20

I stumbled upon this website: https://unnwo.org/.

The United Nations New World Order Project is a global, high-level initiative founded in 2008 to advance a new economic paradigm, a new political order, and more broadly, a new world order for humankind, which achieves the UN’s Global Goals for Sustainable Development by 2030, and the happiness, well-being, and freedom of all life on Earth by 2050.

It appears to be branded like a United Nations web-site, but the contents sound a bit like conspiracy fodder. The first time the Wayback Machine crawled it was in 2018 (its copyright is from 2009-2020, supposedly), but it hasn't been taken down in these two years, so my doubts remain.

Is this website affiliated with the United Nations?

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
John Dumancic
  • 324
  • 1
  • 3
  • 8
  • 5
    I'll note that the site doesn't appear to explicitly claim that it's associated with the UN, though it certainly seeks to give that impression. Of the stated "initiatives", "United Nations International Day of Happiness" and "Sustainable Development Goals" appear to be legit UN programs, but "Happytalism" doesn't. – Daniel R Hicks Jun 01 '20 at 00:19
  • 1
    @Oddthinking Please don't invalidate answers in edits. Whilst your edit is good as it's likely what Tesseract meant to say. The way you've gone about it causes a disconnect for users coming to the post. Additionally I'm happy I'm not an answerer here, as constant fear that my content can become invalid because a mod deems it so is not exactly desirable. –  Jun 02 '20 at 00:07
  • Probably a prank, but for the past 10+ years, typing illuminati backwards “itanimulli” redirects to the NSA website. –  Jun 02 '20 at 06:09
  • 1
    @DanielRHicks: they don't claim it but they use the name, the color scheme and the logo of the United Nations. They clearly want to be associated with the UN in the eyes of the casual reader. – Taladris Jun 02 '20 at 10:29
  • @JessiePierce: Let's [take it to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/108806/discussion-on-question-by-tesseract-is-this-united-nations-new-world-order-web). – Oddthinking Jun 02 '20 at 20:35
  • Just an observation: whenever you think you've deciphered the code/found the aliens/located the nexus/isolated the source of the killer plague virus (so very today-ish)/unmasked the New World Order/etc/etc/etc, think again. If these people/critters/blah-blah were half as well hidden/masked/whatever as they're supposed to be then you/me/etc won't be finding them. You're not James Bond. You're not even Joe Sixpak. And the aliens/nexus/New World Order/blah? They live in your head - and that's the only place they can be found. Sorry... – Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні Jun 03 '20 at 17:59
  • Does a random fake website count as "notable claim"? – henning Jun 03 '20 at 19:08

3 Answers3

58

According to a press briefing published on the official un.org, the website is not associated with the UN:

**Unaffiliated Website

And just to note that over the weekend, I’ve been receiving a lot of questions from different journalists about a website for a something called the United Nations New World Order project. I just want to state and say this very clearly that this project and website is in no way sanctioned by the United Nations.

Community
  • 1
tim
  • 51,356
  • 19
  • 207
  • 177
  • Huh, UN uses un.org? And here I was prepared to say that any website *actually* run by the UN would have a `.int` domain, as it should :-P – hobbs Jun 01 '20 at 19:20
  • 11
    @hobbs Why should it? I don't disagree `.int` is a fitting TLD, but so is `.org` – TCooper Jun 01 '20 at 21:42
  • 3
    @hobbs https://www.imf.org https://www.worldbank.org https://www.oecd.org https://www.ilo.org https://en.unesco.org https://unctad.org – Henry Jun 02 '20 at 09:15
  • 2
    Can't they order it to be taken down, because it's infringing copyright (using their logo, people mistaking it to be them) or some other legal cause? – vsz Jun 02 '20 at 13:03
  • as far as I know .int is fairly new - it got introduced around 2016 together with other new top-level domain identifiers. While the UN's website is definitely older than the new top-level domain identifiers - thus they keep their .org to not getting mixed up with .gov – eagle275 Jun 02 '20 at 15:14
  • 3
    @eagle275 I thought so too, but it [seems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.int) that it was introduced in '88, while un.org was registered in '95. – tim Jun 02 '20 at 15:19
  • @tim Yeah, I noticed that, too. I'm guessing they just went with .org because it's more well-known. Relatively few people likely know of .int today, let alone in 1995. – reirab Jun 02 '20 at 15:46
  • @hobbs .. heck its even in the name .. "united nations ORGANIZATION" .. so .org is quite obvious - should have had that thought yesterday;-) – eagle275 Jun 03 '20 at 07:24
  • Some UN organizations *do* use .int: https://unfccc.int/ https://unccd.int/ – ANeves Jun 03 '20 at 11:26
  • @reirab, tim: on the contrary, I suspect that it has nothing to do with .org being better known and that un.org was in fact registered before .int was invented. I don't think that 1995 registration of un.org is the original one. The current registration for nato.int is from 1997, but it's easy to find evidence that nato.int was in use from the late 1980s, since .int was introduced in part to address NATO's concerns. – phoog Jul 06 '20 at 04:23
49

(This answers addresses the original question, which was more focused on whether the site was legitimate or was just made to be fodder for conspiracy theories. The current version focuses on whether it is affiliated with the UN, and see tim's answer for a better answer to that using the official word from the UN)

It's a real website and appears to be owned by a lobbyist/activist group which is focused on getting the UN to work on certain topics, but it is not directly associated with the UN itself.

According to the WHOIS database entry for unnwo.org, the site was created in Oct. 2018 and is registered to Jayme Illien of Illien Global Public Benefit Corporation. Illien himself doesn't seem to have a convenient Wikipedia page to link, but here's his Twitter page.

Although it's possible that someone not associated with Illien registered the domain, the content and style of unnwo.org seems to line up with the corporation's website, namely a focus on getting the UN to focus on happiness, and Illien's Twitter feed once referenced a 'new world order' initiative. However, after a quick look there doesn't seem to be any specific mention of the "United Nations New World Order Project" on the company's website, nor a reference to unnwo.org on his Twitter feed, so it's still possible that the website is not associated with Jayme Illien or his company.

Regardless of whether unnwo.org is owned by Illien or someone pretending to be him, it is almost certainly not a UN website. I haven't found any actual claim by Jayme Illien to be employed by the UN, nor anywhere on Illien Global Public Benefit Corporation's website saying they were founded/are controlled by the UN. Further, none of the terms 'Illien', 'New World Order Project', or 'New Economic Paradigm Project' seem to appear on quick looks through the UN's main website, https://www.un.org. While not an exhaustive search by any means, if unnwo.org was an actual UN website or Illien a employee of the UN then such a search should have returned something.

And as a final, if minor, piece of evidence, unnwo.org uses the wrong shade of blue: the line above the 'Initiatives' header uses #4e5ed0, rather than #009edb as defined in the UN's style guide.

Giter
  • 11,405
  • 8
  • 46
  • 46
  • 1
    There is also an odd phrase at the end of the "about" statement: *freedom of all life on Earth by 2050*, and a technical fault with the HTML markup which changes the font part-way through the word 'freedom'. – Weather Vane Jun 01 '20 at 08:16
  • 3
    "mainly because nobody seems to claiming it is". I think the use of "United Nations" in the title, use of the UN logo, (and light blue, and wreath) is a pretty clear claim that UNNWO and UNIDOH are part of the United Nations. – Oddthinking Jun 01 '20 at 11:58
  • If you are trying to determine the organisation behind it, this [press release](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/united-nations-nwo-unnwo-launches-110000578.html) may help, or may just kick the can down the road. It claims it was launched by UNIDOHappiness - but that just begs the question - is UNIDOHappiness affiliated with the UN. It claims Ndaba Mandela is a co-founder; his [twitter acccount doesn't mention it](https://twitter.com/NdabaMandela). – Oddthinking Jun 01 '20 at 12:09
  • 5
    This answer would be clearer with a "No." at the top. – user2357112 Jun 01 '20 at 17:26
  • 3
    @user2357112supportsMonica this answer was posted before the question was edited to ask if it was affiliated with the UN. Before it just asked if it was a real website (to which the answer is yes, it's a real website.) – Cave Johnson Jun 01 '20 at 19:53
  • @user2357112supportsMonica: I edited in a note at the top, but essentially the original question focused on whether the website was legitimate (vs. just made to fuel conspiracies), to which the answer was "yes, it's owned by an earnest activist". The current version of the question focuses more on it's affiliation to the UN, which [tim's answer](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/47722/is-this-united-nations-new-world-order-website-affiliated-with-the-united-nati/47726#47726) completely covers. – Giter Jun 01 '20 at 22:16
  • I also noticed that the unnwo.org site's SSL certificate is issued by LetsEncrypt. Nothing wrong with that, but it is not the same as the certificate for un.org which suggests they were not set up by the same IT team. – Matt Holland Jun 01 '20 at 23:47
  • 2
    But why would they use a word that conspiracy theorists use? They can't be unaware of how it is used. How can it not be by conspiracy theorists themselves, pretending to be someone else? *[New World Order (conspiracy theory)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory))*. – Peter Mortensen Jun 01 '20 at 23:57
  • It still seems quite unclear to me that the website is even really affiliated with Illien or his organization as opposed to trolling conspiracy theorists. Calling it "United Nations New World Order" would almost certainly be a trademark violation or similar if it were not actually at least supported by the UN, which, as tim's answer points out, the UN clearly states that it is not. – reirab Jun 02 '20 at 00:07
  • Also, the UN is very clear [on its real website](https://shop.un.org/rights-permissions#:~:text=United%20Nations%20emblem,-Use%20and%20display&text=You%20may%20not%20use%20any,United%20Nation's%20prior%20written%20consent.) that you can't use the UN logo (which this site does) without permission. It seems rather unlikely that Illien's real group would use it without permission. Incidentally, I sent a message to GoDaddy's abuse e-mail address a few days ago requesting that they look into whether the registrant information for this domain is legit. We'll see if they do anything. – reirab Jun 02 '20 at 00:08
  • 2
    I would like to remind people that the term [New World Order](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order) has a number of meanings, and not all are based on conspiracy theories. I would hazard a guess (without evidence) that this usage is intended to be along the lines of [its usage in the sacred texts of the Baháʼí Faith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(Bah%C3%A1%CA%BC%C3%AD)) – Oddthinking Jun 02 '20 at 20:34
  • @Oddthinking It's possible, but given that they're calling it "United Nations New World Order" and specifically claiming ties to Illien Global (also the subject of many of the same conspiracy theories,) I'd guess it's more likely to be referencing (possibly trolling) the conspiracy theories than the Baha'i concept. I'm not sure how common it is in Australia, but the UN plays a pretty central role in conspiracy theory quackery in the U.S., especially the NWO stuff. Also, if this were legit and not trolling, it seems rather unlikely that they'd be using the UN name and logo without permission. – reirab Jun 03 '20 at 04:56
  • @reirab: I am happy to bow to your knowledge here. I am not familiar with Illien Global. – Oddthinking Jun 03 '20 at 05:54
8

The website has now been stripped of the UN logo and most of the content it had when this question was posted. Additionally, the copyright notice at the bottom has changed from "United Nations New World Order Project" to just "New World Order Project."

The UN logo that previously appeared in the site header has now been replaced by this MS Paint-quality smiley face, whose URL is:

https://unnwo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Screen-Shot-2020-06-08-at-1.53.39-AM.png

unnwo.org screenshot from 6-29-2020
Screenshot of unnwo.org on June 29, 2020

It seems that they've now been forced to remove the United Nations trademarks from their site. If the filename is an indication, it looks like they hastily removed the UN marks around June 8.

The previous claims in the WHOIS registration info that this site was owned by Illien Global have been removed and it is now listed as registered to "DomainsByProxy.com", which is a private registration service (that is, one that allows you to register a domain name without having your contact information available publicly on the WHOIS servers.)

Registry Registrant ID: CR342960662
Registrant Name: Registration Private
Registrant Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Registrant Street: DomainsByProxy.com
Registrant Street: 14455 N. Hayden Road
Registrant City: Scottsdale
Registrant State/Province: Arizona
Registrant Postal Code: 85260
Registrant Country: US

So, especially when combined with the U.N.'s denial that the site was in any way affiliated with the UN mentioned in tim's answer and the unlikelihood that a legitimate advocacy organization would infringe on the UN's trademarks, it seems pretty clear that this site (and the associated sites it linked to) wasn't the site of any sort of legitimate advocacy organization or UN initiative.

In all likelihood, the site was set up either to promote anti-UN/New World Order conspiracy theories or to troll those who subscribe to those theories.

reirab
  • 4,095
  • 20
  • 25