Is Narrative Warfare Driving Washington's UN Pullback?
Is Narrative Warfare Driving Washington's UN Pullback?
(emphasis ours),
Commentary
On a gray morning in Geneva, a human-rights advocate walks into the Palais des Nations and scans the room the way youâd scan a street corner for gang members in a hard neighborhood. Not for gangbangers, though; for âcivil society.â For the suited delegates with NGO badges who film speakers a little too closely, who echo embassy talking points a little too faithfully, who make the room feelâsubtly, persistentlyâless safe for anyone bringing evidence that embarrasses Beijing. Investigators have documented this pattern: government-linked âNGOsâ using U.N. access to disrupt, intimidate, and drown out criticism.
Cancel culture is alive and well in the groups and committees of the U.N. and that scene matters because it sits beneath the most consequential line in the White Houseâs new withdrawal memorandum: the United States will âtake immediate stepsâ to exit a list of international organizations and U.N.-linked bodies âas soon as possible.â
The memo is anchored to an earlier directiveâExecutive Order 14199âwhich required a review of U.S. participation and support across international bodies.
The list itself is telling. It includes scientific and governance nodes like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, and also the machinery that sets development narratives and convenes statesâthe U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs and multiple U.N. Economic and Social Council regional commissions.
Critics will frame this as isolationism. Supporters will call it sovereignty. But there is another lens worth an objective look: narrative influence by adversariesâespecially Chinaânested inside institutions that were built for cooperation, not contest.
Winning by Wearing Out
Chinese strategists continue to laud a whole-of-capabilities approach called âdissipative warfareââa strategy of exhausting an opponent through protraction, friction, and cumulative cost rather than a single decisive blow.
You donât need to treat that concept as doctrine to see how it can map onto global institutions. If the fight is to shape what the world believes is âresponsible,â âlawful,â âsustainable,â or âlegitimate,â then bodies that write standards, bless language, convene negotiations, and credential âcivil societyâ become key influence targets. The point isnât open control of an organization. Itâs to slow, dilute, redirect, and stigmatizeâuntil your competitor either accommodates the narrative or exits the field.
Procedural Choke Points
Start with climate and science. The IPCCâs Summaries for Policymakers are, by design, negotiated line-by-line with governments. Thatâs not a conspiracy; itâs written into the IPCCâs own procedures.
That model can produce robust consensusâbut it also creates leverage for states skilled at procedural delay and linguistic bargaining. In a dissipation frame, the goal is not to âwinâ the report; itâs to grind down clarity, introduce ambiguity, and turn scientific bottom lines into endlessly contestable phrasing. In this condition, the narrative is malleable.
Similarly, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change outcomes often hinge on consensus among nearly 200 parties. The Glasgow Climate Pactâs language calling for a âphase-downâ of unabated coal power illustrates how hard-fought wording becomes the battlefield itself.
The Development Narrative Machine
Then there is the U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairsâon the memoâs withdrawal listâbecause the department doesnât merely âdo development.â It frames the development story: what counts as progress, which financing models are celebrated, what language becomes standard in global planning.
Leadership and institutional emphasis matter here. The U.N. secretary-general appointed Li Junhua of China as undersecretary-general for economic and social affairs in 2022.
U.N. development publications have treated Chinaâs Belt and Road initiative as compatible with the U.N.âs Sustainable Development goals. Thatâs not proof of control. It is, however, a form of normalizationâturning a contested geopolitical initiative into familiar U.N. development vocabulary. Itâs a form of socializing it into acceptability.
In a dissipation strategy, this is where you make the long game feel inevitable. You bind contested geopolitics to the moral vocabulary of âsustainable development,â and you force rivals to fight uphillâarguing not only against a project, but against the institutionally blessed framing around it.
The âCivil Societyâ Channel
Finally: access. The U.N. system grants NGOs consultative privileges on the assumption they act independently of governments. But reporting and watchdog analysis describe a growing ecosystem of state-linked âgovernment-organizedâ NGOs using that access to crowd out testimony, praise Beijing, and intimidate criticsâespecially in Genevaâs human-rights ecosystem.
This is dissipation in human form: make participation costly, make speaking risky, and make the room feel ownedâuntil fewer credible witnesses show up.
Why the Memoâs List âHangs Togetherâ
Read the White House memo as a map of where narrative influence is manufactured and laundered into global âcommon sense.â It targets bodies that, one, negotiate language under consensus rules; two, set development and climate frames that travel into national policy; and three, credential actors who then shape discourse as âindependent stakeholders.â
That does not mean every named institution is adversary-controlled. It does mean adversariesâespecially China, and in some domains Russia and Iranâcan apply pressure through procedure, staffing, agenda framing, and access manipulation. In that sense, withdrawal is an attempt to stop paying to stand in a room where the rules can be used to exhaust you. No one wants to sit in the dunking booth when thereâs a professional pitcher holding a bucket of balls.
But hereâs the hard truth: if the United States exits without a replacement strategy, the vacuum becomes its own kind of dissipationâself-inflicted. Even Reutersâ early reporting on the memo notes the scale of the pullback and the risk that others fill the gap.
If the premise is adversarial narrative warfare, then the measure of success isnât simply to âleave.â Itâs whether Washington can deny manipulation and keep shaping outcomesâby rebuilding coalitions, hardening rules for NGO access, investing in standards bodies it stays in, and treating language battles as strategic terrain rather than diplomatic housekeeping.
The memo pulls America off one battlefield, but it doesnât end the war over perception. It simply raises a hard question: why should the United States keep paying to staff, fund, and legitimize systems whose outputs so often harden into narratives that cut against U.S. strategy? You donât have to believe in âcaptureâ to see misalignment. The real test now is whether Washington replaces withdrawal with an influence strategyâone that protects openness, rewards transparency, and stops underwriting language that is later used to pressure American policy and partners.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Fri, 02/06/2026 - 23:25
The Epoch Times
Is Narrative Warfare Driving Washingtonâs UN Pullback?
Cancel culture is alive and well in the groups and committees of the U.N. and that scene matters because it sits beneath the most consequential line in the White Houseâs new withdrawal memorandum: the United States will âtake immediate stepsâ to exit a list of international organizations and U.N.-linked bodies âas soon as possible.â
The memo is anchored to an earlier directiveâExecutive Order 14199âwhich required a review of U.S. participation and support across international bodies.
The list itself is telling. It includes scientific and governance nodes like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, and also the machinery that sets development narratives and convenes statesâthe U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs and multiple U.N. Economic and Social Council regional commissions.
Critics will frame this as isolationism. Supporters will call it sovereignty. But there is another lens worth an objective look: narrative influence by adversariesâespecially Chinaânested inside institutions that were built for cooperation, not contest.
Winning by Wearing Out
Chinese strategists continue to laud a whole-of-capabilities approach called âdissipative warfareââa strategy of exhausting an opponent through protraction, friction, and cumulative cost rather than a single decisive blow.
You donât need to treat that concept as doctrine to see how it can map onto global institutions. If the fight is to shape what the world believes is âresponsible,â âlawful,â âsustainable,â or âlegitimate,â then bodies that write standards, bless language, convene negotiations, and credential âcivil societyâ become key influence targets. The point isnât open control of an organization. Itâs to slow, dilute, redirect, and stigmatizeâuntil your competitor either accommodates the narrative or exits the field.
Procedural Choke Points
Start with climate and science. The IPCCâs Summaries for Policymakers are, by design, negotiated line-by-line with governments. Thatâs not a conspiracy; itâs written into the IPCCâs own procedures.
That model can produce robust consensusâbut it also creates leverage for states skilled at procedural delay and linguistic bargaining. In a dissipation frame, the goal is not to âwinâ the report; itâs to grind down clarity, introduce ambiguity, and turn scientific bottom lines into endlessly contestable phrasing. In this condition, the narrative is malleable.
Similarly, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change outcomes often hinge on consensus among nearly 200 parties. The Glasgow Climate Pactâs language calling for a âphase-downâ of unabated coal power illustrates how hard-fought wording becomes the battlefield itself.
The Development Narrative Machine
Then there is the U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairsâon the memoâs withdrawal listâbecause the department doesnât merely âdo development.â It frames the development story: what counts as progress, which financing models are celebrated, what language becomes standard in global planning.
Leadership and institutional emphasis matter here. The U.N. secretary-general appointed Li Junhua of China as undersecretary-general for economic and social affairs in 2022.
U.N. development publications have treated Chinaâs Belt and Road initiative as compatible with the U.N.âs Sustainable Development goals. Thatâs not proof of control. It is, however, a form of normalizationâturning a contested geopolitical initiative into familiar U.N. development vocabulary. Itâs a form of socializing it into acceptability.
In a dissipation strategy, this is where you make the long game feel inevitable. You bind contested geopolitics to the moral vocabulary of âsustainable development,â and you force rivals to fight uphillâarguing not only against a project, but against the institutionally blessed framing around it.
The âCivil Societyâ Channel
Finally: access. The U.N. system grants NGOs consultative privileges on the assumption they act independently of governments. But reporting and watchdog analysis describe a growing ecosystem of state-linked âgovernment-organizedâ NGOs using that access to crowd out testimony, praise Beijing, and intimidate criticsâespecially in Genevaâs human-rights ecosystem.
This is dissipation in human form: make participation costly, make speaking risky, and make the room feel ownedâuntil fewer credible witnesses show up.
Why the Memoâs List âHangs Togetherâ
Read the White House memo as a map of where narrative influence is manufactured and laundered into global âcommon sense.â It targets bodies that, one, negotiate language under consensus rules; two, set development and climate frames that travel into national policy; and three, credential actors who then shape discourse as âindependent stakeholders.â
That does not mean every named institution is adversary-controlled. It does mean adversariesâespecially China, and in some domains Russia and Iranâcan apply pressure through procedure, staffing, agenda framing, and access manipulation. In that sense, withdrawal is an attempt to stop paying to stand in a room where the rules can be used to exhaust you. No one wants to sit in the dunking booth when thereâs a professional pitcher holding a bucket of balls.
But hereâs the hard truth: if the United States exits without a replacement strategy, the vacuum becomes its own kind of dissipationâself-inflicted. Even Reutersâ early reporting on the memo notes the scale of the pullback and the risk that others fill the gap.
If the premise is adversarial narrative warfare, then the measure of success isnât simply to âleave.â Itâs whether Washington can deny manipulation and keep shaping outcomesâby rebuilding coalitions, hardening rules for NGO access, investing in standards bodies it stays in, and treating language battles as strategic terrain rather than diplomatic housekeeping.
The memo pulls America off one battlefield, but it doesnât end the war over perception. It simply raises a hard question: why should the United States keep paying to staff, fund, and legitimize systems whose outputs so often harden into narratives that cut against U.S. strategy? You donât have to believe in âcaptureâ to see misalignment. The real test now is whether Washington replaces withdrawal with an influence strategyâone that protects openness, rewards transparency, and stops underwriting language that is later used to pressure American policy and partners.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge
Zero Hedge
Is Narrative Warfare Driving Washington's UN Pullback? | ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
The Worldâs Largest Craters by Diameter
The following table ranks the top 12 confirmed impact craters based on their estimated rim-to-rim diameter:
While Vredefort in South Africa ranks first at 99 miles (160 km), it formed over 2 billion years ago and has been significantly eroded. In contrast, the second-ranked Chicxulub crater in Mexico retains a clearer structure and is famous for its role in the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event that wiped out most dinosaurs.
Extinction Events and Impact Size
Interestingly, larger crater size doesnât always mean greater devastation. As 
Blanking out during the day is common for the sleep-deprived, and now researchers have found out why it happens.
When people experience attention lapses after poor sleep, a wave of cerebrospinal fluid flows out of the brain.
During sleep, cerebrospinal fluidâpart of the brainâs cleaning systemâflushes away waste products, but sleep deprivation forces this process to activate during waking hours.
âIf you donât sleep, the [cerebrospinal fluid] CSF waves start to intrude into wakefulness where normally you wouldnât see them,â senior study author Laura Lewis, an associate professor at MIT, said in a 
Utahâs Demographic Advantage
Utah ranks first in the nation, with an estimated 9.7 babies born per 1,000 people each year.
The stateâs relatively young population plays a major role, as younger adults are more likely to be in childbearing years. Cultural and 
Large States, Strong Numbers
Texas and California rank near the top both in absolute and relative terms. California is projected to see more than 340,000 births per year, while Texas exceeds 278,000. On a per-capita basis, both states are driven by younger populations and higher shares of immigrants.
Where Birth Rates Lag
States in the Northeast and parts of the Midwest tend to rank lower. Maine, Vermont, and West Virginia sit near the bottom, with fewer than eight babies born per 1,000 people annually. Older populations, higher living costs, and delayed family formation all play a role.
If you enjoyed todayâs post, check out 
This legislation will exempt gold and silver coins from sales tax in Florida. It also means that within Florida, there will be a means of payment independent of digital money created by governments for the purpose of controlling the population, itâs behavior, and itâs expressed views, in order that governments can rule via official narratives.
It is possible that if circumstances develop the tyrants in Washington will establish martial law in Florida and dispense with the use of real money in place of digital money that has no physical existence.
Unless all states adopt the legalization of gold and silver as legal tender, Floridians would be unable to make out of state payments and would have to become an economy unto itself, producing all of its own needs. This is the safest and most preferable way to exist.
Throughout history, gold and silver have been the means of payments. The Roman legions were paid in silver coins, the denarius.  Estates were  purchased for gold.
Paper money appeared originally as a receipt on gold holdings. Â If their gold was a large amount, people kept their gold in the vaults of goldsmiths and wrote notes to the goldsmiths to release the payment amount of the transaction to their business associates in order to pay their bills.
Goldsmiths learned that few ever claimed physical possession of their gold, instead using written notes, in effect checks, to transfer ownership. Thus goldsmiths became the first bankers, knowing that they could lend out the gold in their vaults that few ever came for. Moreover neither did those who borrowed the gold take possession physically. They merely wrote to the Goldsmith that they had made a payment that transferred ownership. Thus some percentage of their holding was transferred to the third-party.
This was the origin of fractional reserve banking.
When I was born gold was no longer a legal means of payment in the United States. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a liberal hero,  had confiscated all the goal in the hands of the American population.
Once he had it, he raised the price from $20 an ounce to $35 an ounce. Later, it was raised to $42 an ounce and stood there until Senator Jesse Helms in the 1970s got  legislation passed permitting Americans to again own gold coins, but gold was not made an official means of payment.
Following World War II, the Breton Woods agreement gave the US dollar the world reserve currency role. This meant that US debt in the form of Treasury bonds became the reserves of the worldâs central banks. Thus, the US government was able to pay its bills by issuing debt as US Treasury debt was the reserves of the worldâs central banks. Initially under the Brenton Woods system foreign central banks could redeem their holdings of US treasuries for gold. However, by demanding gold in exchange for Franceâs holdings of US debt, President Charles de Gaulle prompted the closing of the âgold windowâ in the 1970s, and US debt could no longer be exchanged for gold.
When I was born, silver was a means of payment. There were one dollar, two dollar, and five dollar Treasury Certificates, not federal reserve notes, that were exchangeable for silver at the price of one dollar per ounce of silver.
In my youth silver was used for transactions less than a dollar.The 10 cent piece known as the dime was silver. The 25 cent piece, or quarter dollar, was silver. So was the 50 cent piece. The penny was copper.
US one dollar bills, whether silver certificates or not, could be exchanged for a silver dollar at a bank, but silver dollars were not used in transactions. They existed to remind us that in the 19th century cowboys were paid 30 silver dollars per month and could survive on it.
For many years as my articles have documented, the US dollar has been able to maintain its value because gold and silver short-selling was able to hold down the rise in the dollar price of  gold and silver.
Unlike equities, it is possible to short the precious metals market without holding collateral against the short. The futures market for gold and silver permits the printing of paper gold and silver in the form of futures contracts that are dumped  in the futures market where the contracts drive down the prices of the precious metals. The peculiarity of the precious metals market is that the price of gold and silver has not been determined in the physical market where it is bought and sold, but in the futures market where it can be shorted by printing claims to gold and silver.
Recently in response to  uncertainty of the value of increasing amounts of paper dollars not backed by anything, the demand for real money in the form of precious metals has overwhelmed the ability to use short-selling to hold down the prices of gold and silver.
As gold and silver prices rose, speculators joined the rise.
Speculators simply see opportunities, and when they had accumulated sufficient gain, they cashed out of the rise, resulting in a sharp fall in gold and silver prices.
However, the underlying situation that raised the dollar prices of real money has not changed, and therefore once speculative profits are removed from gold and silver prices the rise in the value of precious metals will resume.
One possible reason for President Trumpâs desire for Venezuelaâs oil and other assets, Greenland, and assets in Ukraine is to prop up the dollar with real things. Â
As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, the power of the United States rests on the dollarâs role as world reserve currency as this permits the US to pay its bills by issuing debt. China understands the value of having the role 0f being the reserve currency and has announced that it wants this role for the Chinese currency. As China is less indebted, more industrialized, and has a higher gross domestic product than the United States, it is possible that the continuation of the rapid growth of US national debt will result in the US losing the reserve currency role to China.
For several decades, the United States has had a destructive policy of offshoring its manufacturing, thereby weakening its own economy while the US government ran up massive amounts of debt. With the dollar already questionable Washington further undermined the dollar by weaponizing it, thus making it risky for central banks to hold US dollars in the form of Treasury debt as reserves. The seizure of Russian central bank reserves in the amount of $300 billion demonstrated the risk.
With no end of American wars and spending sprees in sight, the US dollarâs role as world reserve currency could well be in jeopardy.
Once this role is lost the dollarâs value in terms of other currencies will fall, and as the United States has become an import-dependent economy, US inflation would explode, further driving down the dollar.
Policy makers should take notice of this threat.
It is a more serious threat to America than is Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Mexico, or Russia in Ukraine and the Arctic.
It is far more important for the United States to protect the value of its currency than for the United States to spend another trillion dollars, clearing Israelâs opponents from the Middle East.
Wei, Daan Struyven, and Samantha Dart explained:
Media coverage highlights growing local community pushbacks against data center developments, posing a slow-down risk to data center power demand growth, along with US power market tightness. While local regulatory reviews could pause data center approvals temporarily, we believe resulting regulations could lead to fewer pushbacks and streamlined development processes by enhancing power reliability and affordability and establishing clear requirements. Ultimately, we believe power tightness remains the primary risk that could slow the US in the AI race with China.
We note that these pushbacks mostly originated from local communities with little exposure to data centers. In such cases, we expect proposed data centers to relocate rather than be canceled in the extreme scenario of a ban, given elevated demand for data centers and AI. This suggests no significant impact on overall future data center power demand growth at the state or national level.
We take Georgia as an example, where we estimate the power market is not tightening and power price increases were below the national average in 2025. There was wave of moratoriums enacted by at least six counties in the past year, putting a pause on new data centers for at least a few months (for example, in Coweta and DeKalb counties). However, most of these counties have no existing data centers, only proposed projects to start in a few years, so we do not expect these moratoriums to impact data center developments in the near future. Going forward, with no clustering advantage within these counties (to stay close to another data center with established data highways), we believe even permanent bans would only result in project relocation to a more welcoming area (potentially the neighboring county) rather than cancellations
In other communities with both regulatory actions and existing data centers, regulatory reviews are often followed by continued and even accelerated growth. Rather than creating red tape, we believe updated regulations could streamline development processes by clearly defining specific requirements for data centers which are easier to follow than addressing diverse local community concerns.
Douglas County, the only one of the six Georgian counties with existing data centers (a top-10% county in the US), activated multiple new data centers in 2H2025 and more are scheduled for later following its 90-day moratorium on data centers starting from March 2025 (Exhibit 1).
Nationally, Loudoun County, Virginia, the world's capital of data centers, started reviewing and updating its data center regulations in 2024 and approved them in 2025, with further regulations under consideration. However, the county continues to lead in data center capacity, with additions in the past year surpassing any other US county and its own previous records
Beyond local ordinances, we also see state-level legislation increasingly focusing on power affordability and reliability, which we do not expect to slow down data center developments. Specifically, we expect more regulations in the next few years aiming to shift more power costs from the public to data centers to incentivize additional power supply and to mitigate power bill increases. These regulations could take various formats, such as the President and several governors' plan for the PJM (Mid-Atlantic) power market, or reductions in data center tax exemption (as seen in bills introduced in Arizona and Maryland). Nevertheless, we expect higher power costs to have limited impact on future data center power demand growth, as power costs are not a primary driver for data center expansion
Conversely, we believe state-level regulations that enhance power affordability and reliability could lead to a more favorable environment for accelerated data center developments, as Texas has started to demonstrate (Exhibit 2).
In June 2025, Texas passed its Senate Bill 6 (SB6) to regulate large electricity consumers, including data centers and cryptocurrency miners. The bill could be a bellwether for other states, with its new requirements for large-load customers to ensure power reliability, including backup generation and potential curtailments during emergencies. We do not expect these requirements to be a dealbreaker for new data centers, given our estimate that the Texas (mainly ERCOT) power market will be softer than other key regional power markets, resulting in a lower probability of curtailments, a key factor for data centers when choosing their location, while backup generation is always a standard component of data centers. In fact, Texas/ERCOT ranked second only to Virginia/PJM in data center capacity and additions across US states/power markets in 2025 (Exhibit 3). Going forward, we continue to consider Texas as one of the most competitive states for new data centers, with both high power availability and low time to client.
Footage and images from the site showed bodies and debris scattered across the mosqueâs carpeted prayer hall, with the wounded lying in the compound gardens, as bystanders called for help and rushed victims to hospitals.
Islamabad deputy commissioner Irfan Memon said the death toll stood at 31, adding that 169 injured people had been brought in for treatment, some in critical condition.
No group claimed responsibility yet; however, conflict monitor ACLED said the attack "bears the hallmarks of the Islamic State," while officials noted that Shia communities, a minority in Pakistan, have repeatedly been targeted in sectarian violence by extremist groups, including the Islamic State and Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan.
Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari condemned the bombing as "a crime against humanity," ordering full medical assistance to be provided for the wounded.Â
Pakistan's Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif, said a thorough investigation is underway and that "those who are responsible must be identified and punished."
The attack unfolded as Islamabad was already under heightened security for a visiting foreign leader, with checkpoints and armed patrols deployed across the capital.Â
While bombings are rare in the capital city, officials say militant violence has surged across the country in recent months.
Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif accused India of sponsoring the attack without presenting evidence, a claim New Delhi did not immediately respond to and has repeatedly denied in the past.
The deadly mosque attack comes after Pakistani security forces launched 
Cardone continued, "2024 Bombardier Global 7500, loaded, 5-year warranty, full programs, only 190 hours, full k-band, and ready for Starlink."
Bitcoin is crashing so I have to say bye to the love of my life. Tough choices. 2024 Bombardier Global 7500, loaded, 5 year warranty, full programs, only 190 hours, full k-band and ready for starlink. Interior is gorgeous. đ˘đ˘đ˘ find it on controller. 
Controller states the jet's tail number is "N724EM" and has approximately 59.8 hours on the airframe. Total landings are about 25, an indication that use of the jet was fairly light.
Cardone's X feed has seen a flood of posts over the last year about a "Bitcoin hybrid" strategy that works as a real-estate syndication, running a built-in Bitcoin accumulation plan inside the same fund.
Bitcoin drawdowns appear to be a stress test for Cardone's hybrid model. One can only imagine what a worst-case scenario, combining a crypto drawdown with tightening liquidity and stress across commercial real estate, would do to that strategy.
Well, for Cardone, it's now NetJets.
The ban applies to both domestic and foreign stablecoin 
The announcement follows the Chinese government approving commercial banks to share interest with clients holding the 
