UN´s Communist One-World Government Program. Why Were UN´s Human Rights Forged into a Weapon against the West

UN-logoWe have been brainwashed to think the UN is a peace maker – or at least a forum where hostile countries meet to agree on differences which would otherwise have led to war.

Left: The UN Logo: 33 spaces between the lines corresponding to 33 degrees of Freemasonry

Fact is however, that in the UN, the big powers are meeting to learn how to divide the world among themselves. So, who owns the UN?

From the UN meditation room: “The altar  is an altar to an unknown god, whom man worships under many names and in many forms.” — Dag Hammarskjöld – second Secretary-General of the United Nations in the 1950’s.
However, Christ is well-known and says: “No one comes to the Father except through me!” (John 14:6).

The Collective Evolution has a story about the UN´s origin: It was created by the bankers behind the Bolshevik Revolution, the US Council on Foreign Relations and Hitler´s IG Farben, which ran Auschwitz and was the econmic basis for Hitler´s warfare. The  Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Warburg finance both sides of the wars since the Napoleonic wars and conceived the the League of Nations (Jesuit Rothschild Agent Edward Mandel House). John D. Rockefeller Jr.  donated the site on which their UN building was built.

John D. Rockefeller was a heavy shareholder of the IG Farben and a strong supporter of the League of Nations and the UN.

That the UN is not a peacemaker body as seen from he fact that the world has  seen so many wars  in the lifetime of the UN. The Responsibility/Right to Protect (R2P) and the war on Terror were none less than the beginning of a long planned WW3 – in which NATO USURED THE CONTROL OVER THE UN AND BECAME ITS MILITARY ARM.

This war chart  does not specify the Serbian and Libyan wars – and not the Yemenite war either – of course – and does not specify the many regional wars (i.a. Afghanistan and between Israel and her enemies).


The UN´s Communist “sustainable” one-world government program is called Agenda 2030.

The author of the following post remembers the 1950es and -60es when the UN used the pphrase Human rights in nearly every sentence – wherea the phrase is seldom used nowadays.
Well, in the Marrakech Pact Declaration the UN mentions “human rights of Migrants and refugees 5 times:


The American thinker has  a post on this distorsion without our accept.
The American Thinker 27 Oct. 2018:  Although there was a socialistic thread in its founding document, the United Nations was formed based on a vision of human rights presented in the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (UDHR) which placed the concept of rights at the forefront for the progress of the world body.

The UDHR document followed many amazing documents that presented rights as the central concept of the post-feudal world: the English Declaration (or Bill) of Rights of 1689, the U.S. Declaration of Independence with its important and forceful assertion of inalienable natural rights, the powerful U.S. Bill of Rights enacted in 1791, and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789).

The word “rights” appears in almost every sentence of the 1869-word UN document.

A Publishing House prints and spreads material for Unicef and the U.N. It is a company called Lucifer Trust. Of course the name was to obvious, so they changed it to Lucis Trust. Lucis Trust is the Spiritual foundation of the United Nations!

On. 21 Oct. 2010, the UN International Day of Prayer  for Peace was arranged by the World Council of Churches and the UN. The prayer used was  The Great Invocation. The Antichrist is making progress.
Luci(fer)´s Trust and here removed the word “Christ” and replaced it with “the Coming One” in their Great Invocation (to the Maitreya) – Revised Version. These changes make the world prayer more universal, inclusive and unifying.  Below are excerpts from the Great Invocation – a world prayer and mantra for the New Age that Lucis Trust states is “the major agent for the transformation of the human will.” Original Version (1945):
From the point of Love within the Heart of God
Let love stream forth into the hearts of men.
May Christ return to Earth.

Revised Version (2000
From the point of Love within the Heart of God
Let love stream forth into human hearts.
May the Coming One return to Earth

We see a reprise of items from our Bill of Rights such as condemnation of cruel and unusual punishment (Article 5), due process (Articles 6,7,8,9, 10, 11, 14, 17), illegal search and seizure (Article 12), and freedom of speech and assembly (Articles 19,20). But there are new rights introduced which, as early as 1945, were pointing the way towards intervention by the UN in the daily lives of people throughout the world.
Throughout the document, they assert the right to food, clothing, medical care, social services, unemployment and disability benefits, child care, and free education, plus the right to “full development of the personality,” (imagine, the UN says I have the right to be me).

In 2015 the UN took a giant step towards the global government that was only hinted at in their first organizing document. They issued a document entitled “Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” This document has 91 numbered sections of the UN’s program for world government.

The UDHR is only referenced once in the entire document in Article 19.  The 91 items are addressing issues under the five headings of People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, and Partnership. Additionally, the document provides 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to improve life on the planet.

What is meant by the term sustainable?” The most often quoted definition comes from the UN World Commission on Environment and Development: “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

The earlier ideas and ideals of rights, freedom, equality, and justice are subsumed under scaring meeting of needs and an explicit environmentalism  which emphasizes preventing the depletion of scarce planetary resources. Of course, the takeoff is the Marxist axiom that society should be organized around the idea of “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.” Thus, Marxism is implicit in sustainability.

Inside of the main building of the U.N. right at the entrance a statue of Zeus  welcomes you – the throwe of Lightning (and nuclear bombs?). 

Comment: In 2013, the UN General Assembly adopted the Agenda 21 – the forerunner of the Agenda 2030 – with an International Climate Court to govern the world  – wherenearly everything can be referred to environmentalism.

The entire “Transforming Our World” document is cast in a stream of consciousness of pious platitudes for a utopian future. It is an outsize utopian dream. Five of the 17 items pertain to the environment. There are goals for the cities, for women, for the poor, and even for life under the water. Absolutely no sphere of human activity is exempt from control by the UN. The key word of course is no longer “rights” except the oblique reference in Article 19.

The one-worlders of the 1950s and early 1960s are now in the UN driver’s seat, and they have made their move. The overlay of Marxist talk about “meeting needs” has moved to center stage. The UN has assigned itself a time frame (2030) for moving forward in its plan for planetary hegemony.

This projected transformation detailing (yet without details) a new world order of environmental responsibility and a significant reduction of poverty and hunger never speaks to the practical dimension of vast manipulations of people by cynical leaders and ignorant bureaucrats who hold their positions through terrorism and bribery.

They never discuss incompetence and corruption. The document portrays a sincere world where all those in power want to help humanity and do not manipulate. Is not the Agenda for Sustainable Development itself one of those devilish manipulations?

The sustainability ideal is not wedded to a Christian worldview; instead, individual liberty is submerged in a scientifically determined collectivist mindset with final decisions in the hands of the devilish, all-knowing Big Brothers. The relevance of the individual is downplayed. It is being put forward by a UN that is no longer pro-western, a much larger body than existed in 1945.


BBC 30 Dec. 2016: The ideals of the 1940s are starting to look a little threadbare. Faced with hundreds of thousands of migrants and asylum seekers at their borders, many European nations appear reluctant to honour their obligations to offer asylum. Instead, their efforts seem focused on keeping people out.
President-elect Donald Trump said about “waterboarding“,  ‘I’d do much worse… Don’t tell me it doesn’t work, torture works… believe me, it works.”

And in Syria, or Yemen, civilians are being bombed and starved, and the doctors and hospitals trying to treat them are being attacked.

Little wonder then, that the UN Refugee Agency, and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), there is talk of a “post human rights” world.

The UN Security Council, among them the US and the UK, thought it was wrong to attack densely populated areas, knowing that civilians would be killed. More than a quarter thought that depriving civilians of food, water and medicine was an inevitable part of war.

The principles adopted in the 1940s might just not be relevant anymore. They are good, so Geneva thinking goes, just not respected enough.

What’s more, less than half of respondents from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, among them the US and the UK, thought it was wrong to attack densely populated areas, knowing that civilians would be killed. More than a quarter thought that depriving civilians of food, water and medicine was an inevitable part of war.

What no one in Geneva seems to want to contemplate, however, is that the principles adopted in the 1940s might just not be relevant anymore. They are good, so Geneva thinking goes, just not respected enough.

Here, You can see the membership list list of the UN´s Human Rights Council: 18 are Muslim countries or countries with big Muslim populations. And other members like e.g. China, Cuba, the Philippines  are police states and have nothing to do with original UN human rights.

UN 2011  The General Assembly adopted by consensus the resolution titled “United against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” (document A/66/L.2).

The UN´s Durban  Declaration  2001 is a long declaration of our racism i.a. because we are unwilling to let the 3. world in and share our prosperity in the communist spirit – and “respect for and preserve cultural diversity within and between communities and nations with a  view to creating a harmonious multicultural world.
We further affirm that all peoples and individuals constitute one human family,
rich in diversity.
Further: everyone is entitled to a social and international order (=NWO) in which  all human rights can be fully realized for all.

As I wrote on 28 N0v. 2008  the UN´Human Rights policy is very distorted against the West:
The planners of Durban II aim to focus the agenda on
(1) demonizing Israel as a racist, apartheid state;
(2) concrete reparations measures to recompense the “descendents” of the victims of slavery, colonialism and discrimination;  (3) making the criticism of Islam a violation of international law on the grounds that it is hate speech unworthy of protection.

FN-stalaktitLeft: UN´s Human Rights Council Chamber in Geneva

Here are a few qupotations from the planned programme:
“…the most serious manifestations of defamation of religions are the increase in Islamophobia and the worsening of the situation of Muslim minorities around the world”
“As the existing national laws and courts have failed to address the issue, internationally binding normative standards need to be devised that can provide adequate guarantees against defamation of religions and religious intolerance…National laws alone cannot deal with the rising tide of defamation and hatred against Muslims

Forbes 23 April 2009 reported on Durban II held in Geneva: UN Secr. Ban Ki-Moon  said in his speech: “A new day, a move in a new direction, all nations together as one,” etc., etc. (NWO)
The despot-heavy U.N. General Assembly designed this Durban Review conference from the start as a vehicle for anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism and an array of other U.N. campaigns targeting free societies–such as a global gag on free speech about Islam.

The NWO has long been in the making – but the Durban Conferences demasked it – showed clearly what it is: One world Communism with coloured peoples spreading all over through open borders and dispersing their Low-IQs worldwide to create a mongrel race under the Sharia /one-world caliphate (EU Father and occult Rothschild agent Coudenhove Kalergi) /.

Racism is clearly a one-way concept, a weapon against the white race who will be punished for fighting such invasion. And  criticism of Islam is made equal to racism – although Islam is no race but includes all races!

Durban I states: “racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related
intolerance may be aggravated by, inter alia, inequitable distribution of wealth, marginalization and social exclusion; (Marx in memoriam!)

This entry was posted in english, euromed. Bookmark the permalink.