Disinformation and the UN’s Global War on Free Speech

The United Nations has a pet project called “Our Common Agenda,” which is every bit as chilling as it sounds. In the most basic terms, it is a blueprint for the New World Order – something that just a decade ago was merely the stuff of crazy right-wing conspiracy theories. Chalk this particular conspiracy theory up as another of the many that have been proven real. The latest sub-project of the agenda – or Policy Brief Number 8 – is titled “Integrity of Information on Digital Platforms.” It addresses the UN’s intention to effectively control the internet and, by extension, the global media, in order to suppress anything it deems to be hate speech and/or disinformation.

This UN agenda has the broad support of the usual suspects: the left-wing establishment media, US federal government agencies, and most, or maybe all, of the globe’s most powerful governments. In other words, all the entities that routinely bombard the nations of the world with disinformation.

The Masters of Disinformation

Is that last bit merely an opinion, open to debate? Well, let’s take a look at the evidence. The US media and federal government had the American people believe that a 2016 presidential candidate, Donald Trump, was in league with the Russian government to steal that election. This alleged conspiracy was, on many occasions, presented as fact by most of the biggest media outlets. After extensive investigation by the FBI, congressional Democrats, and a Justice Department special counsel, no verifiable evidence of this so-called collusion was discovered. Since then, another investigation has revealed the whole thing as a hoax dreamed up by Trump’s rival, Hillary Clinton – or by members of her team, at least.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, through its World Health Organization and with the assistance of America’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – and, once again, a compliant media – the United Nations saturated the countries of the world with some information that had little basis in scientific knowledge. We were told the virus absolutely did not come from a virology lab in China. Anyone who said otherwise was spreading disinformation. Three years later, the so-called “lab-leak theory” is widely seen as plausible.

The authorities told us that mass-masking and so-called social distancing would dramatically slow the progress of the virus. In fact, they initially claimed these measures would “stop the spread.” Not even one independent, credible scientific study exists that proves either measure has anything more than the most minor effect on transmission rates of a virus – an effect so insignificant, at best, that it couldn’t possibly warrant the extreme measures imposed across almost every country in the world. Many notable agencies asserted that natural immunity – which has saved mankind from virtual extinction countless times throughout history – was little more than a myth and that real immunity could only come from a vaccine. We were assured by many in the media that hastily developed vaccines would protect us from contracting COVID-19. That quickly proved to be untrue, so they started telling us a vaccinated person could not transmit the virus. When that piece of disinformation was spectacularly debunked by the fact that the vaccinated began to outnumber the unvaccinated as COVID-19 patients, the powers that be changed their tune once again. The vaccines would at least drastically reduce one’s chances of experiencing severe symptoms.

Most recently, the establishment here in the United States insisted that the laptop belonging to Hunter Biden that contained some incriminating evidence of corruption involving the first family wasn’t real. It was a Russian “information operation.” The laptop was real, of course, and everyone is now aware of it.

This is where we get back to the United Nations and its plans for fighting alleged disinformation -- and where it all gets a bit sinister. When the New York Post first broke the story of Hunter Biden’s laptop, the paper was promptly shut out of its Twitter account. Why? Because The Post was spreading disinformation. Only it wasn’t. As we all now know, the paper had broken a big story – and an accurate story. Why, then, was the laptop reporting branded as disinformation at the time? Could it have been for political reasons?

Not Going to Work Out Well

In Policy Brief Number 8, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres wrote, in part:

“The danger cannot be overstated. Hate incitement and disinformation enabled by social media can lead to violence and death. The ability to spread disinformation on a large scale to undermine scientifically established facts poses an existential risk to humanity … and endangers democratic institutions and basic human rights.

“These risks have intensified further due to rapid technological advances, such as generative artificial intelligence. Around the world, the United Nations is monitoring how misinformation, disinformation and hate incitement can threaten progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals.

“It has become clear that business as usual is not an option.”

Recall the information put out by this same international body during the recent pandemic and marvel at the irony of “scientifically established facts.” More than that, however, we should recap: A widely read US newspaper – a paper that leans conservative – broke a story that has since been proven accurate and was, at the time, penalized for spreading alleged disinformation. That paper was temporarily silenced on the world’s most popular social media messaging platform. Only one possible motive for this censorship exists: politics. What, then, does the United Nations have in store? Should anyone trust this organization that appears bent on global government to fairly and objectively arbitrate what is and is not disinformation?

All information is information. It is either accurate, or it is not. In a free society, it is imperative that inaccurate information is countered by fact. Yet it is no coincidence that every time information surfaces that questions the official or establishment narrative on a given subject, it is branded disinformation and censored. The obvious problem is that when any governmental entity is given the power to censor anything it doesn’t like and anything that questions its authority, it is almost certain to do just that. Is the United Nations likely to break the mold? The evidence to date suggests not.