The UN and the WHO – Owned by the Wireless Industry?

Researched and written by Sean Alexander Carney for Safe Tech International.

The future: Turning people into transmitters

Through the ubiquitous wireless connectivity promised by the Internet of Things (IoT) humanity and every living thing is turned into a wireless “transmitter.” As this is currently being done without full consent of the population, across the globe – it raises concerns from a health perspective, and a human rights perspective.

Governments rapidly rolling out 5G tell us that exposure guidelines backed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) ensure we are all safe within “set limits” and, that they readily support the wireless IoT for the purpose of developing a data-driven future epitomised by the smart city, a “vision” of a new society propelled by the UN’s politics of “climate change” and “sustainability”.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has already achieved a data-driven society. However, the CCP is technologically suppressing individual ideas, voices and social groups to align all minds and actions to the “goals” of the Chinese authorities.

Not surprisingly, “China now plays a significant role in shaping the IoT.” Spurred by China, the UK governments are already introducing facial recognition technologies, configuring internet censorship legislation and for their own benefit have even planned to overhaul the Human Rights Act, which allows citizens to hold the government to account. The world is changing rapidly, and unfortunately technological advancements favour unprecedented opportunities for a totalitarian government system to emerge. The late social theorist Paul Virilio, once said that “Totalitarianism is latent in technology”. Clearly he has a point.

One World – Under “wireless”

The United Nations (UN) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) seek to shape the IoT, and governments, in accordance with a globalist “one world” view and conceive of the worlds nations as finally dissolving into a centralised global order. Wireless technology is presenting opportunities to change society rapidly.

Governments around the world are responsive to UN technological and environmental policies aligned with the UN’s concept of “sustainability” and these are driving 5G expansion, and datafication anticipating an increasingly automated technological society heavily dependent on the wireless networks.

The UN wishes to conform the whole of society to live in an environment high in radiofrequency radiation (RFR) and subordinate to “sustainability” doctrines, while the WHO is focused on digital health solutions and conforming nations to its “pandemic preparedness” and “technological solutions” doctrines. Both organisations neglect widespread concerns concerning potential health impacts from RFR – even though it is widely accepted that children, the elderly and people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) are highly vulnerable to RFR. Not all people are treated equally in this globalist “one world” view of health and human rights.

Many of us assume that United Nations and the World Health Organisation are defenders of our liberties and welfare. However, first and foremost they are a “forum” for members to influence policy. Therefore, it is more accurate to say that these organisations allow industries and political organisations to steer political outcomes that affect our liberties and welfare, through their memberships, donations, and funding. From this perspective the wireless industry has great influence on the UN and WHO (if not carte blanche to shape politics to their advantage), as we will see.

Workhorses of the wireless industry

Both the UN and the WHO are invested in technological empowerment and at the same time are affecting our liberties and welfare by reforming policies and engineering social behaviours to the tune of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and “Digital Health (DH)”. These are far reaching projects that rely first and foremost on expansive digital infrastructure and wireless networks.

The SDG and DH projects are sustained through the development of the Internet of Things (IoT), a project which electronically connects physical devices, vehicles, manufactured goods, and other physical objects in society – and the natural world – across the expanse of the earth to wireless networks facilitating the sharing and collection of data.

The UN and the WHO are very dependent on the wireless industry – to a phenomenal degree – as are their stakeholders and members. All are invested in SDGs and DH expecting significant profits and are guiding the political agendas of the UN and WHO into the wireless “smart” future. (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres is even “An engineer who has taught telecommunications so what better leader to facilitate a wireless agenda and sustain the wireless industry into the future.

With the UN and WHO so dependent on wireless technology, and their stakeholders so invested in it too, can they be relied on to protect health and human rights? Or are they biased, and “bought” by investing so deeply in the promise of the IoT and the 5G infrastructure?

The UN and WHO are aligned in pursuing increased powers. They encourage an authoritarian data-driven future – a surveillance economy (like China’s), and at any cost it would seem. They do not want to acknowledge the harm that rapid technological and social transformations will cause – the economic consequences and divides – nor the health impacts. In fact, as the “pandemic” shows, catastrophe spurs technological agendas, especially when technology is always offered as part of “the solution”. The pandemic 5G roll out was an example of “seizing opportunity in a crisis”, increasing the power of the wireless industry manifold, as well as accelerating the IoT.

Both the UN and the WHO are deeply invested in the wireless industry – but how deep is deep?

The Wireless Health Agenda

Following its inception after the Second World War, the UN incorporated the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) as a specialist agency for advancing wireless telecommunications internationally.

The ITU is “…committed to connecting the world” and helping the UN with ICT (Information and Communications Technology) aspects of Agenda 2030, promoting universal internet access, and assisting other digital goals. As a result, Europe embraces the “Digital Decade“, and the “global community” follows suit with parallel objectives of “digital transformation” for sustaining wireless technologies into the “smart” future.

Nothing helped kickstart the IoT more than the “pandemic”, during which the ITU announced that, “Smart sustainable cities worldwide are fully leveraging information and communication technologies (ICTs) to enhance the digital health and wellbeing of their inhabitants. These cities are utilizing digital infrastructure to deliver vital health information, track health trends, and locate essential health resources.” Source.

It is within this “post-pandemic” digitally “interconnected” smart world that WHO advances its “Digital Health” goals, pursuing these objectives in partnership with the European Commission (EC) which tables laws for adoption in the European Union.

The WHO’s “One Health” exemplifies the widening reach of WHO’s anticipated technological forays, and is described as “an integrated, unifying approach to balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems. It uses the close, interdependent links among these fields to create new surveillance and disease control methods….The C0VID-19 pandemic put a spotlight on the need for a global framework for improved surveillance and a more holistic, integrated system.” The language emphasises treating the “whole” not just a part. It all feeds back into a “power grab” called the “Pandemic Treaty” which emphasises control over the whole population, with “…no public debate on the ramifications of such far-reaching encroachments on national autonomy, state sovereignty, and human rights”. Source.

Wireless technology has arguably encouraged WHO’s agenda of enhanced global surveillance. Smart phone’s were made for tracking us (accommodating GPS, AI tools and sensors). Our data a political and economic currency. WHO and the UN want everyone to have a smart phone as a citizen of “the global community” – preferably as surveilled and as compliant as Chinese Communist society is, thanks to AI and 5G.

According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “At least seventy-five out of 176 countries globally are actively using AI technologies for surveillance purposes…[and]…Liberal democracies are major users of AI surveillance…The most important factor determining whether governments will deploy this technology for repressive purposes is the quality of their governance.”

As the UN and WHO model their appetite for “global change” on China’s technological social and economic “gains” – espousing smart cities and digital monitoring of the population – we’d be advised to keep a close eye on developments.

Smart Phones For Health

The WHO is promoting health markets that sustain mobile phone use as a health measure. Many would argue that promoting exposure to radiofrequency radiation doesn’t seem like something the WHO should be doing. Yet the WHO facilitates the “datafication” of health and supports wireless technology markets to achieve it.

WIreless technology is hailed as the future of “healthcare.” The WHO incentivises the public to invest in wireless devices, like smart phones, to optimise health. According to the WHO, the “Public Digital Health Technology (PDH) team engages with a variety of stakeholders in digital health…to…provide support to countries to adopt and scale quality digital health technologies.”

Digital Health has long been in the pipeline. We know because WHO states that the “Be He@lthy, Be Mobile (BHBM) initiative was set up by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Telecommunication union (ITU) in 2012.”

The use of a mobile phone to access digital health treatments (apps, text messages, etc) is called “MHealth”. According to the ITU, “This technology, coupled with the fact that the wellness and non-communicable diseases (NCDs) mobile health market is projected to garner revenue of US$23 billion in 2017 means that there are exciting business opportunities for the 8 focus countries during the initiative.” Source.

WHO and the ITU couldn’t wait for 5G’s implementation. We all know when it arrived – throughout the WHO’s “pandemic” along with a truckload of other necessary technologies to advance Digital Health, and promote data surveillance.

The WHO’s commitment to 5G and smart phones

The WHO stated in 2020 that, “5G is expected to increase performance and a wide range of new applications, including strengthening e-Health (telemedicine, remote surveillance, telesurgery).” Source. 

According to the WHO, “The use of mobile and wireless technologies has the potential to transform the face of health service delivery across the globe. There are reportedly more than 7 billion mobile telephone subscriptions across the world, over 70% of which are in low- or middle- income countries. In many places, people are more likely to have access to a mobile telephone than to clean water.” Wireless needs are catered for, above essentials like clean water?!?

WHO promotes wireless wearables

The WHO is promoting studies advocating (wireless) mHealth and wearable health technologies (mobile phones are also considered “wearable health technologies”) which are advertised as “improving personal health.” They typically use radiofrequency (RF) transmitters meaning that “wearable health devices” expose the user to radiofrequency radiation, at very close range.

Though they may initially reduce the workload of clinicians, wearable health technologies may expose problems that don’t exist, having a negative effect on health and wellbeing. Doctors already recognise they can give false positives, worsen health anxieties – and can in some users feasibly become part of a cycle of “digital addiction” (for users feel compelled to share their personal health tracking data on social media).

The WHO’s motivation for promoting “digital health” is arguably for the collection of health data to influence policies. Data is the currency of our times, providing stakeholders in the health market (and third parties) with insights that can be exploited and can quickly add up to profits.

Under the influence

For a long time it has been questioned whether the WHO is impartial and objective concerning wireless radiation research, especially when the scientific literature increasingly shows a range of bio-effects and non-thermal health impacts from radiofrequency radiation.

Is the WHO to be trusted, or is it vulnerable, and open to manipulation from the powerful wireless industry which can benefit from the dampening public concerns about wireless radiation?

It was observed in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that “WHO has a funding problem [and] reliance on voluntary donations exposes WHO to the undue influence of contributors.” Is it outside influence, inner influences, or both that leave the WHO vulnerable to conflicts of interest in the shaping of its scientific information and recommendations for health?

The WHO’s conflicts of interest (including in the assessment of potential harms from electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and radiofrequency radiation) have been widely condemned.

Many scientists see how deeply the wireless industry influences the WHO. But what can they do?

Many scientists consider it a big problem for health that the WHO hasn’t acted to support the precautionary principle with regards international roll outs of 5G. Concerns about 5G are ignored (by the EU, the UN for example), even when 438 medical scientists and doctors urgently request a moratorium “until proper scientific evaluation of potential negative consequences [of 5G] has been conducted.” Source. The scientists have been requesting this since 2017.

Oncologist Lennart Hardell is clear about the issues. He informs us that, “In May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluated cancer risks from radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Human epidemiological studies gave evidence of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. RF radiation was classified as Group 2B, a possible human carcinogen. Further epidemiological, animal and mechanistic studies have strengthened the association. In spite of this, in most countries little or nothing has been done to reduce exposure and educate people on health hazards from RF radiation.”

People are largely uninformed about the health risks of 24/7 exposure to 5G, a new technology that is still underpinned by 4G LTE networks and brings new radiofrequency modulations and millimetre waves into the environment, something of an experiment on humanity with total disregard for those most vulnerable to RFR impacts, like children and the electrohypersensitive – a huge section of the population. Some agencies remind us that millimetre waves are used in airport scanners, and are therefore not a health risk, however, people pass through an airport scanner for a few seconds, so there is no comparison to longer exposures of the population to 5G. Studies already suggest public health is at risk.

Managing the public mind

Extensive control of health information regarding RF exposure is a priority of the wireless industry. This creates a filter system for suppressing certain findings, pointing the public towards a reassuring “safety” narrative, where the public largely believe continuous exposure is harmless.

A private NGO called the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation (ICNIRP), which has “formal relations” with WHO, influences the scientific reviews of the WHO concerning RF health matters. ICNIRP’s views influence government agencies and sustains the view in the media that wireless radiation isn’t harmful.

ICNIRP, which describes itself as “independent and non-profit” produces RF exposure guidelines that are adopted by governments globally. Microwave News reported that in the 2020 RF Guidelines ICNIRP reported that there is no evidence for cancer. However, the U.S. National Toxicology Program found “clear evidence” that exposure to RFR can lead to cancer. Source.

The guidelines crafted by the “industry loyal NGO” set the tone of public policy on radiofrequency exposure levels. ICNIRP promotes the opinion that, other than thermal health effects there is only “suggestive, but unconvincing evidence” of biological and non-thermal health effects. ICNIRP rejects the view that bio-effects are a concern.

ICNIRP’s perspectives on existing research are used by governments, not in the sense of RF exposure “guidelines”, but as a “gospel” that has become empowered to such a degree that it is utilised to approve roll outs of wireless technology and to influence public expectations to the point of suggesting that 5G is safe.

The population, as a result, is misinformed about the potential risks because of ICNIRPs scientific biases that omit biological findings that are very significant. It’s a veritable boon to the wireless industry, promoting information that ultimately sustains a plethora of economic gains for the industry. What about the WHO and its commitment to the global community’s health?

The promise

Before the “pandemic” WHO had promised “a health risk assessment from exposure to radiofrequencies, covering the entire radiofrequency range, including 5G, to be published by 2022” courtesy of the WHO’s “International EMF Project” team of researchers. It was delayed, and the review has been published in 2024 asserting that “Mobile Phones Are Not Linked to Brain Cancer According to a Major Review of 28 Years of Research.”

Some of the review’s authors have close ties with ICNIRP, including Ken Karipidis, Sarah Loughran, Maria Blettner, Mark Elwood, Susanna Lagorio Dan Baaken, Martin Roosli and Maria Feychting who wasn’t listed as an author but designed it. Source.

In all the “biased” review gives a green light to digital health as a “safe” product, as well as possibly influencing global exposure policy for a very long time. It comes at a critical time, because stakes are high in getting the digital wireless agenda firmly in gear, and profitable, so industry stakeholders, member states and the UN will be pleased to chug ahead with their technological agendas. 

Questions are already being asked about the review (published in Environment International). According to Microwave News, “The results of this review were never in doubt. The WHO managers, who selected the Karipidis team, knew what to expect —and they got what they wanted.”

The late Michèle Rivasi and Klaus Buchner of the European Parliament commissioned a damning report about the activities and behaviour of ICNIRP called “The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: Conflicts of interest , corporate capture and the push for 5G” Here, we confront the reality that “ICNIRP pretends to be scientifically neutral, and free from vested interests of the Telecom industry. We show with this study that this is ‘playing with the truth’ or simply a lie.”

The Nuremberg Code

In 2018 Karl Muller (an independent journalist and researcher, and licensed radio operator with the Eswatini Communications Commission, based in the southern African Kingdom of Swaziland) called for the removal of the International EMF Project because “…the WHO continues to deny that there is any sign of any danger whatsoever from wireless technology.”

His revealing article includes “a lengthy correspondence chain with the World Health Organization and the United Nations” that he accuses of complicity in “genocide”. Source.

Genocide is a strong term. Is it justified?

Scientists opposed to 5G roll outs and the inadequate radiofrequency exposure guidelines, have openly condemned WHO and ICNIRP for cherry-picking scientific studies that support industry-friendly findings which are not in the interests of protecting public health or the environment. Yet, they have always been reluctant to use the highly emotive term “genocide” in reference to the potential widespread harm to the population from what amounts to either a deliberate attack on public health, or an experiment.

In Karl Muller’s assessment “…the International EMF Project, the World Health Organization, the United Nations itself, all spit on the Nuremberg Code every day.” We may come to agree with this assertion as we come to terms with the fact that the global population are being subject to microwave technologies such as 5G in what can only be described as an experiment, with unknown long-term consequences for our species, or all others with which we share the planet.

Far from independent

It is the opinion of many scientists and researchers that biased ICNIRP copiously “self references“, contriving RF exposure guidelines and reviews to deliver exactly what the WHO wants to hear, invested as it is in the wireless industry for its digital services and, no doubt, its survival.

Headlines about the International EMF Project review, such as The Guardian’s here, will no doubt reassure the public, but to what avail?

The WHO’s new “science” distorts reality, denying us a balanced picture of health. In the context of the organisations long plan to emerge as a promoter of mobile phones and wireless trends, it may at last come as nor surprise to many, but amounts to a tragic insult to the public who look to their “guardians” to keep them “safe”.

Why the UN promotes and protects wireless interests

It’s a human right to own and use a smart phone. Is it now the most “politically” valuable human right that the UN wants to protect the most?

Smart phones are proudly advertised on WHO and UN web pages, which are designed to influence the public at large. It reflects how human augmentation by technology is made socially acceptable. The UN promotes a technologically augmented Human 2.0 society that relies on wireless products to exist, where “humans” are ID tagged and permanently tracked like a profitable product by the UN and its stakeholders. Many academics argue we are on the precipice, gravitating towards a post-human, post-human rights world where the currency is data, fuelling a surveillance economy, where the world, and “humans” are “smarter”.

Data (our personal information) means profit for organisations like the UN. The population are accepting technolgies of augmentation, acclimatising to the UN’s goals within a Big Data future. Member states, transnational corporations (stakeholders) and wealthy interests bank on the UN to deliver us all into an existence governed by the data we produce.

The augmenting of humanity, which will proceed towards implants beyond smart phones and “wearable” technologies (which are developed to collect a growing spectrum of personal data) reflects “transhumanist” aspirations shared by wireless technology industry cheerleaders like Klaus Schwab, founder of the cultic World Economic Forum (WEF).

He is a UN Agenda 2030 advocate and supports the view that humans are “hackable animals”. He has told the monopolising stakeholders invested in this “agenda” that “the future is built by us” for the “fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological dimensions.”

The UN has long pursued a “one world” view incorporating a politically beneficial wireless digital agenda. Within that scope, “internet governance” plays the role of transforming society’s perceptions, digital freedoms, and expectations. The UN has long helped this process along through the ITU, but has seized the opportunity to “control knowledge” by developing censorious approaches.

The UN considers the public untrustworthy in cyberspace, it seeks loyalty, and condemns the “trafficking of lies, fear and hate.” It is a human right to be critical, have opinions, or to be in error. Yet the UN doesn’t want people with their smart phones engaging in free speech, especially in a crisis. Fundamentally it wants compliance with its ideological stance and statements.

Controlling Information to promote wireless interests

Are we not free to interpret and globally discuss the UN or world events as we see and understand them? Is the UN building digital walls to compartmentalise public access to information and knowledge? As we may already appreciate, the “pandemic” had two very well publicised objectives which were subject to virulent “damage control.” The campaign to roll out of “experimental” wireless technologies (5G infrastructure) and the campaign to inject people with experimental mRNA treatments promoted by “hand in glove with the wireless industry” WHO. Opposition to both campaigns – voiced on the internet during lockdowns, and further, voiced by reputable academics, physicians, politicians, scientists and in widespread global protests – caused concerted efforts to control public information (internet, media) through censorship, to bring “compliance”.

In its information targeting agenda – first outlined in the literature of a “fictional pandemic scenario” called Event 201 and sparked into reality by the “pandemic” – the UN lists information “crimes” and condemns “misinformation” and “disinformation”, seeking the cooperation of governments, Big Tech and transnational corporations to promote a commodity it calls “trusted information” – a bias towards promoting the discourse and opinions of the UN and its stakeholders, to the exclusion of counter arguments or opinions that do not serve the goals of the Digital Health or digital (wireless IoT) sustainability agenda.

The UN admits “…There is no clear definition of, or shared common understanding and approach to, the term “disinformation” but classifies it as “…information that is inaccurate, intended to deceive and shared in order to do serious harm.” The UN also states that “…digital platforms are being misused to subvert science.”

Policing what the UN, the WHO, and their stakeholders consider to be “harmful disinformation” or “subverted science” is part of a slippery slope to increasing the practice of censorship globally, which erodes democracy and free speech. This happened in 2020, for example, when celebrities were raising concerns about 5G, like John Cusack who “posted on Twitter…that he believes 5G would be harmful for humans.” Many scientists had also raised concerns about the technology causing ill health at the time. Censorship soon followed for these health-related hypotheses, and it proved an opportunity for WHO and the wireless industry to hike up opposition to any information that challenged the pandemic narrative, lockdowns and restrictions, and the concurrent 5G roll out. 5G is a technology with known health effects and no body of research exists confirming industry or government agency claims that it is safe everyone.

Throughout the period, telecommunications infrastructure related to 5G was seen as a threat, and was reported in the media being dismantled, burned and attacked, by authorities and citizens. The reality of the opposition caused the telecommunications industry alarm. According to the BBC, (which like most media outlets now calls all pushback against wireless interests a response to “conspiracy theories”) Vodafone called the problem “a matter of national security”.

In 2021, following media coverage of global pushback against 5G and lockdowns across the globe, 5G infrastructure was thus considered an “attack surface area” (for physical and cyber attacks) and was legislated into law as a matter of National Security, exemplified by the UK’s Telecommunications Security Act 2021.

The Act was created for a “more robust telecoms security framework, that will meet security challenges both now and in the future whilst ensuring the timely roll-out of the UK’s critical digital infrastructure. It suggested that as technologies grow and evolve the UK must have a security framework that is fit for purpose and ensures the UK’s telecoms critical national infrastructure remains safe and secure both now and in the future.”

Censorship and bias in the media was achieving a great deal for the wireless industry, and governments since haven’t relented in changing laws to favour the wireless industry and accelerate 5G across the globe. A Censored Planet study related to the period found “increasing censorship activity in more than 100 countries” reflecting a “proliferation of growing restrictions to online freedom.” (The study was highlighted by the University of Michigan).

The UN’s strategic partner, the World Economic Forum (WEF) is supportive of global information restrictions, especially to target “health misinformation”. Even military agencies are getting involved. Consider that, “DARPA’s Media Forensics Program is an initiative by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency aimed at developing advanced technologies to detect, analyze, and counter misinformation and disinformation in media.”

Since the “pandemic” fostered a climate of information hysteria, corporate coalitions have sprouted up to target what they see as information “threats” including the Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) – which has been influenced by DARPA, the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) [recently discontinued], WEF’s Global Coalition for Digital Safety and the UN’s Code of Conduct for Information Integrity on Digital Platforms.

The UN’s growing support of censorship strategies that can better serve its “sustainability” goals and WHO agendas – like the motivations of the Chinese authorities (CCP), for example – is a confirmation of its intent to control the global conversation.

The UN has already made progress using the internet. The UN targeted many communities during the “pandemic” with a coalition of in-person censors to safeguard the WHO’s pandemic agenda. The UN recruited indoctrinating “messengers” from across the globe through an initiative called “Verified“. This was led by the Department of Global Communications, a public relations outfit which promotes the “official” UN stories in the media and across digital platforms, to build the UN’s “positive” image.

The “information crisis” picked up on during the pandemic became known as an “infodemic” by organisations like the UN that infiltrated public forums and communities in order to sustain compliance with the “official pandemic narrative”. The excuse? The pandemic was considered “unusual” circumstances. However, the “pandemic” is over and the censorship drive aggressively continues.

Most recently “The United Nations launched new Global Principles for Information Integrity, “emphasizing the need for immediate action” and advertising the ideological sustainable development goals that the UN’s digital “censorship” agenda satisfies (see below). The UN is protecting its “sustainability goals doctrines”, Industry 4.0/5G infrastructure, the international policies it influences, and its stakeholders interests.

Rebranding the UN for the wireless “smart future”

It’s clear that the UN wants deeper control of information, to aid in the realisation of its political, globally impacting, aims. It is preparing for this by building data capacity (using more wireless technologies and energy guzzling servers) because “Nurturing modern data capacities is about making shifts in expertise, processes and technology so that entities improve how they collect, handle, govern and use data from more diverse sources to generate deeper insights for better decisions – powered by advanced analytics, machine learning and visualization techniques.” AI is going to play a deep role in “world peace” and the UN will rely on its predictive analytics and surveillance capacity.

This is all part of a huge rebranding exercise to improve public confidence. In recent statements we learn that the UN is rebranding as UN 2.0 and in its report “Our Common Agenda” stipulates that “behavioural science” (the psychology of persuasion) will be a core component in managing public expectations and driving compliance with its aims. The UN 2.0 Policy Brief rebrands the UN as “a powerful fusion of data, innovation, digital, foresight and behavioural science expertise.”

Behavioural science (BS) for corporate goals is rooted in, and assists, the creation of advertising campaigns and propaganda. BS espouses the work of social manipulators like Edward Bernays who worked for the tobacco industry, which helped destroy health. It provides the means to manipulate the behaviour of populations, and manufacture “consent”, something both the UN and WHO are so desperately trying to do in a concerted attempt to increase their powers.

There is a clear desire here to manipulate and transform society through the “sustainability” goals. That desire is becoming more aggressive. According to the World Economic Forum, “UN member countries [have] pledged their renewed commitment to accelerating the delivery of the goals…[SDGs]”

The (wireless) business of Global Health and “Sustainability”

The SDGs were released back in in 2012. It is known that “The mobile industry was the first sector to commit to the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including climate action, in 2016.” This coincides with the drive to roll out 5G, and was the beginning of “green-washing” and “ethics washing” the wireless industry, aligning it with a global “transformation” agenda that it would influence greatly. Orange is “…a founding member of the Net Zero Initiative, which sets out a vision of a carbon-free world with other large organisations. The list goes on….

Both the WHO and UN are, as a result of their technological pursuit of increased power over populations, knee deep in wireless contracts, and as always are protecting and funding the wireless industry on which their shared goals rest. Deutsche Telekom is a prime facilitator of the organisations’ digital agendas, particularly with regards to “United Smart Cities”, which is coordinated by the ITU.

“United Smart Cities (USC) is a programme set up by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and OiER in 2014. Building up smart and sustainable cities, improving life for all citizens and managing upcoming challenges are part of the United Nation’s Development goals.” “USC is aiming to set up a holistic ecosystem to support our cities of the future.” Source.

In 2022 Deutsche Telekom was chosen by WHO to create a “global health passport”, beginning the digital discrimination road to health app-artheid. Telecoms.com reported “The World Heath Organization, which had such a great pandemic, wants to ‘facilitate’ its 194 member states to introduce digital vaccination certificates. To do so it’s setting up a ‘gateway’ to standardize the issuing of QR codes that confer privileged health status to their owner. Deutsche Telekom subsidiary T-Systems has been chosen as an industry partner to develop the vaccination validation services.”

The control exerted on the UN and WHO by wireless interests is incongruent with any responsibility they may claim to have regarding the protection of human rights and health, for it renders the organisations at the beck and call of transnational corporate interests that steer the organisations’ agendas and funding.

As a result of the UN’s priority (its stakeholders’ needs, not the interests of the population), wireless interests have become aggressively expansive and politically protected. For society that means the wireless industry is at greater liberty to threaten health, privacy and, even what it means to be human.

The reality of Wireless Growth

UN and its profiteering stakeholders, see wealth as a means of reducing the impacts they have on the environment. Within the “sustainability” game’s rules they are permitted to calmly trade in carbon credits – a new system of impunity, where companies can purchase the reduction of their own “carbon footprint.” Some think that they will “save the planet” by planting more trees or investing in renewable energy”.

This “logic” permeates wireless companies and is meant to score points with the public in support of UN sustainable development goals (SDGs). According to AZO Cleantech, “Through emissions offsetting reforestation, the company said it can essentially provide carbon-neutral calls, texts and data.” By the magical rules of the carbon credit system.

AZO Cleantech alerts us to a significant statistic. “The wireless communications industry is not the first industry that comes to mind when people talk about emissions or increased sustainability, but actually, it does represent a significant share of global carbon emissions. According to research published by mobile phone maker Ericsson, the overall telecommunications industry accounts for about 1.4% of emissions worldwide. By comparison, the aviation industry generates 2% of all global carbon emissions.” Not only that, a wireless device is a polluter because “…personal devices make up the biggest share of the telecommunications industry’s carbon footprint. About 50% of device-related emissions are associated with usage and the other 50% is associated with device life cycle. Networks and data centers account for the next biggest emission shares in the telecom industry.”

With the Internet of Things (IoT) such pollution is set to increase exponentially, but in its sustainable goals, the UN has no intention of releasing facts that sully the image of the wireless companies, and could scupper the sustainability project.

According to AZO cleantech, “Expert predictions have forecasted that internet usage will annually increase by 30-40%. If this comes to pass, there will be 30 times today’s internet traffic in just 10 years. This will translate to the telecom industry comprising 60% of global energy use.”

Though the UN esteems wireless developments, the reality is that “the wireless industry has not been very proactive with regard to emissions.” While the wireless industry claims it is cleaning up its act, there can be no doubts that it is pure “green-washing”. Such behaviours are not uncommon among industries playing the “sustainability game”, and we can appreciate how the facts contradict the stated aims of the UN’s “sustainability” project by contributing significantly to pollution.

The Club of Rome

The wireless industry along with political organisations like the Club of Rome have long controlled the direction of the UN, leading us up to this point where the human population is brought to kneel at the temple of wireless interests in the name of “sustainability”.

“Sustainability” is influenced by the Club of Rome, and has become a catalyst for ticking all the boxes necessary to advance wireless telecommunications infrastructure and technology integrating the activities of the wireless industry within a “green” sustainability narrative. The human race is the enemy and technology is here to redeem society.

For the Club of Rome, “The networked knowledge society is nothing less than a paradigm-shift form the industrial model of the two past centuries. It can introduce new patterns of social structure and behavior, of public and private organization, of production and trade. It can re-define the links and relationships between people, nations and religions.” It can also fuel a future of unprecedented “extractive” practices for rare earths and minerals, and other environmentally unhelpful impacts, as well as geopolitical impacts, to sustain the wireless infrastructure and technologies required to achieve such a socially transformative plan – but that isn’t acknowledged. Promoting the wireless networked society (data driven Internet of Things, ultimately) is the priority.

At the 2003–2005 World Summit on the Information Society The Club of Rome was a guest of the UN’s wireless agency – the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) – in support of the “emergence of a networked knowledge society” with “ICT (Information and Communications Technology) as an Innovator for Sustainable Development.”

The Club of Rome advocates “Taking advantage of the wireless communication facilities” and believes “education for ICT is necessary to promote the use of local knowledge with new technologies.” That is exactly what the UN’s wireless agenda (Agenda 2030) has put into motion. Its a “green” agenda that masks the true environmental cost of the wireless industry as the UN, influenced by the Club of Rome, “sustains” the industry’s impactful practices and future empowerment.

The wireless industry is “at home” in the UN 

The wireless industry has always felt at home within the decision-making apparatus of the UN. Shortly after its inception in 1945, the UN became responsible for helping nations adopt radiofrequency telecommunications and evolving new wireless technologies. This happened because The International Telegraph Union (formed in 1865) became an influential participating organisation. 

The ITU is an influential representation of wireless industry interests. It is now named the International Telecommunications Union and describes itself as “the United Nations specialist agency for information and communication technologies – ICTs.”

Because “the ITU membership includes hundreds of private-sector organizations, as well as 193 States” it has been very influential and effective in expanding wireless infrastructure and technology across the globe.

In 2005, as part of the World Summit on the Information Society held in Geneva and Tunis, The ITU advanced the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society (backed by the Club of Rome) to help stakeholders expand the information society (wireless telecommunications infrastructure and internet management) into developing countries and close global digital divides (between countries, not social classes).

This “information” agenda called for a multistakeholder internet governance and stressed a “development-oriented Information Society” as well as a commitment to achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – which were broadened in scope renamed sustainable development goals (SDGs) after the MDG effort had largely failed by 2015.

Then came the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (a.k.a. Millennium Development Goals, Round Two), which comprises 17 goals emerging from a report called “Realizing the future we want for all”.

Wireless development is visibly at the heart of all of these “sustainable” development goals and the ITU describes itself as an enabler in achieving the SDGs. Naturally, all wireless companies across the globe promote their activities accordingly in line with “sustainability” which the UN describes as supportive of accelerating technology for “ensuring information integrity in an era of deep-fakes and disinformation; and reinforcing the multi-stakeholder foundations of Internet governance”. All digital technology is promoted as “sustainable” today, and a wireless satellite features on the “Summit of the Future” poster where the public aren’t consulted about that future.

Advancing the “Information Society” for the ITU has now become advancing the Internet of Things (IoT) in all of its facets – which advances wireless infrastructure for the future of “digital everything”. Promoting smart technology and smart cities make it plain SDGs are for “sustaining” the wireless industry for digital technology development. This project “sustains” a wireless surveillance economy advanced by the UN/ITU and it’s stakeholders where reaping rewards from Machine Learning and Big Data translates into power and profits to the tune of a surveillance economy (epitomised by China’s IoT society).

In 2005 the ITU suggested World Internet Day to promote the ITU’s need of the internet, but sold as recognising “digital divides” and the need to heal them. In 2006 World Telecommunication and Information Society Day was invented by the ITU.

It’s all helped to promote wireless dependency, which binds stakeholders across the board to pursuing what the UN and ITU desire: the wireless interconnectivity of everything on earth for the IoT, in the name of “sustainability.” We know that this is a radiation grid formed from wireless infrastructure and devices, subjecting all living things and global resources to quantification and wireless surveillance.

Reimagining the social contract – for the erosion of democracy

In March 2021, when the roll out of 5G and IoT infrastructure was well under way, the UN called for a “New Eco-Social Contract” because the current social contract may not effectively empower the UN and its stakeholders to deliver “the transformative vision of the 2030 Agenda” and push onwards with the goal of expansive wireless interconnectivity and rolling out AI.

The UN has also called for improved education about its goals. According to UNESCOs pitch of a new social contract for education, “Education must also now be rethought to help respond to urgent and unprecedented new challenges such as the climate crisis, the emergence of generative AI technologies, the continued growth of inequalities, and the persistence of conflicts.”

The IMF has also supported the idea of a renewed social contract, and says it wants to “fix the system” for the global economy with a post-pandemic social contract. In the IMF’s view (which chimes with the UN’s, WEF’s and Industry 4.0 perspectives), post-pandemic “…disaffection stems from the failure of existing social contracts to deliver on people’s expectations for both security and opportunity.”

A research program called “The Digital Revolution and the New Social Contract” suggests that, “technological and economic transformations have reshaped the relationships between education, work, opportunities and welfare, rendering our previous social contract outdated, and making it necessary to establish a new one that benefits everyone.” This is the conclusion of research from The Center for the Governance of Change (CGC), an applied-research, educational institution based at IE University that aims at “improving the general public’s awareness and agency over the coming changes. All this for one purpose: to help building a more prosperous and sustainable society for all.” NATO, The UN and an array of other data-hungry organisations and transnational corporations are among the partners keen to transform the social contract, along these lines.

The idea is backed by the World Economic Forum (WEF), a close partner of the UN, which has long wanted to “go nuclear on climate change”. The NGO/think tank, based in Geneva, is keen to ensure stakeholder capitalism can thrive into the future. The dangers were spelled out by Open Democracy, which stated, “The idea of stakeholder capitalism and multi-stakeholder partnerships might sound warm and fuzzy, until we dig deeper and realise that this actually means giving corporations more power over society, and democratic institutions less…”.

The sustainability agenda has gained renewed urgency with the recently announced “Our Common Agenda” brought by the UN “to forge a new global consensus” even though it is clear not all people agree that the wireless agenda in store represents an “inclusive” or universally acceptable future vision.

The outcome will be an “…action-oriented Pact for the Future [that] is expected to be agreed by Member States through intergovernmental negotiations on issues they decide to take forward.”

The private sector will dictate a renewed social contract that state institutions and the individual are expected to accept. The United Nations 2.0 will emerge, powered by “data, strategic foresight, results orientation and behavioural science” to sustain wireless everything and an empowered WHO and “global vaccination plan. The rest of the key proposals for accelerating the SDGS are here.

Philanthropy, the Club of Rome, the UN and “unlimited” growth for 5G and IoT

The UN and WHO are investment opportunities. Philanthropists (Rockefeller and Gates Foundations, for example) and other vested interests including member states and the private sector exercise influence. Health governance and world governance are attractive prospects to powerful interests, with sustainability opening up opportunities for the powerful (aligned with wireless goals) to technologically transform society.

Agenda 2030 is a valuable tool for shaping society and advancing technology to support globalist aims – so is Digital Health, shaping the course of health governance, and selling Big Pharma and Big Tech “solutions”.

The Rockefeller Foundation branding its work as “sustainable development” with an initiative called Mission 300, “aims to accelerate the pace of electrification in Sub-Saharan Africa” and is partnered with the Global Energy Alliance to pursue a “sustainable” “solar” solution in line with the UN’s goals. The project anticipates a case for 5G in Sub-Saharan Africa where electricity is an issue. According to intelligentcio.com, “Africa’s lack of infrastructure, expensive hardware, and limited technological background are all issues impacting IoT deployment.”

According to, 5G in Africa: realising the potential “Operators and tower companies operating in the region have pointed to the following as the main barriers to using more solar: high upfront cost for solar panels and batteries; theft and vandalism, especially in remote locations; and space limitation on cell sites to assemble the solar components.”

The Rockefeller Foundation is actively invested in resolving these solar energy supply issues, a process that fits with the “green communications and networking paradigm” where solar/renewables assist the 5G infrastructure roll out. The Rockefeller Foundation is laying the groundwork for 5G networks and the IoT as part of “doubling down on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)” prompted by the “pandemic”. Mission 300 is an “ambitious initiative to connect 300 million people to electricity in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2030.” Source.

This ultimately opens the door to “…a broad set of industry stakeholders, including Google Cloud, EdgeQ, Gigabyte, Marvell, Nvidia, NXP, Qualcomm Technologies, Dish Network, Vodafone, Accelleran, Mavenir, Parallel Wireless, Radisys, Saankhya Labs and Tech Mahindra.” Source: 5G in Africa: realising the potential, PDF.

As J.P. Morgan states, “When considering the future growth of 5G adoption, consumer demand will be key as it can be monetized.” Thanks to “sustainability” projects, and private investment, 5G is moving easily into place “…with forecasts anticipating mobile data traffic of almost 330 exabytes per month by 2028, more than three times the volume consumed in 2022.” Source.

Africa is experiencing new technological horizons and investment courtesy of the UN. Some of these technologies bring home how eager the UN is to accelerate societies towards a data-driven model like that of China. In Africa the push is towards a Digital ID framework and biometric solutions, all made possible by smart phones, internet connectivity and 5G developments. This is the UN’s testing ground for technologies to tag and monitor populations, as well as creat billions for investors. “The Africa and Middle East biometrics market is forecast to grow at an annual rate of 21%, with the global biometrics industry set to reach US$82 billion by 2027, according to the “Biometrics – Global Market Trajectory & Analytics 2020” report published by US-based research firm Global Industry Analysts.”

The Club of Rome is also helping “…African and European communities and organisations, towards a mutually just transformation for a regenerative future” believing that “Today, with eight billion people, the world is “Full” [and] …the world right now is set on a course for a potentially disastrous level of climate change.”

With all of its opinions about population size and premonitions about disaster, how can the well-informed Club of Rome think that steaming ahead with 5G and unlimited growth for the wireless industry, (heralding an IoT future to the tune of SDGs and “Net Zero” driven totalitarianism), isn’t a disastrous course?

Does the Club of Rome realise that there have been no public health or environmental risk assessments carried out in order to measure 5G’s “actual” impacts? With regards to energy consumption it is known that “…new 5G macro and especially small basestations dedicated to satisfying trends of ascending data volumes will have a significant impact in terms of increased energy requirements…” Source.

The Club of Rome also believes in “Inclusive Ai for a better future“, when “AI is energy-intensive” and “AI’s energy demands complicate efforts to decarbonize the grid as more electricity–generated with a mixture of carbon-free and fossil fuels–is required to support its growth.” Source. Does the IoT future really sound sustainable? “Tech insiders estimate more than one trillion devices will be connected over the next 10 to 15 years.” Source.

“Deloitte Global predicts that the number of FWA [fixed wireless access] connections will grow from about 60 million in 2020 to roughly 88 million in 2022, with 5G FWA representing almost 7% of the total (figure 1). While our analysis reveals a 19% 2020–2026 CAGR in total FWA connections, 5G FWA connections will grow even faster, at a CAGR of almost 88%, over the same period.²” Source. According to J.P. Morgan, “It is expected that 5G will exceed $180 billion in North America by 2030.”

The WHO “…relies heavily on private donors. One of those is the Gates Foundation, by far the largest private contributor to the WHO, accounting for some 10% of its budget.” Source. In 2018, Gates had been ruminating about the nature of a future pandemic at the Shattuck Lecture and in 2019 helped sponsor a pandemic preparedness event (Event 201) with the World Economic Forum (WEF) and John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (Center for Health Security). The “event” necessitated “public-private cooperation for pandemic preparedness and response” and was described thus in 2019: “The next severe pandemic will not only cause great illness and loss of life but could also trigger major cascading economic and societal consequences that could contribute greatly to global impact and suffering.” Source.

Bill Gates has invested heavily in 5G wireless “solutions”, such as wireless birth control solutions, in wireless stock and 5G projects like “Pivotal Commware” which has secured $50 million funding for 5G mmWave infrastructure and as the World Economic Forum (WEF) has stated, Gates is invested in smart cities – building his own in Arizona.

By 2019, Gates had accumulated 5.3 million shares in Crown and Castle (CC) “…the company positioned to make a fortune from the coming 5G revolution.” CC is “a key player in the U.S. communications infrastructure market” which “operates in three primary segments: towers, small cells, and fiber.” Source. The 5G “revolution” was massively rolled out during the “pandemic”. Telecoms.com recognises 2020 as the “beginning of 5G implementation”. Crown and Castle is the “highest-yielding stock held by Bill Gates.”

All of these activities to promote 5G infrastructure and smart cities supports Club of Rome/UN/WHO political, even “colonialist” development aims – and involve significant investment in wireless telecommunications to advance the IoT.

The Artificial Future and its Fatal contradictions

With the rebranding of the UN, and the “damage control” exacted by the International EMF Project recently, you can be sure that WHO’s “health governance” agendas and Agenda 2030 are about to pick up pace.

With the immense investments, and the high stakes, can we really say that, politically and ethically, the UN and the WHO really “looking out for society”? Is Agenda 2030 really all about inclusivity, human rights and protecting the health of all – or is it an investment in increased censorship, population control, and social engineering tailored to ideological goals, delivering a technological society driven by data, biometric systems, and smart technologies modelled on China’s totalitarian template?

We should bear such questions in mind in light of a new social contract being developed by the UN, which will no doubt be putting the wireless industry and transnational corporate interests above the concerns and interests of the population.

Based on ideas from the Club of Rome to control and limit growth – including human populations – and to control society (and knowledge) through wireless networked technology into the future (IoT) on the basis of “human-caused climate change politics” – we can see that many aspects of the “sustainability” project are highly questionable. Under scrutiny, they favour the advancement of a “holistic” wireless digital agenda. It may look and feel “green and good” in the marketing (behavioural science) sense, and may sound like “progress” in “think tank” sponsored discourses, but in reality is full of fatal contradictions and prospects.

The “theories” holding up both the sustainability goals and RF exposure narratives that are promoted by the UN and WHO rely on synthetic models, hypotheses, conjecture, and contrivances to sell “sustainable solutions” that advance smart cities and a “Human 2.0” society that will take us so very far from an existence connected with the natural world, or a life in balance with nature.

The UN and WHO: “model” behaviours that are promoting wireless growth

The Club of Rome’s report of 1972, “The Limits to Growth” has been very influential on the UN’s Agenda 2030. It is a conceptual work, developing ideas about avoiding overpopulation and population collapse. By admission of the organisation, it represents an imagined future.

clubofrome.org supplies a short guide to the “The Limits to Growth”, which states, “The authors…identified a set of assumptions that produced a “stabilised world” scenario – called the “sustainability scenario” in which collapse was avoided and standards of living remained high.”

How did they come to their conclusions? “The MIT team fed data…into a global computer model and then tested the behavior of the model under several sets of assumptions to determine alternative patterns for mankind’s future.” Source.

Based on negative theories of population growth postulated since Victorian times courtesy of Thomas Malthus, The Club of Rome promoted a simulation, a narrative (like The Great Reset) to “get attention” and to be used to transform society. This informs current sustainability trajectories of the UN which are about blaming populations for destroying the environment and over-consuming resources, a theory that has provided the opportunity for the few to control the future of the many.

The “story” of Easter Island’s “ecocide,” – concerning a population consuming itself to extinction – is often regularly cited as evidence to support sustainability action. However, population genetics challenges the popularised Malthusian theories concerning population collapse that were projected onto our common understanding about what happened on the remote island. Such research inspires us to look at our history and context from different angles, and importantly, beyond myopically perceiving our world in terms of the influential Victorian ideas of Thomas Malthus (a theory that population growth will always tend to outrun the food supply and that betterment of humankind is impossible without stern limits on reproduction).

Through the narrative of sustainability much flawed thinking defines the UN’s aims, which are ultimately discriminatory and elitist in nature in the way our population is being viewed, and organised. The UN’s policies from its inception have played a role in limiting the global population, even pursuing policies of “replacement migration” – all ways of artificially and politically altering the population structures globally. Technology is also part of the logic of “replacement”. The global fertility rate has plummeted over decades and we are now at a point where technology such as AI, drones and robots are poised to “take over”.

According to the Financial Times, economic and social forces are to blame for plummeting fertility rates, but don’t worry, “AI and automation will…pick up the slack.” Advancing AI’s role in society is part of the UN’s vision. This vision, concerning population and development, is also applauded by industry.

There are so many contradictions in the sustainable political framework of the UN’s Agenda 2030. Clearly its not about “limiting growth” and favours “the “growth” for technological advancements and smart cities. Its about expanding wireless infrastructure, supporting semi-conductor technology markets and smart cities for a paradigm shift into a full blown IoT Big Data surveillance economy.

The UN says it promotes “safe and trustworthy” technologies. But we know it does not, and measures technology in utilitarian and profitable terms, which often throws concerns about health and important social impacts to the wind. Easing society into a false sense of security concerning habitual exposure wireless technologies, WHO-approved ICNIRP has been promoting the idea that they can make our world safer by setting limits to exposure to microwave telecommunications infrastructure with a novel “simulation”.

ICNIRP rejects research confirming radiofrequency-induced bio-effects, and the temporal factors related to such bio-effects. ICNIRP presents guidelines based exclusively on a “thermal hypothesis” while excluding the gamut of non-thermal and RFR-induced biological injuries that have been scientifically studied and established at or below the so-called “safe” levels of exposure.

To sell us “safe” exposure, ICNIRP prefers the “physics” of modelling, and not experiments that tell us what happens to RFR-exposed biological specimens. This is why ICNIRP derives its theoretical exposure guidelines from mobile phone RFR affecting a synthetic dummy filled with gel (a Specific Anthropomorphic Mannequin – SAM) to simulate thermal impacts of RFR.

ICNIRP’s (and therefore the WHO’s) bias against biological studies like the NTP study continues, and is putting public health at risk, for we are biological, have individual sensitivity to RFR, we are not synthetic, and come in all shapes and sizes, unlike the SAM.

UN sustainability politics relies on its selected climate scientists making predictions about the future, like the Club of Rome did, to convince us with simulations. It is said that “climate change is physics….[and that] modelling is our best window into the future.” Climate science is based on simulating the future on computers for “predicting global warming” in which AI will play an increasing role. The computer models are prone to failure, and can’t accurately predict.

The Hoover Institution states that, “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the established global authority on climate change, acknowledges this in its most recent Assessment report, from 2013: The simulation of clouds in climate models remains challenging. There is very high confidence that uncertainties in cloud processes explain much of the spread in modelled climate sensitivity. [bold and italics in original] and…”According to a 2002 article by climate scientists Vitaly Semenov and Lennart Bengtsson in Climate Dynamics, climate models have done a poor job of matching known global rainfall totals and patterns.”

Astrophysicist and geoscientist Willie Soon has stated that “our current lack of understanding of the Earth’s climate system does not allow us to determine reliably the magnitude of climate change that will be caused by anthropogenic CO₂emissions, let alone whether this change will be for better or for worse.” Source.

In addition, all predictive climate simulations and computer programs (including AI itself) are subject to the biases of the persons interpreting data, giving input/hypotheses. They are not immune from political and ideological biases, and of course, errors. AI is also prone to “hallucinating” – making things up and presenting them as fact (producing “harmful” misinformation).

Both synthetic “SAM mannequins” and synthetic “modelling” not only sustain politicised theories that are managing public perceptions and expectations – they can produce data that isn’t fit for purpose, which puts the public at risk.

This political use of simulations to sell a convincing case for the “smart” future to the population, moulds the perception and expectations of the public. The WHO manipulates the science concerning exposure to wireless radiation and the UN seeks influence through amplifying the “predictions” of “climate science” to sustain “multilateral” international action (co-ordinated by stakeholders and member states) supporting rapid technological manufacturing (Industry 4.0) and rapid implementations (5G, 6G, Big Data, Internet of Things, Smart Cities, etc).

The UN and WHO present questionable biased theories to shape our futures, and our health. It is questionable whether is the UN is protecting human rights, or the WHO our health, in the future being planned, but it is abundantly obvious that the wireless industry is highly favoured in the UN’s and WHO’s vision of the future, and operates with impunity as it pollutes and continues to put the population’s health at risk.

According to the ITU (the telecommunications arm of the UN), they are glad they have a UN Secretary General that “speaks their language“. He is after all, a physicist and engineer who has taught telecommunications.

He is the “right” political and business choice, sympathetic to the telecommunications industry and it shows, as he is promoting a purely wireless future, which is being justified by prevailing climate change theories that rely largely on modelling to inform the UN’s dire environmental forecasting (which is so relentlessly being used as a political tool, and a social engineering opportunity).

The UN, soon to be rebranded as the UN 2.0 is incorporating behavioural science into its arsenal (because Agenda 2030 isn’t winning people over as much as needed?) is “teaching” (or rather preaching) that a global community governed through wireless technologies will bring a healthier, “sustainable” and inclusive future for all.

One world, but not for all

Is it true that loyalty to the SDGs or Digital Health can result in an inclusive future, for all? No, it isn’t for all. Today, the UN turns a blind eye to the human rights abuses happening in China, which includes slavery for the production of wireless technology components. This forced labour is for supply chains which many Western companies, and notable Big Tech firms rely on. According to Walk Free, “Forced labour is exacted under the guise of vocational training and poverty alleviation…”

It is true much can exacted when the ideological goals and the parties exacting them clothe them in the guise of “worthy causes”, but this political trend is ultimately promoting totalitarianism in the guise of “improving the world” – and wireless and Big Tech firms reliant on electronic components and minerals for manufacture, are influencing such a political trajectory, based on extracting astronomical profits through the IoT/Sustainability markets, as well as unprecedented power over the population.

As the UN is reluctant to address the issues the CCP has come to “enjoy a growing sense of impunity [and] tries to exploit the openness of institutions in democracies to impose its world view and silence its critics.” Sounds like the wireless industry! The behaviour of China and the UN’s response sets a disquieting precedent.

We are seeing the UN and WHO, in pursuit of their ideological imperatives – SDGs and DH – doing everything they can “to silence the critics” – who in their eyes have little to offer but “misinformation”. However, there is plenty to criticise about SDGs and DH, as well as the concurrent roll outs of IoT technologies and 5G infrastructure. For the UN, these are politically vital projects, however, this profitable political agenda could set future generations up for serious health and environmental consequences.

Rapid reformations are being invested in by those who are banking on technology and compliance with UN-backed “solutions” (SDGs) to be richer and empowered. The UN’s and WHO’s technological projects for the future society, if successful, will bring immense powers to these “guardian” organisations, and their private investors, but none of it could ever be achieved without the UN’s ties with the wireless industry, the Club of Rome, and the ongoing political manipulation of environmental issues and science to promote strategic technological implementations for domination and profit.

Featured opening illustration by Sean Alexander Carney.