The UN: Stick a fork in it, it's done

[Bill Ryan]

The United Nations is now fully impotent and completely unable to act judicially on any aspect of international law.

Discuss. :)

[Bruce G Charlton]

My feeling is that the UN was, from its origin, intended to be an instrument for imposing a totalitarian world government (New World Order, Great Reset etc); but this covert aim was approached gradually, incrementally.

Indeed, in early 2020, and via its subsidiary the WHO, the UN came very close to achieving this objective of world government. For the only time in history all the nations of the world were following the same agenda - almost the entire planet was locked-down.

But since later in 2020, the forces of chaos have waxed more powerful, and increasingly overwhelmed the agenda for micro-control and omni-surveillance; with policies such as increased inter-race hatred, mass-poisoning attempt of hundreds of millions, increased inter-nation hatred, anti-trade, anti-farming, pro-violence; and pro-war... in more and yet more places.

From totalitarian enslavement, towards more violent chaos, disease and starvation: The decline of the UN is an ending of one kind of evil; but unfortunately it is being replaced by another kind.

[Le Chat]

I think that it is structurally constrained, rather than impotent.
Powerful when major powers agree and weak when they don’t—which says more about global politics than about the institution itself.

[syrwong]

The UN is a big club that every nation is in, but its people, you, ain't in it. You have no say, but they decide your fate.

[rgray222]

The UN should be shutdown but if it is going to remain open, it should be headquartered in a 3rd world country, not in NYC. Delegates should be individuals who truly want to make a difference, rather than people who are only adding another notch to their CV, or those who are more concerned about securing nice NYC apartments and making the right reservations at the best restaurants.

It is structurally ineffective because the five permanent members have veto power, which can block constructive action even when there is broad global support. Stalemates on critical issues are commonplace. The body can pass resolutions all day long, but they have no real enforcement power, especially in matters of military intervention. The most powerful nations influence the decision-making for political purposes and have little or no regard for meaningful solutions. The humanitarian aid effort and the children's charity are laughable. The effectiveness of this organization is not even debatable; it needs to cease to exist.

Sadly, I believe that this organization will not only remain in place, but it will flourish over the next decade. Organizations under its control (WHO, World Bank, IMF, WFP, UNICEF, UNSC, etc.) are needed to keep the world moving towards global governance. China is a huge proponent of global government, and they have found a strategic partner in the United Nations. They are on a mission ot make China the strongest country in the world both economically and militarily by 2050, and they view the UN as an essential tool to accomplish that mission.

[grapevine]

In theory, the idea of a United Nations is brilliant and should and could have worked. There’s nothing wrong with a united World Order either, as long as it raises the bar overall and gives EVERYONE a better standard of living and opportunities to inspire and create a Utopia, a heaven on earth. Unfortunately, in practise, there’s bound to be trouble when those who are in charge care nothing at all for the masses, the people who elected them to represent the rest of us, so it’s not surprising that the world is failing, will continue to fall into further decline, and eventually the human race will be wiped out, taking along many other species.

Unless we can put it right, and it looks as though an opportunity for us to do just that is coming up very soon.

Somewhere along the line we’ve gone very wrong; perhaps we’re all (collectively) responsible as if we put as much into the community as we do into our own lives then maybe the United Nations wouldn’t have been such a nightmare or impossible dream. That Socrates and other philosophers’ words ring so true today highlights that nothing really changes and so history is unfortunately set to repeat itself over and over.

Having said that, and regardless of all the chaos in the world today, there’s no other lifetime I’d rather be experiencing than the one I’m living right now. Taken as a whole, the script is more fantastic than anything that’s ever come out of Hollywood.

[sdv]

The UN should be shutdown but if it is going to remain open, it should be headquartered in a 3rd world country, not in NYC. Delegates should be individuals who truly want to make a difference, rather than people who are only adding another notch to their CV, or those who are more concerned about securing nice NYC apartments and making the right reservations at the best restaurants.

It is structurally ineffective because the five permanent members have veto power, which can block constructive action even when there is broad global support. Stalemates on critical issues are commonplace. The body can pass resolutions all day long, but they have no real enforcement power, especially in matters of military intervention. The most powerful nations influence the decision-making for political purposes and have little or no regard for meaningful solutions. The humanitarian aid effort and the children's charity are laughable. The effectiveness of this organization is not even debatable; it needs to cease to exist.

Sadly, I believe that this organization will not only remain in place, but it will flourish over the next decade. Organizations under its control (WHO, World Bank, IMF, WFP, UNICEF, UNSC, etc.) are needed to keep the world moving towards global governance. China is a huge proponent of global government, and they have found a strategic partner in the United Nations. They are on a mission ot make China the strongest country in the world both economically and militarily by 2050, and they view the UN as an essential tool to accomplish that mission.

Does China know what you are claiming? The same China that champions a multi-polar world in which one nation does not dominate, and individual sovereignty is respected, for every nation, big or small?

[rgray222]

The UN should be shutdown but if it is going to remain open, it should be headquartered in a 3rd world country, not in NYC. Delegates should be individuals who truly want to make a difference, rather than people who are only adding another notch to their CV, or those who are more concerned about securing nice NYC apartments and making the right reservations at the best restaurants.

It is structurally ineffective because the five permanent members have veto power, which can block constructive action even when there is broad global support. Stalemates on critical issues are commonplace. The body can pass resolutions all day long, but they have no real enforcement power, especially in matters of military intervention. The most powerful nations influence the decision-making for political purposes and have little or no regard for meaningful solutions. The humanitarian aid effort and the children's charity are laughable. The effectiveness of this organization is not even debatable; it needs to cease to exist.

Sadly, I believe that this organization will not only remain in place, but it will flourish over the next decade. Organizations under its control (WHO, World Bank, IMF, WFP, UNICEF, UNSC, etc.) are needed to keep the world moving towards global governance. China is a huge proponent of global government, and they have found a strategic partner in the United Nations. They are on a mission ot make China the strongest country in the world both economically and militarily by 2050, and they view the UN as an essential tool to accomplish that mission.

Does China know what you are claiming? The same China that champions a multi-polar world in which one nation does not dominate, and individual sovereignty is respected, for every nation, big or small?

If you truly believe that China cares about a multipolar world order, then you have entirely missed the geopolitical boat. China views the multipolar world order as a crucial step in achieving a bipolar world order with the US anchoring one pole and China the other. China's ambitions do not stop there; they are on a mission to become the dominant world power by 2050. China has made no secret of their mission, as a matter of fact, they were so vocal about it that they felt a need to pull back and deny some of the early statements. Here is one story about China's 2050 military plan (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-wants-the-most-powerful-military-the-planet-by-2050-24779).

President XI would be foolish not to embrace global government; it would be the fastest and most effective way to achieve global dominance, especially when you have a population base of 1.4 billion.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation) is very much like the UN of Asia

President Xi Jinping unveils Global Governance Initiative at Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)

President Xi Jinping chairs and addresses the "Shanghai Cooperation Organization Plus "Meeting in Tianjin on Monday. His speech was titled "Pooling the Strength of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to Improve Global Governance". WANG ZHUANGFEI/CHINA DAILY

President Xi Jinping unveiled the Global Governance Initiative at a grand gathering with leaders from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization family on Monday, stressing China's readiness to work with all countries for a more just and equitable global governance system.

The Chinese president expounded on his fourth global initiative, after the Global Development Initiative, Global Security Initiative and Global Civilization Initiative, at the "Shanghai Cooperation Organization Plus "Meeting in Tianjin.

The meeting brought together leaders of more than 20 countries from the SCO family, including member states, observer states and dialogue partners, as well as 10 international organizations.

In explaining the initiative, Xi pointed out that the Cold War mentality, hegemony and protectionism continue to haunt the world, and "global governance has come to a new crossroads".

He highlighted five principles for the Global Governance Initiative — adherence to sovereign equality, abiding by international rule of law, practicing true multilateralism, advocating the people-centered approach and focusing on taking real actions.

"We should maintain that all countries, regardless of size, strength and wealth, are equal participants, decision-makers and beneficiaries in global governance," Xi said. "We should promote greater democracy in international relations and increase the representation and voice of developing countries," he said.

He warned against "double standards" and rules imposed by "a few countries", stressing that the United Nations must remain at the core of global governance.

Xi emphasized the need to firmly safeguard the status and authority of the UN and ensure its "irreplaceable, key role" in global governance.

Meanwhile, he made an appeal for the reform and improvement of the global governance system to ensure that the people of every nation are the actors in and beneficiaries of global governance.

The goal, he said, is to better tackle the common challenges for mankind, better narrow the North-South gap, and better safeguard the common interests of all countries.

The Chinese president then made the case for taking real actions, saying that countries should adopt a systematic and holistic approach, coordinate global actions, fully mobilize various resources, and strive for more visible outcomes.

"We should enhance practical cooperation to prevent the governance system from lagging behind or being fragmented," he said.

Xi called on the SCO to step up and play a leading role and set an example in carrying out the Global Governance Initiative, saying the grouping should contribute to safeguarding world peace and stability.

"We should continue to uphold the principles of nonalliance, nonconfrontation and not targeting any third party," he added.

The organization should take responsibility for open cooperation across the globe, he said. "We should continue to dismantle walls, not erect them; we should seek integration, not decoupling."

Xi also said that SCO countries should advance high-quality Belt and Road cooperation and push for universally beneficial and inclusive economic globalization.

He announced Beijing's decision to establish three major platforms for China-SCO cooperation in energy, green industry and the digital economy, and to set up three major cooperation centers for sci-tech innovation, higher education and vocational and technical education.

China will work with fellow SCO countries in the next five years to increase the installed capacity of photovoltaic and wind power by 10 million kilowatts each, Xi said.

Xi then urged SCO countries to set an example in championing the common values of humanity, while announcing China's decision to treat 500 patients with congenital heart disease, perform 5,000 cataract operations and carry out 10,000 cancer screenings for other SCO countries.

Xi also made an appeal for SCO countries to defend international fairness and justice, saying they should continue to unequivocally oppose hegemonism and power politics, practice true multilateralism, and stand as "a pillar in promoting a multipolar world and greater democracy in international relations".

The initiative was widely welcomed and supported during the meeting, as leaders highlighted the need for a more effective governance philosophy and system as the world is confronted with widening deficits in governance, challenges to sustainable development and rising unilateralism.

Foreign Minister Wang Yi said at a news briefing on Monday that Xi's launch of the Global Governance Initiative was the "biggest highlight" of this year's SCO summit.

He said that the initiative's underlying principles are fully consistent with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. "It is designed to firmly support the central role of the UN in international affairs, and to encourage all countries to participate in the reform and development of the global governance system through the UN and other multilateral mechanisms."

Nurlan Yermekbayev, the SCO's secretary-general, said the fact that the Global Governance Initiative "was put forward on the SCO platform carries profound symbolic significance".

"Indeed, the principles enshrined in the initiative are of paramount importance, with the people-centered approach standing out in particular. After all, as we all recognize, the initiative's central purpose is to advance human development and improve people's livelihoods."

https://www.scochina2025.org.cn/en/n3/2025/0902/c518818-20361093.html

[sdv]

Criticism of the UN is plentiful, but the following is a good summary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_United_Nations

I don't think the UN can be reformed. Those advocating for reform of the Security Council (various groupings, each with its own ideas) are jockeying for power. If the UN could be reformed, I would advocate for two countries to have a veto power in the Security Council: Tibet (which ceased to be a country, by force) and Bhutan. Countries like Greenland are usually cited as the most peaceful countries in the world. Really? With USA military and intelligence bases in the country? As for bribery, it is rife in many forms at the UN. How do we reform that? Offending countries must sit in the naughty corner at the UN and not speak for a year?

But, the UN does have organizations that are very effective and efficient in delivering aid when it is most needed. Until Israel and the USA blocked it, UNWRA was an essential lifeline in Gaza. If there was a major eruption at Yellowstone tomorrow, it is the UN who could most effectively get aid to Americans.

The AU does not have an EU or NATO, but the organization can call on member states to contribute to a peacekeeping or peacemaking mission, and countries actually do co-ordinate well. Less structures and rules does not necessarily mean less effectiveness. But, if I had to vote reform or abolish, I choose the latter.

[DNA]

The UN is a hub of pedophile globalists bent on depopulation.
So I hope this is a correct statement and we can put a fork in them.
But I don't think they are done just yet.

[Bluegreen]

Agreed DNA

Just look at Wikipedia's list of UN Goodwill Ambassadors, 80% of them bad actors, going all the way back to Audrey Hepburn and Danny Kaye (real name Kaminski), both of whom were multi-lingual, neither of whom needed a passport to go anywhere in the world, at the time. Good traits for a spy.

Hepburn came to the US from Belgium as a trained spook, documented. Due to the times, Kaye has a murkier history. He was rumored to be gay, and was married to his writer. Danny Kaye was a talented comedic actor, his wife knew him and knew what he could do, and wrote material for him to shine.

And here we have UN Goodwill Ambassador Katy Perry breaking up with fellow UN Goodwill Ambassador Orlando Bloom to hook up with none other than Fidel Castro's son. What a surprise.

[shaberon]

I would suggest two different dynamics.


On the control aspect, the eleventh hour addition of Nazi Argentina was admitted and invented the phrase "collective security agreement", which turned around and formed the basis of NATO, which is an outright Fascist arrangement -- and it is actually NATO that might disintegrate soon, even to the extent of closing Rammstein.

On the popular level, the World Health Organization is the only thing that every country in the world has ever unanimously agreed to.

And so the existence of the United Nations is rather lopsided. It shows unusual favoritism, and some of the spinoff organizations are anywhere from ineffective to corrupt.


For the most part, the United States destroyed it, or destroyed the purpose of the Charter. Pretty much all the way. The organization is ineffective because the United States takes or vetoes whatever they want. If not, give me one example where they ever listened to diplomacy and significantly changed their actions due to outside advice.


It's an existential paradox, because I would think we should use a type of international monitor for Treaties, and have an open channel for improving management and trade relations and so forth; but then the issue becomes, how would a center of agreements enforce anything?

If it can't, then you have the voluntary agreers pitted against someone who really will use force; and if it can, then there is the extreme danger an "Orbital Authority" would enforce a bit too much.

That's a really serious underlying issue about anything that will ever happen. Do things work by voluntary compliance, or by force?

There's politics and money. Sleazebags will come drooling.

First of all, those politicians would need to be public servants which means it is a low-paying job and a total headache that no one wants to do, which is why it is called service. Those are our employees. But this perspective seems to be missing.

To make a great big government out of individual governments that are already composed of the wrong kinds of individuals? Sounds difficult.

When you put the window dressing to the side, it has one main purpose, resolving conflicts and establishing peace. I remain in favor of something like this. I just don't see it functioning any better simply due to the nature of some of the participants. I don't think anyone will ever agree that we need to put in a big Orbital Authority so the UN could directly enforce whatever it decided.

The main point of the UN Charter is perhaps the most difficult discussion we can have.

It's quite easy to rail against particular countries, people, institutions like the IMF and World Bank, and so on, but the main purpose and why it has not been achieved are something to really think about.

[norman]

The UN is a hub of pedophile globalists bent on depopulation.
So I hope this is a correct statement and we can put a fork in them.
But I don't think they are done just yet.

I think you left out the word 'Luciferian'.


Former Director of Planetary Initiative at the United Nations. David Spangler once said:

"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a LUCIFERIAN Initiation,"

"Lucifer" is sometimes interpreted symbolically as the "light-bringer" or intellectual enlightenment, rather than the Christian personification of Satan.

The Lucis Trust Connection, a non-profit organization that is on the UN Economic and Social Council's list of NGOs. The trust was founded in 1922 as "Lucifer Publishing Company" by Alice Bailey, a prominent theosophist who also discussed a "Luciferian initiation" in her writings regarding a new world religion.

The book United Nations of Lucifer by V. Lynn, argues that the UN's "Meditation Room" contains a six-ton iron ore altar dedicated to this purpose. This claim is largely part of Christian end-times theology and anti-globalist conspiracy narratives, which interpret global cooperation initiatives as the rise of the Antichrist.

[sdv]

Agreed DNA

Just look at Wikipedia's list of UN Goodwill Ambassadors, 80% of them bad actors, going all the way back to Audrey Hepburn and Danny Kaye (real name Kaminski), both of whom were multi-lingual, neither of whom needed a passport to go anywhere in the world, at the time. Good traits for a spy.

Hepburn came to the US from Belgium as a trained spook, documented. Due to the times, Kaye has a murkier history. He was rumored to be gay, and was married to his writer. Danny Kaye was a talented comedic actor, his wife knew him and knew what he could do, and wrote material for him to shine.

And here we have UN Goodwill Ambassador Katy Perry breaking up with fellow UN Goodwill Ambassador Orlando Bloom to hook up with none other than Fidel Castro's son. What a surprise.

Thanks for the reminder of one of the many corrupt aspects of the UN. We all contribute to the funding of this insanity.

'Katy Perry visited Cuba in 2015, meeting with Raul Castro's daughter,'

'Based on available information, there is no evidence that any of Fidel Castro’s direct, acknowledged sons are currently living in the United States or Canada.'

If Katy Perry was hooking up with Fidel Castro's son, I would see that as reflecting badly on him, not on her! But, her only connection with Cuba is her visit in 2015 where she befriended Raul's daughter.

[Violet3]

Humanity is still too primitive as a whole to be united on anything; so the UN could never have been anything but an attempt at domination of the planet by those who can run it's institutions while giving operations a veneer of acceptability. While the UN may be an effective political tool for some who benefit from it, it does not help nation states impartially, let alone humanity, and should go in my opinion. :thumbsdown:

[Isserley]

Agreed DNA

Just look at Wikipedia's list of UN Goodwill Ambassadors, 80% of them bad actors, going all the way back to Audrey Hepburn and Danny Kaye (real name Kaminski), both of whom were multi-lingual, neither of whom needed a passport to go anywhere in the world, at the time. Good traits for a spy.

Hepburn came to the US from Belgium as a trained spook, documented. Due to the times, Kaye has a murkier history. He was rumored to be gay, and was married to his writer. Danny Kaye was a talented comedic actor, his wife knew him and knew what he could do, and wrote material for him to shine.

And here we have UN Goodwill Ambassador Katy Perry breaking up with fellow UN Goodwill Ambassador Orlando Bloom to hook up with none other than Fidel Castro's son. What a surprise.

Thanks for the reminder of one of the many corrupt aspects of the UN. We all contribute to the funding of this insanity.

'Katy Perry visited Cuba in 2015, meeting with Raul Castro's daughter,'

'Based on available information, there is no evidence that any of Fidel Castro’s direct, acknowledged sons are currently living in the United States or Canada.'

If Katy Perry was hooking up with Fidel Castro's son, I would see that as reflecting badly on him, not on her! But, her only connection with Cuba is her visit in 2015 where she befriended Raul's daughter.

Katy Perry is dating Justin Trudeau as of 2025 aka Fidel's unacknowledged son.
I believe he is his son just as much as I believe Brigitte Macron is a man..
:focus:

[Mike Gorman]

The League of Nations was its precursor, & I agree the United Nations was a wonderful basic idea, but really it is a relic of WWII, now it is too corrupted & abused. The USA became the global power, the UN its seeming global pax-Americana utility. The security council became the only part of the UN with any teeth, WHO & UNESCO -too awful to speak of. The final speech from the old fella who was the chief, it was at least honest. I recall that the UN was spoken of as being an absolute authority, with the bill of human rights when I was a kid/teenager, I never thought the UN would become an object of ridicule & contempt: very sad in many ways, it started out with such optimistic hope & lofty idealism! Alas!

[Inversion]

According to the below article the United Nations was to push for a one world government.

Benjamin Fulford's posts and reports (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?411-Benjamin-Fulford-s-posts-and-reports&p=1641939&viewfull=1#post1641939)

After “Internationalist” controllers’ first attempt at one world governance failed with their League of Nations immediately after World War I, during the ensuing years, the Rockefeller Foundation emerged as the key catalyst spawning the 1945 United Nations, donating both their land and monies to create their long plotted globalist one world government, or at least its precursor.

Google AI

"Un" in Latin primarily relates to the number "one," from the root ūnus, but the English prefix "un-" (meaning "not") comes from Germanic roots and is distinct, though it shares distant Indo-European origins with Latin's negative in- prefix. In English, "un-" negates (unhappy), while the Latin in- also negates (inactive), and "un-" as a verb prefix reverses action (unravel).

[Michi]

According to AFP, France decline Trumps invitation to his "board of peace" and Germany remains to decline or accept the invitation.
The "board of peace" is considered a bypass of the UN.

[Ravenlocke]

Mohamad Safa

For the first time in the history of the United Nations.

Israel takeover of UNRWA headquarters in Jerusalem and raised its flag over the building.

This violates Article 52 of Additional Protocol (I) Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter, which stipulates that “The property and assets of the UN, wherever located shall be immune…”

Another violation of international law being broadcast live. Israel's impunity must end!

https://x.com/mhdksafa/status/2013592106418229324

2013592106418229324

[shaberon]

The Lucis Trust Connection, a non-profit organization that is on the UN Economic and Social Council's list of NGOs. The trust was founded in 1922 as "Lucifer Publishing Company" by Alice Bailey, a prominent theosophist who also discussed a "Luciferian initiation" in her writings regarding a new world religion.

The book United Nations of Lucifer by V. Lynn, argues that the UN's "Meditation Room" contains a six-ton iron ore altar dedicated to this purpose. This claim is largely part of Christian end-times theology and anti-globalist conspiracy narratives, which interpret global cooperation initiatives as the rise of the Antichrist.


That is correct. Those are the two underground trends that have conditioned the course of events.

Ms. Bailey applied to, but got no response from, Shuddha Dharma Mandala, the Indian outcropping of the Agartha world government claimed by St-Yves d'Alveydre. She left India and right there in New York created a westernized version of it. As a faction, this is mainly the Council on Foreign Relations, which dictates to the U. S. State Department, which has an appointed Secretary, rather than an elected Foreign Minister like almost everywhere else in the world.

The opposite camp could be characterized as John Birch, that is, the generally right wing pro-American faction we see in power today.


It was actually One World Empire that was invented by St-Yves, which asserts the following dogma:


Judeo-Christianity means the Muslims are inferior, and must be driven out so the Europeans can establish Greater Israel.

He told the heads of state of Russia and the UK to adopt the policies that formed the Entente, the reversal of alliances that directly led to World War One and therefor everything subsequently related.

The Pope was a Prisoner in the Vatican, and he suggested a new strategy of ecumenical papism, that is, to drop the "mono-polar" Catholic-converting drive, and to rise up as a stalwart of "Christianity", which is the foundation of Ms. Bailey's doctrine, but yet also of Opus Dei when operating in the conservative Catholic domains.


So you see the wars, etc., leading to new institutions in the twentieth century, even though we already had some of a different nature.


The first type of NGOs, think tanks, peace initiatives, etc., were designed by Garibaldi, culminating in the Inter-Parliamentary Union, 1888. This continues to function. It has no enforcement. Iran is a regular participant. It is just a gathering of members of parliaments. And then whatever they come up with, is merely an influence, they are free to suggest things in their home countries and attempt to pass it by the normal procedure.

If we could agree on a sensible conversation, we wouldn't really need anything more than that.

I don't recall it making waves in my country.

The "two discussions" have and I don't see either as viable.

Right now I don't see the United States as fit to participate in any world order. Everyone else needs to be working on their shifts until this place matures.

[Tintin]

In answer to the OP, and no waffle involved: yes. it's done. :handshake: That's about as involved as I'm going to be with this too.

[ThePythonicCow]

.
The United Nations was largely funded and started by a major American arm of the UK/Euro globalist colonialist Bankers, the Rockefeller's. The United Nations was setup as an umbrella organization over a flotilla of international organizations with power superior to sovereign nations, and with the means and mission to implement banker's strategies globally.

From 31:54 to 36:49 in the Youtube video "The Hidden Agenda Behind Trump's CHAOS - Globalists in 'Hysterical PANIC'", Alex Krainer spells out the scope and authority of this international organizational structure

OdYx3jVl-OE


My hand composed transcript of the 31:54 to 36:49 portion Alex Krainer's remarks from the above Youtube video (Alex's hems and haws are randomly replaced with my typos):

===


After World War II, they started creating these international organizations and so now there are 76 international organizations that have legal immunities in the United States under the international organizations act of 1945, which means

they are tax exempt so they dont report taxes so you cant have any look into their finances, money coming in, money going out, that's completely non-transparent, and
they also have legal immunity meaning you can't hold them accountable for anything. They work completely outside of the law.
And so these international organizations, and when I say there are 76 of them, we're talking about things like the World Meterological Organization, World Food Organization, World Health Organization, Gabi vaccine alliance, World Migrations something or other, and all these organizations, they're pretty much when you look into their agendas and plans, they're pretty much ..., their objectives are to implement UN sustainable goals, the Agenda 2030, or pretty much you can say is the same thing ... the Great Reset and Klaus Schwab's Fourth Industrial Revolution.

So they're all implementing that. and that's, you know, when Klaus Schwab says that World Economic Forum is going to replace the United States as the top of the global governance, this is what they mean. They intend to rule the world through all these immune, unaccountable, undemocratic, international organizations.

When I was speaking about Nicholas Maduro, what happened just a few days after they brought Nicholas Maduro to the United States is that Trump administration announced that they were withdrawing from 66 out of 76 of these international organizations, which means they're yanking their legal immunities from under them. So that means that there's going to be accountability.===

[ThePythonicCow]

Xi called on the SCO to step up and play a leading role and set an example in carrying out the Global Governance Initiative, saying the grouping should contribute to safeguarding world peace and stability.
I might be a wimp when it comes to swinging the sword on the battle field (*), but the Anglo-Saxon blood in me still prefers the freedom of battle to the "peace and stability" of prison.

(*) I will happily swing my keyboard on the bit field however ...

[grapevine]

.
The United Nations was largely funded and started by a major American arm of the UK/Euro globalist colonialist Bankers, the Rockefeller's. The United Nations was setup as an umbrella organization over a flotilla of international organizations with power superior to sovereign nations, and with the means and mission to implement banker's strategies globally.

From 31:54 to 36:49 in the Youtube video "The Hidden Agenda Behind Trump's CHAOS - Globalists in 'Hysterical PANIC'", Alex Krainer spells out the scope and authority of this international organizational structure

OdYx3jVl-OE


My hand composed transcript of the 31:54 to 36:49 portion Alex Krainer's remarks from the above Youtube video (Alex's hems and haws are randomly replaced with my typos):

===


After World War II, they started creating these international organizations and so now there are 76 international organizations that have legal immunities in the United States under the international organizations act of 1945, which means

they are tax exempt so they dont report taxes so you cant have any look into their finances, money coming in, money going out, that's completely non-transparent, and
they also have legal immunity meaning you can't hold them accountable for anything. They work completely outside of the law.
And so these international organizations, and when I say there are 76 of them, we're talking about things like the World Meterological Organization, World Food Organization, World Health Organization, Gabi vaccine alliance, World Migrations something or other, and all these organizations, they're pretty much when you look into their agendas and plans, they're pretty much ..., their objectives are to implement UN sustainable goals, the Agenda 2030, or pretty much you can say is the same thing ... the Great Reset and Klaus Schwab's Fourth Industrial Revolution.

So they're all implementing that. and that's, you know, when Klaus Schwab says that World Economic Forum is going to replace the United States as the top of the global governance, this is what they mean. They intend to rule the world through all these immune, unaccountable, undemocratic, international organizations.

When I was speaking about Nicholas Maduro, what happened just a few days after they brought Nicholas Maduro to the United States is that Trump administration announced that they were withdrawing from 66 out of 76 of these international organizations, which means they're yanking their legal immunities from under them. So that means that there's going to be accountability.===

Many thanks for this Paul although if you listen on a bit further there's mention of a report given to Elon Musk about the grooming gangs in the UK, the proceeds of which (£milllions) went to fund 9/11 and 7/7 and implicate the Labour party, which is the reason for the big cover up, which will be exposed. What wasn't said was who compiled this report. Apologies as it's not specifically about the UN but worth the mention imo.

[shaberon]

From one angle, because of the United States and Israel, the United Nations never was.

The other angle is more important -- various peoples who would like a united nations of some kind, and to have governments kept in check by something. Especially people living where someone's air force had a field day. From this perspective, equal treatment for what the United States did to Korea would consist of carpet bombing 30% of the population. How could you start the 1950s with a remotely serious expression when this happens. It just gives a precedent for one-sidedness.

That is still the main problem according to one of its own officers (https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/01/23/762766/Recent-US-military-actions-signal-return-to-%E2%80%98predatory-colonialism%E2%80%99--UN-rapporteur):



Unchecked American military actions, including the assault on Venezuela, signal a return to “predatory colonialism” — a shift that threatens the foundations of international law and risks plunging global affairs back into a “law of the jungle,” says a UN rapporteur.

In an interview with the Press TV website, Ben Saul, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, said Washington’s recent and unilateral acts of aggression reflect a broader erosion of legal restraints on the use of force, particularly under President Donald Trump.

“It returns us to an era of predatory colonialism, where powerful countries can impose their will on others, seize their territory or exploit their resources, with total disregard for their sovereignty or right of self-determination and wishes,” Saul stated.

History, he noted, shows this path is “a recipe for great instability and conflict, with predictable risks of escalation and great loss of human life.”

Saul’s assessment follows a dramatic escalation on January 3, when US forces struck Venezuela’s largest military complex in Caracas along with several strategic sites in the states of Miranda, Aragua and La Guaira.

The operation culminated in the illegal and extrajudicial kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, who were transferred to the United States to face unsubstantiated charges including “narco-terrorism” and cocaine trafficking — allegations that Caracas has long rejected.

Washington framed the campaign as part of a broader effort to combat drug trafficking in the Caribbean. Venezuelan officials, however, said the operation was aimed at “regime change” and control over the country’s vast oil reserves — a claim Trump himself appeared to reinforce by acknowledging that securing Venezuela’s energy sector was a core objective of the military action.

Saul said the legal implications go far beyond a single strike.

He described the US campaign as the “culmination of a year-long campaign to destabilize Venezuela,” involving blockades, economic coercion and covert action. Under international law, he said, such measures intersect directly with the prohibition on the use of force and the principle of non-intervention.

“The United Nations Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against other countries, including blockades – which constitute the crime of aggression,” the UN official said.

International law, he added, also protects national sovereignty from “foreign political or economic interference and coercion, such as through unjustified unilateral sanctions or covert action.”

Human rights law, Saul stressed, sets even clearer limits.

“Human rights law prohibits targeted killings of civilians, and drug traffickers at sea are not combatants who can be targeted under humanitarian law, since there is no armed conflict at all – just the murder of civilians,” he said. “Abducting a head of government is also a violation of human rights law.”

At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council two days after the strikes, many countries — including several US allies — condemned the kidnapping operation as a “crime of aggression.”

Saul sees a troubling pattern in how international law is enforced — or ignored. He drew a sharp contrast between Western outrage over Russia’s attack on Ukraine and the more muted response to US actions elsewhere.

“The very concept of law requires the equal application of the most fundamental rules, not different rules for different countries,” he said.

When powerful states exempt themselves or their allies, the UN rapporteur warned, it encourages others to do the same, leading to “survival of the fittest or law of the jungle,” and a return to “great power competition where power is the only law.”

That erosion, Saul argued, also raises the question of individual accountability. While prosecutions of US political leaders or military commanders for the crime of aggression may appear remote, he insists that insisting on personal responsibility still matters.

“It is important for other states to uphold international law by at least denouncing such conduct as aggression, and calling on US institutions, including Congress, to do something about it,” he stated.

History, he added, teaches us to “never say never” when it comes to eventual justice.

With the UN Security Council effectively “paralyzed” by the US veto, Saul said responsibility falls on other states — particularly middle powers and the Global South — to apply collective pressure.

Diplomatic protest, reduced cooperation and even sanctions can raise the political and economic cost of violations, he stressed.

Recent signals, including a speech this week by Canada’s prime minister Mark Carney and what Saul described as a “slow awakening” among some European leaders, suggest a tentative shift away from appeasing Trump.

“Trump’s US only respects strength, not weakness,” he said.


If the UN were to re-brand itself as a powerless negotiating room, it would work. The 1970s negotiations leading to Camp David were inadequate and everyone knows that. Our Congress is doing something about it, but so far this means the slow, possible passage of something in the House that is sure to be rubbished to the Senate. It would be interesting to take a few days and have the US Senate debate various panels of inquiry at the United Nations. But, it doesn't do anything interesting, it supports regimes.

[Bill Ryan]

The Duran addresses Trump's 'Board of Peace'. The UN itself is discussed in some detail, and most interestingly, Alexander Mercouris explains why Russia and Chine very likely actually want to preserve the UN system, despite all the US dominance and manipulation, simply because of their established veto rights.

Board of Peace, Putin invite and US attempt to replace UN


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9d1wSoWT3A

[rgray222]

The Duran addresses Trump's 'Board of Peace'. The UN itself is discussed in some detail, and most interestingly, Alexander Mercouris explains why Russia and Chine very likely actually want to preserve the UN system, despite all the US dominance and manipulation, simply because of their established veto rights.

Board of Peace, Putin invite and US attempt to replace UN


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9d1wSoWT3A

My take on this is a bit different

No matter how the United Nations started out, it has become a tool used to promote global governance. China values the UN for two main reasons: firstly, they hold a seat on the Security Council, which grants it veto power; secondly, it has strategically influenced many UN agencies such as the World Trade Organization, World Health Organization, International Maritime Organization, and other influential institutions. China's true goal of becoming the world's strongest economic and military power by 2050 lies in its ability to use and influence the UN agencies. If you need proof, just examine the WHO's behavior during the pandemic.

China’s curious support (it shouldn't be) for the UN is also evident in its creation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). They have developed their own version of the World Bank, called the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Development Bank. Failing to understand China's true mission is a perilious undertaking. Last year, the SCO gained formal observer status at the United Nations. Despite official denials from China, the SCO is widely seen as a “UN wannabe”, a smaller version of the UN that seeks to expand China's influence on the global stage. Even though China denies it at every opportunity, the SCO is nothing more than a UN mini-me.

I was surprised to hear Christoforou and Mercouris' support for the UN, but I suspect it may have been a subtle way to denigrate Trump. I firmly believe that it is wrong to accept the United Nations as it currently exists. Suggesting that the world should tolerate its failures, flaws and shortcomings is misguided.

Also, claiming that countries are too invested in the United Nations to abandon it implies that we should accept ongoing failure. I believe we need to seriously consider reforming or replacing such a flawed institution rather than accepting its shortcomings as inevitable. Accepting occasional failure and perpetual mediocrity is wrong on every level.

Many people tend to dismiss Trump as a serious political figure, but I believe that his is a flawed human who is delivering the correct message. For example, he has been correct on several major issues, including border security and immigration, economic policies and inflation, energy independence, criminal justice reform, and addressing the link between fentanyl and foreign trade. Trumps persuit of peace in the Middle East is undeniably the correct road to travel on to give world peace a fighting chance.

When you take Trump out of the equation and consider the thought of a Board of Peace as an orgainzation it actually sounds appealing. Much more appealing than what the UN has become today, which is an organization more concerned about climate change than peace, more concerned about sustainability than peace and more concerned about upholding bogus international law than peace. Peace should be the driving force behind a multinational board or organization. The UN has lost its way. Trump's board of Peace might be something the world should consider. I wonder how people would feel if the suggestion came from Putin or if the idea came from Nelson Mandela? Dismissing the idea because of who or even how it originated seems shortsighted.

[sdv]

rgray222 .. probably why peace initiatives in the UN fail is because of the veto powers in the Security Council. The USA, initially enthusiastically supported by the UK, has consistently blocked any attempt to end the Israeli onslaught on Gaza, to stop blocking aid for desparate people, and to hold Israel accountable for genocide. A Board of Peace run by Trump is a very bad idea, because he is Trump. I think it is magical thinking that if we could put the 'right' person in charge, it would be great.

The problem is the veto vote in the Security Council. But it is not the only problem. An organization like that grows tentacles, one of the more bizarre limbs being the whole celebrity global ambassador programme, and becomes filled with career diplomats who may be more interested in their careers than developing practical skills to solve problems. Then there is the bribing of smaller countries by global bullies, and so on.

This Board of Peace not only replicates the idea of a veto vote, but doubles down n it.

To add: this organization, founded by Nelson Mandela and notably joined by Jimmy Carter may be of interest in its values and principles. The organization is still going strong ... in terms of not having given up its work.

https://theelders.org/

[Bill Ryan]

Russian spokesman Dmitry Peskov on the fact that international law has ceased to exist:

https://t.me/DDGeopolitics/176306

~~~
There have been worse things in human history. We weren't alive then, so it seems to us that the end of the world is coming now. But the fact is that there has been a significant destabilization of the region, and a cumulative effect is emerging from a huge number of regional conflicts and unresolved problems, which are having both economic and political consequences. Unfortunately, we have all lost what we call international law.

To be honest, I don't even understand how to urge anyone to follow the norms and principles of international law anymore. It practically no longer exists. De jure it still exists, but de facto it no longer does. And what law has replaced international law, honestly, I doubt anyone could articulate that right now.

[rgray222]

Russian spokesman Dmitry Peskov on the fact that international law has ceased to exist:

https://t.me/DDGeopolitics/176306

~~~
There have been worse things in human history. We weren't alive then, so it seems to us that the end of the world is coming now. But the fact is that there has been a significant destabilization of the region, and a cumulative effect is emerging from a huge number of regional conflicts and unresolved problems, which are having both economic and political consequences. Unfortunately, we have all lost what we call international law.

To be honest, I don't even understand how to urge anyone to follow the norms and principles of international law anymore. It practically no longer exists. De jure it still exists, but de facto it no longer does. And what law has replaced international law, honestly, I doubt anyone could articulate that right now.

Sarah Bils (who now goes by the name Lyudmila Mikhailova Karakova) comment seems to reflect a sense of frustration with the state of international law and global instability, and I am not so sure that that is a bad thing. This comment was most likely created out of a sense of frustration with Trump's actions against Iran. That same frustration with Trump also applies to Putin when it comes to unenforceable international law.

Peace is the only path that should be traveled, and each of us, including our leaders, needs to find our inner moral responsibility. It may sound like wishful thinking, but one day it will be the only thing standing between man and extinction.

Nothing has changed when it comes to international law; while international law still exists on paper, it has never been effective in practice. Her frustration is that there is no meaningful enforcement. The only enforcement that I am aware of is weak sanctions and diplomatic pressures. Enforcement has always depended on cooperation and the willingness of states to adhere to the law. Yes, there is a court of International Justice to resolve disputes between countries, and even tho its rulings are binding, enforcement relies on countries to voluntarily comply.

I have never shied away from saying that I despise the idea of a one-world government or a group of globalists calling the shots, but I have also believed that this form of government will become a reality, and it will happen much sooner and on a much broader scale than people believe. The United Nations is being hollowed out in slow motion right before our eyes, and most people are not even aware of what is happening. This orgainzation is being gutted and repositioned to serve its global masters. Once the globalists are firmly entrenched, we will see strict enforcement of international law. It will “intentionally” suppress sovereign rights and erase much of people's cultural identity. You can't have people holding vigil to their old borders, their old customs and their old freedoms when you need them bending the knee at the global altar.

Edit
My apologies, I did not see that this comment is attributed to Dmitry Peskov (which you even bolded). I believe it is still applicable to the UN and international law, regardless.
R