The United Nation’s Summit of the Future is over. The “great and good” of global leadership got together for four days in New York for what their website called…
a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reimagine the multilateral system and steer humanity on a new course
…which sounds just lovely and not at all creepy and hubristic.
The four day event was split into two “action days” and two days of “the Summit.”
Both of which are just different names for “people in suits sitting around big tables using bureaucratic jargon while making big time serious important-person faces”.
The result of which is the passing of a document they’re calling the “Pact for the Future” – 81 pages of self-important waffle so crammed with meaningless political language it becomes near-unintelligible (what James Corbett calls “Globalese”).
Here’s a paragraph chosen at random:
Enhancing cooperation with stakeholders, including civil society, academia, the scientific and technological community and the private sector, and encouraging intergenerational partnerships, by promoting a whole-of society approach, to share best practices and develop innovative, long-term and forward-thinking ideas in order to safeguard the needs and interests of future generations.
…it’s all like that. And I read it all. 81 pages.
You’re welcome.
In terms of real content, there are no new ideas here. We have seen this globalist shopping list of alleged “issues” before.
Climate change, conflict, food insecurity, poverty, misinformation, hate speech. The usual “problems” that collectively form what the document refers to as “complex global shocks”.
These “shocks” – the document tells us – can be addressed with a series of “solutions” that are again no surprise:
“respect for international law”,
“expanded cooperation”,
“increased role for the UN” and the post-covid buzzword of choice –
“interoperability”.
All of which can be broadly defined as our old friend “global government”.
As you’d expect, there’s a lot of talk about money and finance (massive transfers of public money into private hands is how you win over corporations and hedge funds to your authoritarian cause, after all). For example Action 9(28)(f) promises…
…a new collective quantified goal from a floor of 100 billion United States dollars per year, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries [to combat climate change];
$100 billion per year. You can buy a lot of ScienceTM with that.
The most blatantly authoritarian language is reserved for control of the internet (it almost always is), and Objectives 3 & 4 of the “Global Digital Compact Annex” are two of the few that require little to no translation at all, pledging to:
Foster an inclusive, open, safe and secure digital space that respects, protects and promotes human rights [and] Advance responsible, equitable and interoperable data governance approaches
The annex goes on to underline the importance of “Information Integrity” [emphasis added]:
33. Access to relevant, reliable and accurate information and knowledge is essential for an inclusive, open, safe and secure digital space. [T]echnolog[y] can facilitate the manipulation of and interference with information in ways that are harmful to societies and individuals, and negatively affect the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as the attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals.
34.We will work together to promote information integrity, tolerance and respect in the digital space, as well as to protect the integrity of democratic processes. We will strengthen international cooperation to address the challenge of misinformation and disinformation and hate speech
And charges digital technology companies to hand over private information to government researchers so they can “address misinformation”:
We urgently call on digital technology companies and social media platforms to enhance the transparency and accountability of their systems [and] provide researchers access to data […] to build an evidence base on how to address misinformation and disinformation and hate speech that can inform government and industry policies, standards and best practices…
That means censorship and surveillance. Just in case that wasn’t clear.
Oh and this?
We commit, by 2030 to: Design and roll out digital media and information literacy curricula to ensure that all users have the skills and knowledge to safely and critically interact with content and with information providers and to enhance resilience against the harmful impacts of misinformation and disinformation
This means brainwashing.
Highly predictable, and very unpleasant, but as I said, none of this is new.
No comments:
Post a Comment