Hey everybody.
So I I want to talk to you about a um a brand new report, a bombshell report that came out that was published by UN Watch.
UN Watch, they monitor the United Nations Human Rights Council, phenomenal organization, and they came out with a bombshell report about an institution that you probably have never even heard of by name, but it has massive impact.
It has impact on government policies around the world about how media reports on major issues.
The the this UN body or UN system is called the United Nations Human Rights Council Special Procedures System.
Okay, that’s what it’s called.
And if you’ve never heard of that name, you’ve probably heard of what they do.
Here’s what it is.
The United Nations maintains a roster of 59 independent experts.
Okay, these experts are lawyers, academics, some of them are former diplomats.
They’re all sorts of important people who are appointed to each one of them is appointed to a specific human rights mandate.
Okay.
So one expert will be responsible for reporting on food on like the right to food and another one will be responsible for reporting on freedom of speech or freedom of expression uh another one on violence against women another one on housing conditions another one on counterterrorism and so on and so on.
Okay, there’s 59 of these special reporters or special raorurters in the system again the special procedure system of the United Nations human rights council.
Okay.
So these experts are granted a global platform.
They have fancy titles.
They issue UN press releases.
They they have press conferences where they where they release their official studies, their official reports to the UN General Assembly.
And what they say carries a lot of weight.
It carries a lot of authority.
It carries the UN brand.
For those of you following the Gaza war closely and if you especially if you followed this um what I was writing and when I was putting out the videos I was putting out on Israel 365 news about the whole uh Gaza starvation hoax.
So you’ll remember that there was this UN special reports about how much food was going into Gaza that were full of lies that we were reporting on.
That’s an example.
So they put out these important reports, important reports.
Now how much weight do they carry? Well, a lot.
Their reports get cited by the International Court of Justice, by the International Criminal Court, by the European Court of Human Rights.
But those bodies, not everyone respects them, but they’re also, you know, cited in academia.
They’re considered credible sources.
They’re considered authoritative.
If you’re citing a UN report, you know, it has credibility.
Right? Governments use these reports.
And whenever one of these experts issues a report, the media doesn’t say this one independent UN affiliated expert thinks XYZ.
They say the UN says, right? Because it’s the UN brand.
So they have a lot of power.
In 2006, UN Secretary General Kofian called the special procedures the crown jewel of the UN human rights system.
So now let’s get to this report.
It’s just that they just released it.
UN Watch is based in Geneva.
Phenomenal organization.
They monitor the United Nations.
The executive director of UN Watch, Hill Neuer, is one of the most effective voices holding the UN accountable.
If you haven’t come across him, look him up.
The report is called From Watchd Dogs to Ideologatch.
org.
You can find it there and you just it’s right there on the front page.
You can just scroll down and download it right there.
You can download the full report.
I highly recommend you do so.
And what it documents is how corrupt this whole system is.
So I’m going to walk you through u some of this.
It’s it’s an over 100page report.
We’re not going to walk through the whole thing, but I want to start before we get into the actual corruption.
I want to start by making you understand what the system was supposed to be.
Okay.
The basic idea be behind the special procedures actually makes a lot of sense.
You appoint independent experts, people who have no government affiliation, no political agenda.
U and they investigate human rights conditions around the world and they report back to the UN.
Uh and they’re supposed to be objective and based on verified evidence, based on credible sources, cross-checking things before publication.
That’s their code of conduct.
That’s the rule book they’re supposed to follow.
And in theory, what what this creates is a neutral expert voice that governments and courts and civil society and journalists can rely on.
Okay? It’s not the voice of a particular country.
It’s not propaganda.
It’s supposed to be authoritative, just the facts, determined by serious neutral people.
Okay? But what happens when the people filling those expert roles are not neutral and they’re ideologically driven, right? What happens when they take the UN institutional authority and they just use it to advance their own political agenda? Well, what you get is what this report calls evidentiary laundering, right? What what what’s evidentiary laundering? That’s unverified claims that are filtered through UN letterhead, stamped with UN authority, and presented to the world as the impartial findings of independent experts.
That’s what the report documents.
And I want to show you exactly who these people are.
Okay? I don’t want to talk in generalities.
I want to give you specific names and stories, examples.
And these are only examples.
Again, the report is over 100 pages long, but here’s a few examples.
Let’s start with Irene Khan.
So Irene Khan is the special reparator on freedom of expression and opinion.
Very nice.
So before her UN appointment, Irene Khan was the secretary general of Amnesty International where she made herself famous by calling Guantanamo Bay the goolog of our time.
She left amnesty under mysterious circumstances in 2009 after which it came out that she had received a secret payout of 533,000 British pounds.
That’s that’s like over it’s around $720,000.
It’s more than four times her annual salary.
It’s 4% of Amnesty’s entire annual budget.
Now Amnesty’s own UK director publicly apologized for this but there’s no record that she ever returned the money.
Then she was appointed as the UN’s global guardian of free speech, her current role.
Right.
So who appointed her? Ready for this? A five member vetting committee that was led by China.
China appointing the the special reporter on free speech.
Free speech.
China.
And here’s something that Hillyer pointed out that really captures how incestuous this whole world is.
Follow along.
Khan’s deputy at Amnesty was a woman named Kate Gilmore.
And after Irene Khan left, Kate Gilmore became the deputy UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
And during that same period, Agnes Calamar, who is Katie Gilmore’s wife, was appointed the UN special reperator on extrajudicial executions.
And today, Agnes Calamar, wife of Katie Gilmore, is now the head of Amnesty International, which is where Katie Gilmore started working under Irene Khan.
You see how this works? It’s a it’s the same small network of people that rotates endlessly between Amnesty International and the United Nations, filling each other’s positions, citing each other’s reports, and they call it an independent human rights system.
But it’s all just a little club of people who are all closely associated with each other.
Let’s get back to China.
What is China’s choice of a free speech zar? What does she monitor in her UN role? Well, in her five years, Irene Khan uh issued two mild criticisms of China, zero criticisms of Cuba.
Nothing about uh Eritrea where they where there’s no freedom of speech, nothing about North Korea where there’s no freedom of speech, nothing about Nicaragua.
But she has accused American universities of colluding with the US government to si, you know, to silence pro Palestinian voices.
Oh, that’s a crime, right? China’s not silencing anyone.
North Korea is not silencing anyone, but US universities are.
She called it their duty to protect pro- kamas campus protests, ignoring the anti-semitism and the violence that accompanied them.
Right.
She retweeted Francisco Albanz’s declaration that western pre that the western pretense of civility is over.
Oh my gosh, we’re silencing speech on American campuses.
This is the UN’s guardian of free speech.
She’s appointed by China.
She doesn’t say a word about the countries that imprison and execute journalists.
No, no, she’s focused on American universities.
And then we meet u Muokang.
Tlenang Muokang.
She is the special reperator on the right to health.
The right to health.
So, let’s talk about the UN expert on health mafukang.
Dr.
Clale Mafukang wrote an op-ed for Teen Vogue magazine encouraging teenage girls to view prostitution as a legitimate career choice.
Quote, “In some ways, aren’t we all sex workers?” She wrote that the executive director of the coalition against trafficking of women said it was astounding that the human rights council would appoint someone who encourages teen girls to consider prostitution as a job.
Now on social media, Mofulkang has referred to individuals quote that hoe um when someone disagreed with her on the COVID vaccine, she told them to shove it up your blank.
She told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to f off.
And when Hillyer called for her to be disciplined for this behavior, she attacked him as evil scum white man.
Now, her own professional regulatory body, the South African Health Professionals Council, found her guilty of misconduct for quote using abusive and inappropriate language on social media and for bringing the medical profession into disrepute.
But the UN, you know, left her in her position.
Now, here’s the detail that I find almost beyond belief.
This woman was not just a raptor.
For a period of time, she was the chair of what’s called the coordination committee, which is a committee of rapors of these 59 raptors.
It’s a committee of them that handles complaints and professional conduct.
In other words, she was the chair of that.
But this also tells you that there’s a committee where they police themselves, meaning the people policing the rapors and looking after their conduct is just other raporurs.
And the person they chose to run that committee was someone who had just been found guilty of professional misconduct by her own country’s medical uh authority.
Now 10 days after October 7th, 2023, this doctor Moang her first public response was to justify the massacre.
She wrote, quote, “You cannot extinguish the human desire for freedom.
” Talking about the kamas guys.
nothing about the victims, of course.
She has since declared kamas fighters are not terrorists and explicitly endorsed their armed struggle.
And she praised the PFLP hijacker Leila Khaled with a rose emoji and tweeted quote from the river to the sea alongside a map that erased Israel.
This is the UN’s expert on health.
And then there’s Michael Fakri.
Let’s meet Dr.
Michael Fakri, who’s he? Well, the special reporator on the right to food.
Now, this food mandate was created by Cuba in the year 2000.
That’s right, Cuba and the United Nations Human Rights Council.
The first person appointed to it was Jean Ziegler, a Swiss Marxist politician and a close ally of the Cuban regime.
He was so obsessively focused on attacking Israel that journalists routinely thought that he was the special raor on Palestine, even though he wasn’t.
He was he had to do with food, but he talked about Israel all the time.
Anyway, Michael Fakri, who’s a Lebanese Canadian law professor, continues this tradition.
Fak’s only official country visit.
These reporters are supposed to visit countries where the issues that they’re reporting on are are issues, right? The only country he visited in six years was Venezuela at the personal invitation of Maduro.
And he went and he gave the regime a clean bill of health.
He blamed all of Venezuela’s suffering on Western sanctions.
And then he called for those sanctions to be lifted.
One day later, right after he left, Venezuela’s foreign minister shut down the United Nations human rights office in Karacus.
Right? So they used his propaganda visit as cover.
He gave them a clean bill of health.
Then they immediately expelled all the actual human rights monitors who were there.
And Fakri never said a word about it.
Um, okay.
And now here’s the detail that puts everything into focus.
One of the Israeli hostages murdered in Gaza, Adenu Raleigh.
Um, when he came out, his body was only 80 pounds.
Other hostages routinely lost 30% of their body weight in captivity.
They were starved.
We all remember the pictures.
Kamas was deliberately starving Israeli hostages.
Michael Fakri, the UN’s special reparator on the right to food, never issued a single statement about that.
Not one word about Hamas deliberately starving the people in its custody.
Instead, he used his mandate to lead the UN campaign, accusing Israel of deliberately starving Palestinians.
A campaign that continued even after the the studies came out, the authoritative IPC review studies came out on the famine classification and showed that there was enough food in Gaza that there was no famine.
But he he doubled down even though the UN’s own document said that there was no famine.
This is the food reporter.
Silent on kamas starving hostages but loud on Israel starving the gazins even though they weren’t.
And then we have Elena Duhan.
Let’s check her out.
Elena Duhan is the u well she’s former special reporter on the negative impact of the unilateral coercive measures.
Now what is that? Well, this one’s the clearest most straightforward example of corruption.
Her mandate the unil on unilateral coercive measures which is fancy language fancy UN language for western sanctions on dictatorships like when the western nations sanction dictatorships they call that unilateral coercive measures.
So she this this this position her mandate was created by Iran and the non-aligned movement specifically.
The whole point of it is to argue that all Western sanctions are illegal.
That’s the whole point of it.
That anytime Western nations put sanctions on bad actors, they’re illegal.
That’s the point of her mandate.
By the way, the non-aligned movement, for those unfamiliar, is a block of over 120 countries founded during the Cold War and today it’s dominated by authoritarian states, meaning these are all states that say that they’re not aligned with any block, but it’s mostly authoritarian countries.
So, the mandate itself is a political weapon.
That’s the whole point of it.
It it’s it’s meant to delegitimize sanctions against bad actors.
And this and this special rapartur Elena Duhan uh she works for Bellarus’s statef funed university.
Bellarus is not a democracy.
And uh and she and and she wields this political weapon.
That’s what she does.
She’s conducted country visits to Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Iran, Russia, Qatar, Cuba, Syria, China, all lovely places, right? And in every single case, she produced a report absolving the government of responsibility for its people’s suffering and blaming Western sanctions instead.
Now, who funds her mandate? Who funds her her office? China, $980,000 over five years, nearly two thou $200,000 a year from 2020 to 2024.
Russia, $265,000.
Qatar, $50,000.
In total, over $1.
3 million paid directly to her office by the exact dictatorships.
She then visits and then says that they’re all innocent and there’s no accounting for how any of the money is spent.
There’s no breakdown.
There’s no oversight.
We just don’t know.
So, here’s what we know.
Russia funded her mandate and she wrote a report calling Russia a victim of Western sanctions.
China funded her mandate and she appeared in a Chinese propaganda video saying that everything’s fine with the weaguers.
Okay, this is a human rights mandate funded by the regimes it’s supposed to hold accountable.
And the last uh expert we’re going to meet today is Ree also on violence against women and girls.
There we go.
Oh, I’ll keep this one brief because the facts don’t really require too many words.
UN special reparator on violence against women.
Her entire mandate exists to document and condemn sexual violence.
Well, on October 7th, 2023, Kamas committed systematic sexual violence against Israeli women.
It was documented extensively by the UN’s own investigators, by forensic experts, by testimony, by Kamas’s own body cameras, and Remal Salim publicly minimized and questioned those crimes.
She questioned them.
She’s not sure about them.
She said, “We’re just not sure that there’s any evidence.
Maybe there’s no real proof.
” But at the same time, she has advanced and amplified unverified allegations that Israeli forces commit sexual violence against Palestinian women.
The woman whose sole job is to protect victims of sexual violence chose to protect the narrative over the victims.
Now, I want to make sure that we that we understand that this is not just a few bad apples.
That’s not what this is.
The UN Watch report documents a a politicized appointment process.
It selects for exactly these kinds of people.
And I’ve already talked about how they’re connected to each other, a lot of them.
There was one occasion where the vetting committee actually recommended a genuinely impartial candidate for the Palestinian territories mandate.
And the guy was he was a Georgetown professor with no record of of prejuditial statements.
He he didn’t seem to be on either side.
And Arab and Islamic states immediately pressured the human rights council to reject her to reject this professor and they wanted someone who had the right views.
So she was passed over and a candidate from the Islamic States block was appointed instead.
You see, if you’re impartial, you’re actually disqualified.
That’s the way it works.
Um, that’s the way the system works.
The Ford Foundation gave over $6 million to various mandate, various of these mandates, that’s what each of them is called, over eight years.
George Soros’s Open Society foundations gave approximately three million.
An open society uh openly acknowledged that a donation to an advocacy center at Ruckers was spec was specifically intended to influence and did influence a Raportur’s choice of what they were reporting, right? That’s their donation, right? They were buying a UN report.
And when any of this is challenged, there’s no mechanism to do anything about it.
There’s no oversight body, right? because any complaints just go to the coordination committee which as we just saw was chaired by Dr.
Muffle Kang herself.
The committee’s own mandate says that it exists to enhance and facilitate the work of mandate holders.
Meaning the oversight committee isn’t really oversight.
It’s just to help out the other the other members of you know the other mandate holders.
That’s what they’re called these reporters.
It’s not a disciplinary body.
It’s not supposed to hold them accountable.
It’s just a union.
It’s just a group of friends.
So reparators can issue false lielist reports and there’s no accountability and they but they have credibility right this is you know there’s the expression the foxes are in the hen house this is actually the foxes own the hen house I don’t know whatever whatever the analogy should be it’s not a good analogy okay let me take a step back now and tell you what I think is is The big takeaway because the corruption of the special procedure system is just a symptom.
The United Nations was founded on a very noble idea.
Right? The world had just come through the most catastrophic war or wars in human history.
The founders of the UN believed that if you create a forum where all the nations can talk, where every dispute has a diplomatic channel, you could prevent wars and it’ll be a more peaceful world and everyone’s at the table.
The logic, there’s logic there.
But here’s the fatal flaw baked into the UN system from the beginning.
To bring everyone to the table, you have to treat everyone at the table as legitimate.
Right? You see, you know, so you have a democratically elected government next to a dictatorial despotic government and they have the same vote.
A government chosen by its own people and a government that seized power through violence by, I don’t know, by putting a bullet in the head of the previous guy.
They have the same legitimacy and the same standing and the same rights, the same UN membership card.
So think about what that means when you do that.
That’s a moral statement.
It’s not neutral.
I understand the logic.
You want people to talk, but understand the morality of this.
What we basically say with this equivalency of everyone being a member of the UN is how a government comes to power, how they hold power, how they wield power is irrelevant to their legitimacy.
Whether a people freely choose their leaders or not is irrelevant.
Power is power.
A seat at the UN table is a seat at the UN table.
But it’s not it’s not just a philosophical problem.
You see, there’s real world consequences because UN membership brings legitimacy and legitimacy brings trade relationships, diplomatic recognition, protection from military intervention, access to international institutions.
So, I control this country by force becomes a recognized legal status with concrete economic and political benefits.
Right? could I could take over a country by by getting a a group of thugs with me together, get some guns, shoot the people in charge, take over, declare ourselves dictators, and we get to be in the UN with everything that comes with it.
And the the authoritarian countries in the UN understood this better than the democracies did.
They understood how to weaponize this whole system.
And they’ve been weaponizing it for decades.
So Cuba creates the food mandate and installs a Marxist ally as their first repar.
Iran and the non-aligned movement create the sanctions mandate to fight for dictatorships to fight against accountability to fight against sanctions from western states.
That’s why they created they use the UN.
China selects the free speech monitor.
You see how this works? They didn’t just benefit from the UN system.
They picked up the tools of the UN system and they used them.
The special procedure system was not gradually corrupted.
It was deliberately captured by the people it was supposed to hold accountable.
So we have this very respected brand, the United Nations.
What’s more respected in international affairs? The United Nations.
and they use it to launder their evil and launder their propaganda and give it a veneer of expert stamp of approval of expert opinion.
That’s the bankruptcy of the United Nations.
It’s not about being inefficient.
Yeah.
You know, it’s not about being like, oh, incompetent.
It’s not about being a bureaucracy.
The problem is it’s it’s a structural problem.
It’s a moral equivalence problem.
The idea that a vote from North Korea counts the same as a vote from from Denmark that makes the whole UN concept not only useless.
It makes it harmful.
It legitimizes evil.
It doesn’t constrain evil.
It legitimizes evil.
It protects evil from accountability.
and it hands evil regimes the weapons that they can use against democracies that are trying to hold them accountable.
Let’s end with some numbers.
Since October 7th, 2023, when kamas massacred over,00 people that day, the UN special procedures as a group have issued 148 statements targeting Israel, condemning Israel.
148.
Russia’s war in Ukraine has produced 64.
Sudan’s civil war that has displaced 13 million people.
displaced and and and and famine and suffering.
There have been 24 statements about that situation.
148 about what’s going on in Israel.
148 24 about what’s going on in Sudan.
When Israel tried to implement a new aid mechanism to prevent distribution of aid, to prevent Kamas from stealing humanitarian supplies, these same experts condemned what the Israelis were doing and demanded a return to the old system, the system that benefited Kamas.
They accused Israel, not Hamas.
They accused Israel of exploiting humanitarian aid.
The food repar ignored Kamas starving Israeli hostages.
the violence against women raar tour denied kamas raped Israeli women [sighs] the report I’m talking about today again it’s called from watchd dogs to ideologues published in May 2026 just last week by watch go to unwatch.
org or Hill Neuer and his team spent years building this.
It’s like a 100 pages long with 13 full profiles.
Um, look it up, unwatch.
org.
Read the read the report.
Share it with people.
What I want you to take away isn’t to be outraged.
Although you can be outraged because it’s the UN.
It’s just so ridiculous.
I want you to understand.
That’s what I want.
That the problem isn’t a few bad actors.
It’s the system.
The United Nations, you should not be ashamed to say to people, reasonable people, that the United Nations must be disbanded because it is a cover.
It is a shield for evil.
It facilitates evil.
It’s part of the reason why we can’t get rid of evil despotic regimes because they have the legitimacy of being a UN member.
It is a problem.
The UN is a problem.
God bless Illinois and the folks at UN Watch for producing this report.
That is the end of my rant today.
