Global Research

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

“What the secretary-general is trying to do is an end run around the United Nations charter and delegate to himself all the powers he can possibly assume.” – Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois [1]

“The Pact is a dire threat to every nation, and it must be stopped.” – Dr. Meryl Nass [2]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

At the beginning of this week, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced on his website that next week, he would be attending the 79th Session of the United Nations Assembly and something called the Summit of the Future. [3]

The news that he would co-preside over the Summit of the Future in particular has gotten no attention in any of the country’s major newspapers as of this date. [4]

In fact, this writer has so far not been able to find the Summit of the Future mentioned in any of the major Western mainstream news outlets. Yet there has been significant concerns raised by critics about the dangers of the “Pact for the Future” to be presented at the Summit. [5][6]

Michael Nevradakis, writing for the Childrens Defense Network news and views site, The Defender, wrote that the document contains 11 policy proposals, including “proposals for the establishment of a U.N. “Emergency Platform” and a “Global Digital Compact,” and policy proposals on “Information Integrity” and “Transforming Education.””

Under these proposals, the secretary-general would have “standing authority” to declare “an Emergency Platform in the event of a future complex global shock of sufficient scale, severity and reach.” [7]

In spite of the lack of attention to such a predominantly significant move, the media stays silent. This step, like the attempts to pass the Pandemic Treaty is putting authority to authorize profound power in the hands of a privileged few unelected figures. On the Global Research News Hour, we will devote scrutiny to such initiatives, and try to determine ways to stop, or elude their impacts with two prominent independent journalists.

In our first half hour, we hear from Derrick Broze, a writer with The Last American Vagabond and Conscious Resistance Network about what people should be concerned about in the Pact for the Future. Derrick will be at the UN next week to cover the Summit of the Future.

In our second half hour, we are joined by James Corbett, host of the Corbett report. He will be highlighting his concerns about Pandemic Treaty in spite of it not being passed last spring at the World Health Assembly. He will also speak of other developments, including a “new generation of vaccines” to be introduced to the world in a few short weeks.

Derrick Broze is a freelance investigative journalist, documentary film maker, author, public speaker and, in 2019, a candidate for Mayor of his town Houston. Derrick is the author of 5 books and writer of 5 documentaries. He is currently a staff writer for The Last American Vagabond, co-host of Free Thinker Radio on 90.1 Houston, and the founder of The Conscious Resistance Network & The Houston Free Thinkers.

James Corbett started The Corbett Report website in 2007 as an outlet for independent critical analysis of politics, society, history, and economics. An award-winning investigative journalist, he has lectured on geopolitics at the University of Groningen’s Studium Generale, and delivered presentations on open source journalism at The French Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation’s fOSSa conference, at TedXGroningen and at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto.

(Global Research News Hour episode 441)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Transcript of Derrick Broze, September 11, 2024

Global Research: So what, in a nutshell, is so troubling about this benign-sounding Pact for the Future?

Derrick Broze: So, yeah, in your intro there, you kind of outlined what has come before.

I’ll share a little more detail. So in 2020, it was the 75th anniversary of the United Nations. Obviously, COVID was going on.

It was a big year for the globalist, internationalist movement, you could say. And that was also around the time, of course, we heard the term, the Great Reset. At that same time, the UN was putting out a report calling for accelerating the race to the completion of the Agenda 2030, the race to the completion of the Sustainable Development Goals.

You had Secretary General Antonio Guterres putting out statements sort of lamenting the fact that, in the UN’s words, that we were falling behind and that we weren’t going to reach the targets for completing this environmental agenda, this transformation of the world, really, by 2030. And so at that time, there was a call for a report to be issued. And this report ended up becoming Our Common Agenda.

And it was at the Our Common Agenda report, when that was released, which called for two different meetings. One of them was the Sustainable Development Goals Summit, which took place in 2023. And the other was this Summit of the Future.

And so for the last four years, the United Nations, as well as the World Economic Forum, and then another lesser known group to at least the public, the Club of Rome, have been working towards this effort. And you can look at the United Nations websites and reference material, and you can see that they have been really pumping up that everything is going towards the Summit of the Future. Now, this doesn’t mean, of course, this will be the last meeting the UN ever holds, or that at the end of the summit, world government is going to magically appear or anything like that.

But it is absolutely a major step forward in that goal, just like we saw during the COVID-19 years. And I’ve been trying to raise the alarm bells about this for the last year, myself and a few other researchers who’ve been paying attention, because I’m sure your audience is aware there was a lot of resistance and pushback to the World Health Organization pandemic agreement to the pandemic treaty. And that has sort of stalled, it’s still in the background.

But for a moment, a lot of people were paying attention to that, both online and in the real world. People went to go rally in Geneva back in May. But there has been little to no attention paid to the Summit of the Future, which I think is an equal threat, if not a greater threat, than the WHO pandemic agreement was.

And I can outline the reasons for that. But the first reason is because of this Pact for the Future document that you mentioned. And there’s actually going to be three documents which will be signed by every single 193 member states of the United Nations at the Summit of the Future.

That includes the Pact for the Future, what they’re calling a global digital compact, and the Declaration on Future Generations. And so these three documents, in their own ways, really set the stage for the UN to grab more powers as we move forward. And there’s a few different key points that we can get deeper into.

And just briefly, they are that there’s calls for a “UN 2.0”, that it’s time to remake or reset the UN. There’s talks of potentially invoking the UN Charter to remake the United Nations Security Council. So that’s one big thing, this idea that the UN is no longer, in their terms, it’s no longer fit for purpose because it was created after World War II.

And well, at this point, we’re dealing with pandemics and wars and economic calamity. And so obviously, individual governments, nation states cannot handle these problems on their own. Thus, it’s time to remake the UN to make it stronger.

So that’s one of the big push that we’re seeing. The other thing is this call for resetting the financial systems. We keep seeing references to a new Bretton Woods moment.

And of course, Bretton Woods is the agreement that brought us the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which have been responsible for really extorting and taking resources from developing nations and putting them in debt and stealing their resources and things like that. So they’re calling for a new financial system, which will help accelerate the push to the SDGs. And then again, part of the Pact for the Future is also this potential for the declaration of a planetary emergency.

And this includes, based on the draft versions that we’ve seen of the pact, we’ve seen three of them so far. There more than likely will be one more released before the summit is happening next weekend, September 22nd and 23rd. But so far, the versions we have seen, both the zero draft and the first, second and third version, all include language about an emergency platform.

And this emergency platform is another, I think, piece of the puzzle that is a bit worrisome, because it essentially says, in the UN’s own words, that if there is an emergency which “shocks multiple regions of the world,” then the UN could invoke this emergency platform. And what comes next, none of us know for certain. But I do find it interesting that the UN is feeling the need to at least put in language that says, we promise the emergency platform won’t be a standing body.

It won’t be a standing institution. We promise it will respect national sovereignty. And I think that is because there’s this awareness, again, after the WHO pandemic agreement, that so many people are awake to the UN’s real intentions about global control.

And this definitely ties into the whole eugenics population reduction conversation as well. So I think because of this resistance, that they feel the need to kind of, okay, let’s throw a little caveat there about national sovereignty. And let’s make sure they know this isn’t going to be a standing body.

And I guess whether or not you believe that depends on whether or not you trust the UN.

GR: Yeah, well, when you talk about, I mean, the whole idea of being able to declare a planetary emergency and having an emergency platform, it seems to kind of intersect with the pandemic treaty when they were talking about it, because essentially, it would give them, they had room to declare a pandemic, like the snap of a finger, essentially. And I’m wondering if this is also a way of, you know, interacting at a larger level.

I mean, it’s giving the UN, essentially, because it gives them an opportunity to be a new governing system. You know, effectively, a new world order. I gotta ask how, when there actually are environmental threats, plaguing a region of the planet, whether it’s climate change, or some other environmental disaster, or whatever.

I guess I’m just wondering, how would you see it? What’s maybe a test example of this emergency situation affecting a certain region of the world?

DB: So the only examples they really provide, of course, they mentioned climate change, they do mention war, they mention, as I said, economic crises. There also is a whole section in the latest version of the Pact for the Future that deals with space, which I think is interesting because, you know, there’s been concerns about the recent discussions in the mainstream media about UFOs, and, you know, threats from beyond. And many folks, I think, in the Truth-Research-Freedom community have been concerned for years about the potential for some type of false flag involving claims of, you know, we’re being invaded from the stars or something.

I don’t know if that’s on the table, but there’s definitely a lot of attention paid to space and how we need to protect space. And we need to make sure that space is diverse and equitable and sustainable and all this sort of thing. And so the UN is mainly focused on the climate change narrative, but they absolutely do mention potential for new pandemics, potential for other events.

And I think they’re purposely keeping the language vague, because, again, it talks about global shocks, shocks to multiple regions of the world. And I want to make the point that there’s a few organizations that are really kind of been behind this. One of them is the Stimson Center, which I did some reporting on at the last American Vagabond.

The Stimson Center, that’s spelled S-T-I-M-S-O-N. They have been around for quite some time, but I don’t think they’ve gotten the attention that the Rockefeller Foundation or the Gates Foundation and others have. But they’re definitely tied to that whole nexus.

And they have been one of the biggest proponents of this idea of not only the summit for the future, but they’ve been one of the biggest groups calling on the UN to declare a planetary emergency. And the planetary emergency, again, you can find another organization also funded by the Rockefellers called the Climate Governance Commission that has been promoting this idea about the need to declare this planetary emergency. They put out a November 2023 report that actually came out at the UN Climate Change Conference COP28, and it was called Governing Our Planetary Emergency.

And with that report, which came out last year, they said, “we therefore urge the UN General Assembly at the 2024 Summit of the Future to declare a planetary emergency, recognizing that the triple planetary crisis poses a grave risk to global stability and security and to be reinforced in similar statements by bodies and agencies of the UN system.” And so, yeah, they talk about this triple planetary crisis, which is deforestation, biodiversity loss and climate change. And that sort of echoes statements and terms we’ve heard from the World Economic Forum who’ve been pushing this idea of polycrisis for a couple of years now.

We’re dealing with a polycrisis. And all of this is designed to get the public to believe that the Earth is in such a state of calamity, that the only way we can make it through this is to come together as a world government. There’s no way that France or Mexico or the United States or the UK or Canada can handle this on our own, because it’s a global, it’s global in scope.

And thus, we need to come together and use this Pact for the Future to either declare a planetary emergency. And I will say, I have less confidence that they’re actually going to do that at this event in terms of literally saying we now declare a planetary emergency. But 100%, the current version of the Pact for the Future does include this emergency platform I mentioned.

So even if they don’t outright declare the emergency yet, they’re putting in place the infrastructure so that if they later declare this planetary emergency, they can go ahead and kind of rapidly accelerate their plans and their goals. And one other point I’ll just mention here is that we can look back to the Club of Rome, and I encourage folks who are not familiar with the Club of Rome to become more familiar with them. They have deep ties, of course, to Henry Kissinger and to the World Economic Forum’s beginnings as well.

But the Club of Rome, they’ve actually been talking about this since before the Climate Governance Commission or the Stimson Center or the UN even. I found a report in 2019, which was called Planetary Emergency Plan, and it was just all about this whole idea. And then a year later, the Club of Rome updated the report in August 2020, of course, a few months after we were into the COVID-19 1984 nightmare.

And the Club of Rome described this report as, quote, a roadmap for governments and other stakeholders to shift our societies and economies to bring back balance between people, planet and prosperity. And so this all goes back to the Club of Rome. And for those who are unaware of their history, it absolutely is a eugenicist history.

You can look at their 1991 report titled The First Global Revolution, which was written by a man named Alexander King, who is one of the co-founders of the Club of Rome, who attended the 1973 meeting of the first meeting of the World Economic Forum. And it is in this report titled The First Global Revolution, which includes a section titled The Common Enemy of Humanity is Man. And it is this section which many of us point to and say, hey, look, the Club of Rome clearly are eugenicists, they believe in population reduction.

They claim that this has been misinterpreted, but I’ll just quote it for your audience really briefly, and then they can decide what they think on their own. So again, this is from a 1991 report titled The First Global Revolution. The section is titled The Common Enemy of Humanity is Man.

And it says, “in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions, these phenomena do constitute a common threat, which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes.

“All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.” So this is really the root of the Summit of the Future, this call for a planetary emergency and everything else that we’re going to see happen in New York City next weekend.

GR: You mentioned a kind of a renewal of Bretton Woods as well, and bringing in the financial system. And I mean, because as you know, I mean, the Bretton Woods system, you know, instituted the International Monetary Fund, and essentially, you know, they got a system of essentially overruling the sovereignty of nations, you know, getting them to use Structural Adjustment Programs, you know, regardless of who was in power, or else they would not follow up with a, or if they wanted to get a loan that they needed. And I know we’re living in a world where just about everybody is really good using a loan.

I mean, is this this, the notion or the changes to the financial system? Is this essentially about becoming an enforcer to the UN? Because I mean, I’m looking at right now, the United Nations, I mean, they could say, you know, Israel has to stop their genocidal policies, and Israel can just say no. But I mean, this, you know, this financial mechanism could be a way or one of many ways, perhaps, of getting, you know, bringing power to the UN by restricting assets, funds, funding, and so forth. I mean, is that kind of what you’re talking about? Or is there more to it than that?

DB: No, that’s absolutely it right there.

I mean, this is, as you said, it’s, they keep saying, it’s time for a new Bretton Woods moment, etc. So they’re, you know, they’re doing, they’re trying to do the same thing we’ve already seen them do in the past. For those who are familiar, for example, with John Perkins’ work, Confessions of an Economic Hitman, it would be that same type of strategy.

And in the latest version of the Pact for the Future, they specifically mentioned Special Drawing Rights, or SDR, which you may be familiar with, or maybe some of your audience. I’m not an expert on it. But I know that this has been a discussion for over a decade now.

And essentially, it’s not a currency, it’s a, they call it like a basket of financial tools or something like, you know, they use this sort of legalese financial economic terms. But I do know that James Corbett, of course, a great researcher on his own, since at least 2013, has been warning that the Special Drawing Rights might be the sort of foundation for a potentially global currency. And it definitely appears that that is in the works because of this latest version of the Summit of the Future, the Pact for the Future draft, the third version, which just came out on August 27.

So it’s the most recent version we have, absolutely mentions using Special Drawing Rights as the way that nations could, you know, get access to money. And they talk about using multilateral development banks, well, multilateral development banks, that’s the World Bank, that’s the IMF. So whether it’s the same old systems that we’ve seen them using in the past to, you know, extort resources and, you know, put their thumb over nations, or it’s brand new institutions, we don’t know yet.

But it definitely appears to be the same old strategy at play here. But this time, they’re saying, because it’s so we’re so late in the game, and we might not accomplish the SDGs, we need all nations to step up their injection of financial cash. And of course, we’re also seeing the discussion around public private partnerships, which has been made really popular by the World Economic Forum.

And so the UN latest draft says something to the effect that we need both public private partnerships to inject money. And then we need individual nations to step up their, their, their funds that are coming in to the UN. Now, it does stop short, I will say it does stop short of saying, all nations are required to put in X amount of dollars, it’s still sort of couched in kind of like softer language of, we should suggest we should recommend.

And that’s been one of the major complaints that people who like the UN who think it could be a force for good have said for years is that it has no enforcement mechanism. Now, personally, I think that’s a good thing that it can enforce these, you know, these things I would like, but there are others who would like for it to have the ability to actually enforce this. So like I said, we’ll just have to see what happens in New York City next weekend.

As you mentioned, I will be there on the ground in person, I did get access for at least two of the days, they’re doing what they’re calling two action days, and then they’re doing the actual summit. I’ll be there for at least two of those days. And I’m going to try to get some interviews, maybe some confrontations and just get a feel for what’s going on on the ground.

Because one other thing I will mention is that we know that none of us have been consulted about the Summit of the Future, the Pact for the Future, the vast majority of people have no idea this is even going on. But they are absolutely going to trot out some younger folks, some Indigenous folks, some women, some marginalized communities, so that they can say, we’re considering all stakeholder viewpoints. And, you know, look, we brought in the youth, we’re going to listen to them.

And I’m really curious to see how that plays out. Because I definitely think the younger the younger generations are being heavily indoctrinated to believe that the world is about to end. So they want to create this illusion that the youth are demanding action, the youth are demanding this pact for the future.

And, you know, if you’re not taking steps, governments of the world, it’s you’re failing the younger generations. And I think, unfortunately, a lot of well meaning, probably very intelligent young people are being manipulated and brought into this, this event.

---

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg.