UN 2.0

I woke up this morning, to find that the United Nations had announced a version upgrade - from 1.0 to 2.0.

Not particularly being a fan of the original, it was still with a healthy level of… exclusive… skepticism that I decided it was of sufficient importance to actually read in full.

And it didn’t fail to disappoint. In fact, in terms of their lofty goals, this is a very disappointing document indeed.

Well done.

-

You can find the document here. As you can see, they ditched the ‘safe’ cornflower blue background, and instead changed to a radical lighter moderation of… gradient cornflower blue.

Having many years of experience with software, I would start by warning people - avoid this version. It appears incredibly buggy. It’s not properly thought through, has seen little to no quality assurance, and very little systems compatibility testing has been carried out - if any at all. Because it all stands utterly in contrast with nature - human - itself, yet those who penned it, have gained the level of delusion that they actually believe they can predict the future. Apart from, of course, when it becomes expedient to admit that the future can in fact not be predicted - but usually, even these paragraphs finish off with an expectancy of predicting the future anyway.

To cut through - it’s bullshit, through and through. Pardon my French.

Let’s get started.

-

To kick off, the document was released only yesterday (September 2023), and thus, is absolutely fresh off the printer, still hot and all. And the expected, sneering arrogance gets a good start, right out of the gate.

The vision is to create an authoritarian superstate with global governance, with a gigantic public sector, powered by a culture of racial discrimination and gender bias, and use 24/7 surveillance data sent through artificial intelligence (which, naturally, has also been primed with critical theory discrimination, as we shall later see), in the process retargeting the workforce to a skillset for which there is no present requirement (thereby ensuring even more people will work in the public sector in the future). No, the future workforce requirement is planned, and centrally so. Golly!

Sure, perhaps I’ve overegged a few of the comments below - it was the final page I went through, and thus, I was in a somewhat contemptuous mood as I’d read the rest of the report already.

The ‘approach’ follows.

They seek to build data expertise, collected from more diverse sources for better insights or action. In common speak this means they will surveil whatever they can get away with, and act in whatever capacity they deem ‘best’. For whom? Yeah, that’s the question, no?

And - entirely coincidentally - here’s the article I wrote on the 3-D commission, Scroll down near the bottom to find out exactly what information they’re looking to scrape.

-

They also speak of innovation capacity, more on that later, because if there’s one thing they are genuinely ignorant of, this is it.

The digital expertise in addition to workforce training/education also relates to the first point again - clearly (and in accordance to SDG 16.9), the intent is for Digital IDs to be rolled out because most of their services rely on this. Fortunately - for them - this will also enable CBDCs which are obviously another goal, though not covered by this document.

They then go on to make claims of strategic foresight, which is where the data collected comes into play. They will use surveillance information to attempt to predict the future. It’s that simple. In the later chapter, we shall see exactly how incredibly misguided, and outright intellectually dishonest they are, because it flat out makes no sense.

And finally, they push the absolute delusion that they can craft their empire of lies through non-stop, pervasive behavioural science - which in short is nothing but manipulation.

And all of this is casually spiced with plenty of critical theory components - men vs women especially, but disabled people, and minorities also receive their dues.

To aid this grand plan, they also generously use your taxes to fund start-ups which aid in the development of these objectives. No, not your start-up, white man.

Next couple of pages are fairly low-density in terms of information. I’ll skip right through, as I’d rather spend my limited time elsewhere.

-

The first main topic is the forward-thinking culture. This is essentially just meaningless rhetoric, it’s a way of putting them carrying their plans into action in a positive light.

How many behavioural scientists did it take to cook that one up?

They will apparently work to enforce a ludicrous quantity of intersectional demands, remove bias and obstacles from hiring processes, stand up for global diversity, accelerate change, fix injustice, ‘improve’ access to information (more on that later), enable critical thinking… all while claiming to reduce the bureaucracy!

To put it politely, this is a random grab-bag of false promises, claims, and frequently mutually exclusive statements, peppered with equality of gender parity outcome Marxism.

And in that regard - searching for the word 'woman’ in the document yields 33 results. The same search for ‘men’ yields…………… one.

Just one.

Specifically, in this sentence: ‘we will advance practices that strengthen equitable representation from all parts of the world and greater regional group diversity and achieve parity between men and women in our workforce.‘

You can see it below, in the section below ‘GEOGRAPHICAL DIVERSITY‘.

Next, you’ll find that they rely on young (impressionable) people to push this through, plus all the critical theory tricks of the trade are applied; appealing to the minorities, the women, the disabled and so forth.

The plan is to casually fuse environmental sustainability into every part of their organisation, and there’s even a brief phrase here that leads itself towards the infamous ‘Planetary Health’ topic, which first materialised in a 2015 edition of the Lancet, in cooperation with the Rockefeller Foundation. As stated in yesterday’s post, I reserve ‘Planetary Health’ for a later article, because it’s a large topic in itself, which also folds in ‘One Health’.

And in relation to the Lancet article and the Rockefeller Foundation - did you know that - entirely coincidentally - the United Nations is built on land donated by… yeah, Rockefeller?

The Data section follows, which can best be described as a grab bag of hints at surveillance. We have satellite imagery, supply chain visibility, real-time tracking, and merged in with modern data capability, run through machine learning, and output via visualisation techniques. The stated intent is to track climate change, to improve yields, and heaven know every other false promise in the world.

The will readily lie about anything and everything in this regard, because global real-time surveillance is a primary aim of ‘One Health’, so it’s no coincidence it appears here.

-

Surveillance and One Health are probably the two topics I’ve spent the most time on, so here are a few prior articles in this regard.

And surveillance also reared its ugly head through Peter Piot, Georgetown University, and this whitepaper released while Peter Piot claimed to be ‘near death’ with covid.

-

True to form, the document finishes off the ‘data’ section chock full of express Frankhurt School Critical Theory, a number of false promises, and usual manipulative phrasing. It’s just tiresome.

I do find it amusing that after spending ages, insisting men and women (and so forth) are exactly the same, the language is inserted clearly prioritising one above the other. It’s just this incessant shifting between two chairs, depending on political expedience.

-

The next chapter is arguably the worst of the lot, because if it goes to prove anything, it’s that they have never, ever worked as part of a creative process.

I have. For years, I worked in research, and consequently, do happen to know a few things about this.

First off, if you want to create a truly creative forum, then you need to take the shackles off. Strip the political correctness, strip the unnecessary ideological reasoning, and stop elevating one over the other because of her physical attributes.

Next is - creativity isn’t something you can trivially acquire, because the best inventions typically come from thinking outside the box. And if you kicked off, constructing a massive box where you’re not allowed to go left because there be ‘womens right to feel safe’, or right because there be disabled people and so forth, then you’ve kicked off by constructing said box. True creativity requires freedom, or at least, is immensely helped by it. But this document even explicitly offers market credit on account of a person having a pair of boobies. It’s absolutely ignorant to the extreme, and were I a woman, I’d probably be slightly annoyed about it.

We also have a heavy dash of false promises and outright delusion and ignorance (blood transfusions with drone, immersive virtual reality in spite of it failing every time since the early 90s, and opaque promises of 'alternate energy’)

But where it goes truly off the rails is on the next page, where shortly after making unsourced claims about public sector innovation, talking about ‘grass roots innovation’ as though it’s a rock band, and finally make blanket claims about ‘diverse teams’ and ‘key enablers’ being good for innovation in general.

I will promise you this - whoever penned this, regardless of which behavioural science institute this came out of - they have never worked in creative for a single day in his or her life.

Finally, some creativity can be learned, sure. But it does definitely not come from edict, and almost certainly not from some education either. It comes from having a genuine interest in a topic, way beyond where others have left work in the evening. And you know, those hours and hours of overtime I pulled in my 20s… I didn’t see many women. I just didn’t, so shoot me.

In fact, the few women I did tend to see, were the ones down the pub which my merry batch of ultra-geeks and I went to for final orders.

But that’s not to say we didn’t wish there were more women, nor that we acted with any level of disrespect, though I’m absolutely certain that’s what whoever penned this sector would immediately imply.

The rest of the chapter is primarily buzzwords and the likes. Amusingly, the ‘leveraging new technologies’ paragraph leverages absolutely no new ideas whatsoever.

It goes to show one thing, especially one thing. These people have absolutely no clue. None.

Pepper with usual divisive, critical theory rhetoric, and we land in the next chapter, ‘Strategic Foresight’, which starts off with a clanger -

Structured methods that may help navigate uncertainty. Uncertainty and structure do not tend to cooperate.

In general this chapter is just a random grab-bag of crazy ideas, mixed into the UN framework, along with other terrible phrases.

imagine better futures and chart new paths today. That is quite literally what drives innovation already. Again, these people are dangerously ignorant. They are basking in their own perceived brightness and self-importance, yet display gross levels of incompetence and ignorance at every major hurdle.

chart new paths forward already today / make better choices today. Absolutely meaningless rhetoric. Because that’s what you do by default. No-one serious wastes time by intent. Sure, better tech can improve the process but let me be absolutely clear -

No-one can predict the future. No-one.

So when this 23 year old behavioural scientists pens this document using the above phrasing, all s/he is really revealing - again - is his/her own breathtaking ignorance. It’s some cheap, tacky motivational term, and little else.

And that’s good enough for a United Nations report, in fact, one which is supposed to outline the future path?

It’s an absolute embarassment.

And whether you believe climate science or not, is sort of beyond the point. Because the climate science we have today - assuming it’s correct in the slightest - will with absolute certainty change in the future.

Consequently, ‘next-generation planning’ on the topic can quickly turn catastrophic at the blink of an eye.

As for predictive analysis, we can’t even predict the path of a landing tornado, and that’s an absolute fact. Yet these blithering idiots suggest we can cut natural disasters through it.

Moving on if for no other reason to get my blood pressure levels down again, we have the usual following page, chock full of buzzwords, claims of omniscience through ‘foresight’ which in actual reality is nothing short of educated guesses.

And it still will be, when the AI they claim exist (but which doesn’t) goes live. Sure, it might be closer to outcome, but the mere knowledge that we have a machine that is alleged to predict the future, is certain to alter it.

On from this follows probably the least interesting chapter, ‘Digital’, perhaps because it’s probably the most well-established factor of the lot by now.

Naturally, it’s healthily flavoured by large quantities of critical theory… seriously, has anyone not woken up to what they do by now? Women, the United Nations use you as a tool, a battering ram to force through their ideology for political expedience. Women, women, women, women, women… live longer. They collect retirement for longer. They run a lower risk of workplace fatalities and life-altering accidents. Oh wait, the UN does not care about that. At all.

And just exactly how would better services for refugees through mobile payments sell this to me? We currently witness landings every day in the South of the UK, I think understanding thereof is fairly limited by now especially considering the vast majority do not come from war-torn nations.

We finish off the chapter with an unintentional amusement - adopt governance approaches to enable decentralised action. It’s just so unbelievably clueless.

The next chapter is probably the most meaty. Behavioural science.

This is, in a single word, manipulation. And it generally does not work long-term. See what happened to the SAGE advise given in the UK. Regardless of how much they’re trying to ignore it, it’s been repeatedly called out in the media for being nazi-era techniques, and most people are aware of it by now.

It’s a one-time only trick, but the conmen will attempt to apply it continuously.

How would that even work? By escalating the lies progressively? Eventually, people will wake up, and if there’s one thing it will absolutely not have done by then, is strengthen people’s belief in said governments.

The report goes on to make spurius claim about human nature, which I invite you to read because only the next page cuts right through this argument.

See, what the article states is that we must use manipulation to ensure people reach the ‘correct’ human nature, or rather, that our selections and choices do not ‘go against human nature’.

The problem with this argument - as the article itself states below - is that human behaviour often is unpredictable because we all have our biases and mental shortcuts!

The comeback of course will be the ‘grain’ word inserted. Please define this. What’s the granularity? Under which circumstances? I will guarantee you that this construct is easily breakable, because a well-mannered person will act very, very differently depending on circumstances, or even a bad nights sleep. Consequenrly, the ‘grain’ will become so utterly grand, that it becomes entirely meaningless.

The next - and final - chapter is about the UN 2.0 Accelerator.

What this is, well, in short - it’s the taxes, collected by your government, forwarded to the United Nations, who have now put said money to use, by blasting you with critical theory and only funding those oppressed.

I don’t think I want to waste further time on this, because having read other, similar, papers, this is what it is - coupled with the typical false promises, cherry-picked lies, liberal awards for liberals… and the highlight of the chapter… references.

Lots and lots of references to other documents here. I usually have to spend hours tracking these down, so thank you for this lot.

Almost at the very end we have a very opaque roadmap which never goes into detail (because you would then know too much, and we can’t have honesty). However, this plan ends in 2026, so whatever’s coming, you won’t have to wait long for it.

Then we have the list of applicable sustainable development goals, chock full of assumptions, flat-out lies, critical theory, pivotal omissions, and so forth.

And the final page we have the typical over polished (and simplified) claims of greatness, lies, false promises, all dressed up in easily consumable tidbits which are all you’ll ever see on TV, keeping you in the dark about legit intentions.

As for how all this information interlinks… yeah… let me give you a very brief explanation.

You will be a test subject.
You will be surveilled 24/7.
You will have no privacy.
You will be manipulated.

Also, we can predict the future, and everything will be great.

Trust us.

Finally, a list of endnotes if you should wish to investigate further. Personally - at least for the time being - I’ve heard rather enough.

Fuck the United Nations. Oh shit, pardon my French. Oh, and again.