states must abide by the Charter, whether they like it or not, by decree of the United Nations.
The UN Charter is a paradox. Article 2.7 asserts that “nothing in the Charter” permits the UN to infringe the sovereignty of a nation-state—except when it does so through UN “enforcement measures.” The Charter states, apparently without reason, that all nation-states are “equal.” However, some nation-states are empowered by the Charter to be far more equal than others.
While the UN’s General Assembly is supposedly a decision-making forum comprised of “equal” sovereign nations, Article 11 affords the General Assembly only the power to discuss “the general principles of co-operation.” In other words, it has no power to make any significant decisions.
Article 12 dictates that the General Assembly can only resolve disputes if instructed to do so by the Security Council. The most important function of the UN, “the maintenance of international peace and security,” can only be dealt with by the Security Council. What the other members of the General Assembly think about the Security Council’s global “security” decisions is a practical irrelevance.
Article 23 lays out which nation-states form the Security Council:
The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics [Russian Federation], the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly shall elect ten other Members of the United Nations to be non-permanent members of the Security Council. [. . .] The non-permanent members of the Security Council shall be elected for a term of two years.
The General Assembly is allowed to elect “non-permanent” members to the Security Council based upon criteria stipulated by the Security Council. Currently the “non-permanent” members are Albania, Brazil, Gabon, Ghana, India, Ireland, Kenya, Mexico, Norway and the United Arab Emirates.
Article 24 proclaims that the Security Council has “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security” and that all other nations agree that “the Security Council acts on their behalf.” The Security Council investigates and defines all alleged threats and recommends the procedures and adjustments for the supposed remedy. The Security Council dictates what further action, such as sanctions or the use of military force, shall be taken against any nation-state it considers to be a problem.
Article 27 decrees that at least 9 of the 15 member states must be in agreement for a Security Council resolution to be enforced. All of the 5 permanent members must concur, and each has the power of veto. Any Security Council member, including permanent members, shall be excluded from the vote or use of its veto if they are party to the dispute in question.
UN member states, by virtue of agreeing to the Charter, must provide armed forces at the Security Council’s request. In accordance with Article 47, military planning and operational objectives are the sole remit of the permanent Security Council members through their exclusive Military Staff Committee. If the permanent members are interested in the opinion of any other “sovereign” nation, they’ll ask it to provide one.
The inequality inherent in the Charter could not be clearer. Article 44 notes that “when the Security Council has decided to use force” its only consultative obligation to the wider UN is to discuss the use of another member state’s armed forces where the Security Council has ordered that nation to fight. For a country that is a current member of the Security Council, use of its armed forces by the Military Staff Committee is a prerequisite for Council membership.
The UN Secretary-General, identified as the “chief administrative officer” in the Charter, oversees the UN Secretariat. The Secretariat commissions, investigates and produces the reports that allegedly inform UN decision-making. The Secretariat staff members are appointed by the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General is “appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”
Under the UN Charter, then, the Security Council is made king. This arrangement affords the governments of its permanent members—China, France, Russia, the UK and the US—considerable additional authority. There is nothing egalitarian about the UN Charter.
The suggestion that the UN Charter constitutes a “defence” of “national sovereignty” is ridiculous. The UN Charter is the embodiment of the centralisation of global power and authority.
UN Headquarters New York – Land Donated by the Rockefellers
The United Nations’ Global Public-Private Partnership
The UN was created, in no small measure, through the efforts of the private sector Rockefeller Foundation (RF). In particular, the RF’s comprehensive financial and operational support for the Economic, Financial and Transit Department (EFTD) of the League of Nations (LoN), and its considerable influence upon the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA), made the RF the key player in the transformation of the LoN into the UN.
The UN came into being as a result of public-private partnership. Since then, especially with regard to defence, financing, global health care and sustainable development, public-private partnerships have become dominant within the UN system. The UN is no longer an intergovernmental organisation, if it ever was one. It is a global collaboration between governments and a multinational infra-governmental network of private “stakeholders.”
In 1998, then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the World Economic Forum’s Davos symposium that a “quiet revolution” had occurred in the UN during the 1990s:
[T]he United Nations has been transformed since we last met here in Davos. The Organization has undergone a complete overhaul that I have described as a “quiet revolution”. [. . .] [W]e are in a stronger position to work with business and industry. [. . .] The business of the United Nations involves the businesses of the world. [. . .] We also promote private sector development and foreign direct investment. We help countries to join the international trading system and enact business-friendly legislation.
In 2005, the World Health Organisation (WHO), a specialised agency of the UN, published a report on the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in healthcare titled Connecting for Health. Speaking about how “stakeholders” could introduce ICT healthcare solutions globally, the WHO noted:
Governments can create an enabling environment, and invest in equity, access and innovation.
The 2015, Adis Ababa Action Agendaconference on “financing for development” clarified the nature of an “enabling environment.” National governments from 193 UN nation-states committed their respective populations to funding public-private partnerships for sustainable development by collectively agreeing to create “an enabling environment at all levels for sustainable development;” and “to further strengthen the framework to finance sustainable development.”
In 2017, UN General Assembly Resolution 70/224 (A/Res/70/224) compelled UN member states to implement “concrete policies” that “enable” sustainable development. A/Res/70/224 added that the UN:
[. . .] reaffirms the strong political commitment to address the challenge of financing and creating an enabling environment at all levels for sustainable development [—] particularly with regard to developing partnerships through the provision of greater opportunities to the private sector, non-governmental organizations and civil society in general.
In short, the “enabling environment” is a government, and therefore taxpayer, funding commitment to create markets for the private sector. Over the last few decades, successive Secretary-Generals have overseen the UN’s formal transition into a global public-private partnership (G3P).
Nation-states do not have sovereignty over public-private partnerships. Sustainable development formally relegates government to the role of an “enabling” partner within a global network comprised of multinational corporations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), civil society organisations and other actors. The “other actors” are predominantly the philanthropic foundations of individual billionaires and immensely wealthy family dynasties—that is, oligarchs.
Effectively, then, the UN serves the interests of capital. Not only is it a mechanism for the centralisation of global political authority, it is committed to the development of global policy agendas that are “business-friendly.” That means Big Business-friendly. Such agendas may happen to coincide with the best interests of humanity, but where they don’t—which is largely the case—well, that’s just too bad for humanity.
Kofi Annan (8 April 1938 – 18 August 2018)
Global Governance
On the 4th February 2022, a little less then three weeks prior to Russia launching its “special military operation” in Ukraine, Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping issued an important joint statement:
The sides [Russian Federation and Chinese People’s Republic] strongly support the development of international cooperation and exchanges [. . .], actively participating in the relevant global governance process, [. . .] to ensure sustainable global development. [. . .] The international community should actively engage in global governance[.] [. . .] The sides reaffirmed their intention to strengthen foreign policy coordination, pursue true multilateralism, strengthen cooperation on multilateral platforms, defend common interests, support the international and regional balance of power, and improve global governance. [. . .] The sides call on all States [. . .] to protect the United Nations-driven international architecture and the international law-based world order, seek genuine multipolarity with the United Nations and its Security Council playing a central and coordinating role, promote more democratic international relations, and ensure peace, stability and sustainable development across the world.
Global governance encompasses the totality of institutions, policies, norms, procedures and initiatives through which States and their citizens try to bring more predictability, stability and order to their responses to transnational challenges.
Global governance centralises control over the entire sphere of international relations. It inevitably erodes a nation’s ability to set foreign policy. As a theoretical protection against global instability, this isn’t necessarily a bad idea, but in practice it neither enhances nor “protects” national sovereignty.
Domination of the global governance system by one group of powerful nation-states represents possibly the most dangerous and destabilising force of all. It allows those nations to act with impunity, regardless of any pretensions about honouring alleged “international law.”
Global governance also significantly curtails the independence of a nation-state’s domestic policy. For example, the UN’s Sustainable Development Agenda 21, with the near-time Agenda 2030 serving as a waypoint, impacts nearly all national domestic policy—even setting the course for most domestic policy—in every country.
National electorates’ oversight of this “totality” of UN policies is weak to nonexistent. Global governance renders so-called “representative democracy” little more than a vacuous sound-bite.
As the UN is a global public-private partnership (UN-G3P), global governance allows the “multi-stakeholder partnership”—and therefore oligarchs—significant influence over member nation-states’ domestic and foreign policy. Set in this context, the UN-DESA report (see above) provides a frank appraisal of the true nature of UN-G3P global governance:
Current approaches to global governance and global rules have led to a greater shrinking of policy space for national Governments [. . . ]; this also impedes the reduction of inequalities within countries. [. . .] Global governance has become a domain with many different players including: multilateral organizations; [. . .] elite multilateral groupings such as the Group of Eight (G8) and the Group of Twenty (G20) [and] different coalitions relevant to specific policy subjects[.] [. . .] Also included are activities of the private sector (e.g., the Global Compact) non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and large philanthropic foundations (e.g., Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Turner Foundation) and associated global funds to address particular issues[.] [. . .] The representativeness, opportunities for participation, and transparency of many of the main actors are open to question. [. . .] NGOs [. . .] often have governance structures that are not subject to open and democratic accountability. The lack of representativeness, accountability and transparency of corporations is even more important as corporations have more power and are currently promoting multi-stakeholder governance with a leading role for the private sector. [. . .] Currently, it seems that the United Nations has not been able to provide direction in the solution of global governance problems—perhaps lacking appropriate resources or authority, or both. United Nations bodies, with the exception of the Security Council, cannot make binding decisions.
A/Res/73/254 declares that the UN Global Compact Office plays a vital role in “strengthening the capacity of the United Nations to partner strategically with the private sector.” It adds:
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development acknowledges that the implementation of sustainable development will depend on the active engagement of both the public and private sectors[.]
While the Attorneys General of 19 states might rail against BlackRock for usurping the political authority of US senators, BlackRock is simply exercising its power as valued a “public-private partner” of the US government. Such is the nature of global governance. Given that this system has been constructed over the last 80 years, it’s a bit too late for 19 state AGs to complain about it now. What have they been doing for the last eight decades?
The governmental “partners” of the UN-G3P lack “authority” because the UN was created, largely by the Rockefellers, as a public-private partnership. The intergovernmental structure is the partner of the infra-governmental network of private stakeholders. In terms of resources, the power of the private sector “partners” dwarfs that of their government counterparts.
Corporate fiefdoms are not limited by national borders. BlackRock alone currently holds $8.5 trillion of assets under management. This is nearly five times the size of the total GDP of UN Security Council permanent member Russia and more than three times the GDP of the UK.
So-called sovereign countries are not sovereign over their own central banks nor are they “sovereign” over international financial institutions like the IMF, the New Development Bank (NDB), the World Bank or the Bank for International Settlements. The notion that any nation state or intergovernmental organisation is capable of bringing the global network of private capital to heel is farcical.
At the COP26 Conference in Glasgow in 2021, King Charles III—then Prince Charles—prepared the conference to endorse the forthcoming announcement of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ). He made it abundantly clear who was in charge and, in keeping with UN objectives, clarified national governments role as “enabling partners”:
The scale and scope of the threat we face call for a global systems level solution based on radically transforming our current fossil fuel based economy. [. . .] So ladies and gentleman, my plea today is for countries to come together to create the environment that enables every sector of industry to take the action required. We know this will take trillions, not billions of dollars. [. . .] [W]e need a vast military style campaign to marshal the strength of the global private sector, with trillions at [its] disposal far beyond global GDP, and with the greatest respect, beyond even the governments of the world’s leaders. It offers the only real prospect of achieving fundamental economic transition.
Unless Putin and Xi Jinping intend to completely restructure the United Nations, including all of its institutions and specialised agencies, their objective of protecting “the United Nations-driven international architecture” appears to be nothing more than a bid to cement their status as the nominal leaders of the UN-G3P. As pointed out by UN-DESA, through the UN-G3P, that claim to political authority is extremely limited. Global corporations dominate and are currently further consolidating their global power through “multi-stakeholder governance.”
Whether unipolar or multipolar, the so-called “world order” is the system of global governance led by the private sector—the oligarchs. Nation-states, including Russia and China, have already agreed to follow global priorities determined at the global governance level. The question is not which model of the global public-private “world order” we should accept, but rather why we would ever accept any such “world order” at all.
This, then, is the context within which we can explore the alleged advantages of a “multipolar world order” led by China, Russia and increasingly India. Is it an attempt, as claimed by some, to reinvigorate the United Nations and create a more just and equitable system of global governance? Or is it merely the next phase in the construction of what many refer to as the “New World Order”?
You can read more of Iain’s work at his blog IainDavis.com (Formerly InThisTogether) or on UK Column or follow him on Twitter. His new book Pseudopandemic, is now available, in both in kindle and paperback, from Amazon and other sellers. Or you can claim a free copy by subscribing to his newsletter.
Follow us on Telegram for regular updates & commentary
