Site icon Free Life

On the UN’s “Sustainable Development Goals”

By Neil Lock

I went for a walk in the Surrey countryside yesterday. It was beautiful. Many birds were chirping in the undergrowth. Butterflies were fluttering, rabbits were running, pigs were snuffling in their pens, cows were lying in the shade of a tree. The flowers were starting to look a bit scraggly towards the end of a good summer; but most of the harvest is already in, early. I saw a red kite, unusual in my neck of the woods. And as I drove back, a deer sauntered across the road in front of me. It was pleasantly warm; and the local animals obviously enjoy warm weather. Nature was out in full force, and it looked pretty healthy too.

And yet, if you believe the mainstream media and the politicians, not to mention the United Nations, the entire planet is, to use a phrase, going to hell in a handbasket. To the point where, almost seven years ago in September 2015, the UN convened a “Sustainable Development Summit,” attended by more than 150 world leaders. At that meeting, they agreed a document called Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. You can find the text at[[1]].

I had previously only skim-read that document, and thought of it as little more than an earnest-sounding wish-list. But recently, while studying the history of the UN, I decided to examine the agenda more fully. Imagine my horror when I found that it is nothing less than a blueprint for the complete destruction of human civilization as we know it today, and for tyranny by a self-appointed global ruling class over every human being alive. I therefore thought it worth my while to write down and publish my thoughts on the matter.

The Sustainable Development Summit

The agenda was adopted at the UN Sustainable Development Summit on September 25th-27th, 2015. Invitees included: “the United Nations funds and programmes and the specialized agencies of the United Nations system, as well as the Bretton Woods institutions, including the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, the regional development banks, the regional commissions of the United Nations and other relevant stakeholders, including parliamentarians, academia, non-governmental organizations, civil society organizations, major groups and the private sector” ([[2]], paragraph 7). Oh, and one of the keynote speakers was the pope. Just about every faction of the global establishment was there.

This summit was a culmination of a long series of UN resolutions and summits, which took place in (at least) 2000, 2005, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014 and earlier in 2015. All these, in turn, followed on from the 1992 Rio “Earth Summit” on Environment and Development. Which, in its turn, arose out of the 1987 UN report “Our Common Future.” I have given a brief potted history of the green agenda, concentrating on “global warming” and “climate change” in particular, here: [[3]].

Attendees at the summit included then UK prime minister David Cameron, who spoke at the UN plenary on September 28th, 2015: [[4]]. Cameron said: “We need a new global partnership, to ensure that all our policies – on things like tax, trade and transparency – really help to deliver progress for the poorest. The UK will lead the way on this internationally, just as we did in leading this agenda with our G8 Presidency in 2013.”

This is an amazing statement. First, because government has no remit to benefit only the poorest. Any government worth the name must deliver nett benefits for everyone it is supposed to serve. Second, because no government or “global partnership” has any right to interfere with the internal policies of any other country. Most of all, when that country is (or is supposed to be) a democracy. In a democracy, it ought to be the people who determine the direction in which a country moves, not some unaccountable third party. And third, because it was an explicit admission that the UK has been a major leader in the stampede towards the “sustainable development” agenda. If not actually the major leader.

As you can see from the potted history I linked to above, successive UK governments have been seeking to force on us a globalist and green agenda since at least 1992. Indeed, John Major was the first world leader to commit to going to the 1992 Rio summit. As to Labour’s performance, I need only give you a link to the “Tony Blair Institute for Global Change.” [[5]]

Your – and my – supposed “representatives” signed up to this agenda, willingly and even gladly. Yet they did so without allowing us, the people they are supposed to serve, any other choice, or any chance to object. And without consulting us even once in three whole decades! Yet, they like to make out that the UK is a democracy? That’s a total sham.

Anyway, let’s have a look at what they agreed to do to us, shall we?


“This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity… All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan.” What incredible arrogance! To think that they have a right to tell everyone in the world, including all individuals and all democracies, what direction each of us should be taking.

“We are determined to take the bold and transformative steps which are urgently needed to shift the world onto a sustainable and resilient path.” You might be determined, but why should we be? Why should we believe the mainstream media, or anyone else, when they tell us that “transformative steps,” or anything else, are urgently needed, yet never provide any objective, quantitative, checkable evidence that this is so? Where is the proof, beyond reasonable doubt, that the results of these steps would indeed be “sustainable and resilient” as claimed? And where is the honest, quantitative cost-benefit analysis of the effects of these proposals on the human beings affected by them?


“We are determined to end poverty and hunger, in all their forms and dimensions.” Sounds great, doesn’t it? But what have been the effects in practice of the transition to organic agriculture, that has been recently forced on millions of Sri Lankans by their government as part of this “sustainable development” agenda? Harvest failure, collapse of the economy, and 22 per cent of the country’s population now needing food aid. But far from trying to rectify the problems, the Sri Lankan ruling class are doubling down, and brutally assaulting the ordinary people who have been protesting about what has been done to them.

“…and to ensure that all human beings can fulfil their potential in dignity and equality.” Again, sounds great. But how can people fulfil their potential in a modern economy, if they are denied modern necessities such as reliable, affordable energy? As is happening in countries like the UK and Germany, because of persistently bad energy policies over several decades. UK politicians have banned fracking, failed to develop nuclear power, and put in place a strategy of trying to run an industrial economy on “renewable” energies that anyone with half an ounce of common sense can see are simply not up to the task. All these bad policies have been driven by the “sustainable development” agenda.

And how can people possibly live in dignity, if they are victims of predatory taxation, or of other restrictions on their economic freedom? If they are stalked by cameras everywhere they go? Or if their freedom of speech is under serious threat?

Moreover, what kind of “equality” should we be looking for? Should it be a moral equality, where what is right for one to do is right for another to do in similar circumstances, and vice versa – often known as “the rule of law?” Or some kind of “equality” constructed by a ruling class, through which they claim a right to impose on other people agendas that favour them, and their supporters and hangers-on, at the expense of everyone else? I think I know what the proponents of this Agenda mean by “equality.” It’s the second kind of equality they want, not the first.


“We are determined to protect the planet from degradation, including through sustainable consumption and production, sustainably managing its natural resources and taking urgent action on climate change, so that it can support the needs of the present and future generations.” But what is “degradation” is, to a large extent, a subjective matter. For example, when the ancient Athenians quarried large amounts of marble to build the Parthenon in the 5th century BC, did they degrade the planet? To anyone who appreciates Western civilization, the utility and beauty of the Parthenon were big positives, compared to leaving the marble where it was. But an extreme deep green fundamentalist, hostile to Western civilization and human progress, might well think otherwise.

Moreover, I know what “sustainable” means: “able to endure into the future.” And I know that truly sustainable development is dynamic and progressive, like the Industrial Revolution in its heartland of the UK. It was sustainable because, as is natural to us, we kept on improving our techniques and making progress. It was as if, as soon as one advance had been made, a new industry would pop up to make use of it. Which, in its turn, would generate new advances to seed yet further progress. The Industrial Revolution was sustainable in the same way that a bush-fire or a nuclear reaction is sustainable. That is sustainable development.

I also know what a truly sustainable economy is. It is one from which no wealth is lost. Where those, who earn wealth, are able to spend it on goods and services from people like themselves. And to keep it away from politicians, bureaucrats, political activists and the like.

What we suffer under today, though, is exactly the opposite of sustainable. The wealth earned by productive people is stolen by a political class of parasites and pests. The parasites use these resources to enrich themselves and their cronies. The pests go further. They like to use political power to control people, to persecute those they don’t like, and to screw up people’s lives with unnecessary and harmful policies like “taking urgent action on climate change.”

And the “sustainable development” these pests want to force on us is the total opposite of the dynamism and progress of the Industrial Revolution. They want, ultimately, a world on which humans leave no mark. These are the kind of humanity haters, that would have sought to stop the building of the Parthenon, and to leave the marble in the cliff. In reality, they do not want sustainable development, but stasis. And stasis is death.

As to climate change, we don’t need urgent action to stop some alleged change in the global climate. What we need is to create some climate change. We need to change the climate of thought. Away from today’s bad politics, towards a free, dynamic, de-politicized and truly sustainable economy, from which all parasites and pests are excluded.


“We are determined to ensure that all human beings can enjoy prosperous and fulfilling lives and that economic, social and technological progress occurs in harmony with nature.”

Again, good sounding, but completely misses the vital point. Economic, social and technological progress must take place, not in harmony with some idol called “nature,” but in harmony with our nature, human nature. It is in our nature to be creative, to build civilizations, and to take control of, and leave our mark on, our surroundings.

This planet is our planet. Is it not? Any human being worth the name knows, deep down inside, that this planet and its resources are ours to use as we see fit, in order to make a home and garden fit for a civilized species. Is that not our right, as much as lions have a right to catch and kill zebra, and giraffes have a right to pick fruit and leaves off the tops of tall trees?

Yet the promoters of this agenda want to take that right away from us. And to set themselves over us as judge, jury and executioner. But to those that say this is not our planet, I answer: Then it sure as hell isn’t your planet! So, get yourselves off our backs.


“We are determined to foster peaceful, just and inclusive societies which are free from fear and violence.” Yet again, sounds good. But what, exactly, do they mean by “just?” Do they envision a milieu of individual, objective, common-sense justice? Where every individual is treated, over the long run, in the round and as far as practicable, as he or she treats others? Or do they seek some kind of nebulously defined “social justice?” In which those with political power may do on behalf of what they call “society” whatever it suits them to do? Including enriching themselves and their cronies, and doing severe injustices to people who don’t agree with their agendas and schemes? Once again, I think I know the answer. It’s the second kind of justice they want, not the first.

“There can be no sustainable development without peace and no peace without sustainable development.” Whatever “sustainable development” actually means. The official definition is development “which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” But some seem to regard it as more like “economic development that is conducted without depletion of natural resources.” The latter is not far away from saying that no development can ever be sustainable.

The first of their two statements is certainly true, at least if you use the official definition of “sustainable development.” The second is at least 180 degrees away from reality. In truth, there can be no peace when and where there is politics. And, in particular, there can be no lasting peace when there exist political states. “War is the health of the state,” as Randolph Bourne rightly told us. Peace and the state are polar opposites. If the promoters of this agenda really do want, as they claim later on, to “build a better future for all people,” then getting rid of politics and political states has to be a big part of the way forward. Does it not?


“We are determined to mobilize the means required to implement this Agenda through a revitalised Global Partnership for Sustainable Development.” Mumbo-jumbo takes over here. “Global Partnership for Sustainable Development,” what the hell is that? It seems to mean “a self-appointed élite group that wants to use this agenda to take control over the world.”

There is a stench of collectivism, of top-down command and control, about this whole Agenda. The agenda promoters seem to have let their arrogance run away with them to such an extent, that they are looking simply to do all this stuff, regardless of the consequences to the people impacted by it. They are behaving like psychopathic criminals. Recklessly, dishonestly, and without any empathy or remorse towards their victims.

Some people like to call the world-view, that leads individuals to promote or support this agenda and similar policies, “cultural Marxism.” For me, though, this agenda has little if anything to do with Marxism. It does not align with the Marxist view that ordinary working people “have nothing to lose but their chains.” Quite the opposite, in fact. The main thrust of the agenda is a global power grab by an international élite of the rich and powerful, at the expense of ordinary people. This agenda is as far-right and “conservative” as you can get.

I have come to the conclusion that the world-view of those peddling this UN agenda is a globalist, feminist form of fascism. In which, “the Fatherland” is replaced by “Mother Earth,” and the planet is to be worshipped as fascists worship the nation. In which, in consonance with the gender change from male to female, women are to be regarded as superior to men.  And in which everyone and everything is to be “mobilized” in support of the agenda of “sustainable development.”

There are more parallels with fascism, too. Like the early fascists, the promoters and supporters of the agenda see civilization as in a crisis, which only massive and urgent action towards their chosen goals can solve. Like fascists, they desire economic and social regimentation, and have no concern at all for individual human beings. Like fascists, they are élitist. And they maintain a constant barrage of propaganda in every kind of media, and seek to suppress dissenting voices.


There is so much to pick up on here, that I’ll confine myself to a few of the lowest low-lights.

§2: “On behalf of the peoples we serve, we have adopted a historic decision on a comprehensive, far-reaching and people-centred set of universal and transformative Goals and targets. We commit ourselves to working tirelessly for the full implementation of this Agenda by 2030.” But wait a moment! I have never even been consulted about any of this! Who the hell are these arrogant monkeys that claim a right to set “goals” or “targets” for me? Only one individual has any right to set goals or targets for my life. And that individual is me.

I have never had any chance to say No to the UN and its agendas, or to the fascistic world they are seeking to create. Furthermore, having been a non-voter at every UK general election from 1992 onwards, I have never authorized any politician, or anyone else, to act on my behalf with regard to any such scheme. And I will never commit to “working tirelessly for the full implementation of this Agenda” or any other political scheme. Now get off my back, monkeys, and get back in your box. Permanently.

§4: “As we embark on this great collective journey, we pledge that no one will be left behind.” That sounds uncomfortably like “you’re going to be forced to do all this, whether you like it or not.”

§7-9: “In these Goals and targets, we are setting out a supremely ambitious and transformational vision.” I can agree that some of the things they put forward – like access for everyone to affordable and reliable energy and sufficient, clean water – are worth working towards. But the package as a whole comes over as utopian mumbo-jumbo.

§11-13: “We reaffirm the outcomes of all major UN conferences and summits which have laid a solid foundation for sustainable development and have helped to shape the new Agenda.” Followed by a whole list of things the UN has agreed from 1992 onwards, none of which I have ever been consulted on, and virtually all of which I would have opposed with all my strength, had I had any opportunity to.

§14: “The survival of many societies, and of the biological support systems of the planet, is at risk.” Well, that’s not what the evidence of my senses told me when I was out on my walk. As far as I can work it out, pretty much all the problems in the world today are caused by politics of one kind of another. Get rid of politics, and the world will be a far better place.

§18: “We reaffirm that every State has, and shall freely exercise, full permanent sovereignty over all its wealth, natural resources and economic activity.” Also §38: “We reaffirm, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the need to respect the territorial integrity and political independence of States.” This seems to be a bit of a walk back from the “global government” or “world federation” idea, proposed by Albert Einstein among others, and still popular with many internationalists. It looks as if the UN have decided to accommodate the national politicians’ desire to continue using the “Westphalian” nation state as a tool to enrich themselves and their cronies, and to hurt those they don’t like.

§51. “Children and young women and men are critical agents of change and will find in the new Goals a platform to channel their infinite capacities for activism into the creation of a better world.” And §37, “Sport is also an important enabler of sustainable development.” Hmmm… Hitler Youth, anyone?

Sustainable Development Goals

Goal 1: “End poverty in all its forms everywhere.” A fine sounding idea. But ask yourself: when and where the inhabitants of countries have managed to lift themselves out of poverty in the past, how did they do it? Through industry and business, as exemplified by the Industrial Revolution. And this could only happen where the governments of the time allowed it to happen, by at least tacitly encouraging free enterprise, and by not taking so much of the profits in taxes as to stifle progress.

Most third world countries today, though, are run by corrupt cliques of parasites and worse, dedicated primarily to their own profit. The Rajapaksa dynasty in Sri Lanka is a case in point. There is an obvious way to allow people in the third world to haul themselves out of poverty; just get rid of the parasites and pests, and let the ordinary people have common-sense justice and full economic freedom! But this, of course, is not something which the corrupt and parasitic élites can ever allow to happen. That is the root cause of third world poverty.

And when you look at the more detailed list of “targets” that lies beneath this goal, it appears that the plan is not to make ordinary people more productive and prosperous, but to erect more and more schemes of political re-distribution. That will only make poverty worse, by disheartening and dis-engaging the most skilled and industrious people.

Goal 2: “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.” But these goals are not compatible with each other! As shown by recent events in the Netherlands, the second biggest food exporter in the world. In the name of reducing nitrogen emissions to promote “biodiversity” and “sustainable agriculture,” farmers are threatened with being forced to cull a large proportion of their livestock. Which will not only lower Dutch food exports and harm the Dutch economy as a whole, but also reduce food security in importing countries such as the UK. On top of that, the UK government is now offering incentives to farmers to retire early. And across the pond in Canada, government seems to be limbering up to hit the farmers with a double whammy; mandating huge emissions reductions, and slapping a big tax on import of fertilizers.

It’s hard to avoid the thought that reducing food security is part of the élites’ master-plan. But there’s more. If small farmers, for whatever reason, sell up and retire from farming, who will buy their prime real estate? And what will the buyers do with it? We’ll have to follow the money trail to find out cui bono. Not since the Enclosures of Tudor times has there been such a land-grab.

As to nutrition, any kind of centralized scheme to “improve nutrition” will become nothing but a meddler’s charter. For different people have different needs and tastes, and everyone gets to know over time what works for them and what doesn’t. Those, who know what works for them, will not take kindly to being forced to change their diet!

Goal 3: “Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.” Who could be against that? But in the “targets,” mixed in with sensible ideas like reducing infant mortality, we find: “Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including narcotic drug abuse and harmful use of alcohol.” “By 2020, halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents.” (In just five years? Dream on.) Moreover: “Strengthen the implementation of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in all countries, as appropriate.” These are yet more excuses for restricting our freedoms and pleasures, and meddling more and more in everyone’s lives. No wonder that we are now mired in a culture of “safety at any cost,” that subjects us to ever more and tighter restrictions, while spying on us to catch us out in the smallest violation.

But then Cameron did promise, in that speech in 2015, to “reduce preventable deaths to zero.” How’s that been going, Dave, for example with those airstrikes you ordered in Syria, just months after that speech?

Goal 4: “Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.” Again, who would not want such things? But the targets list sounds like little more than a recipe for increasing centralized control over education. And there is no mention at all of those whose responsibility it is to provide their children with education, and whose right it is to decide how best to educate them. The words “parent” and “parents” are entirely missing from the document!

Goal 5: “Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.” The agenda here is explicitly sexist. They say, for example, “Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres,” where they could far better have said, “Eliminate all forms of aggressive violence against all human beings.”

Myself, I take the view that it shouldn’t matter who an individual is, only how that individual behaves. Under this view, discriminating against people merely because of their gender is simply silly and wrong. None of this “gender equality” crapola is necessary.

Goal 6: “Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.” I can agree with the desire for everyone to have access to affordable and hygienic water supplies. But they slipped in at least one curve-ball, too. “By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes.” That sounds like yet another meddler’s charter, and it may explain why there have been so many ructions in the USA over their “clean water rule.” “Minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials” could easily be used as an excuse for meddling, too.

Goal 7: “Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.” Sounds marvellous! But when you look at the “targets,” you see an obvious contradiction between “By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services” and “By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.” The problem is, that renewable energy isn’t reliable! Its affordability over its entire life cycle is very dubious too, particularly once you take into account the need to provide back-up energy sources when wind and solar aren’t working.

Goal 8: “Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all.” If I believed they were sincere, I could actually agree with this one! Including “encourage the formalization and growth of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises.”

The UK government, however, surely won’t be on board on this. Otherwise, why would they have ruined my career as a one-man enterprise with a bad tax law called IR35? Indeed, governments in the last few decades have steadily increased harassment of the “little people” like me. It seems that they have a deep-seated hatred of the individual, and of people who want to be independent. I think it no accident that the people worst hit by COVID restrictions were small shopkeepers and other small business people. Or that they recently targeted lorry drivers with that same bad law IR35, precipitating a supply chain crisis.

For decades now, the UK government have hugely favoured big business over small. With the result that the politically well connected get richer, and the politically poor get poorer.

Goal 9: “Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation.” Again, sounds good. But then, “By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable.” Do they not understand that large industrial projects – power plants, for example – take many years to build and to get working? And that is once the planning phase, which can also take years, is complete? Doing this by 2030 looks to me like pie in the sky, powered by unicorn farts.

Goal 10: “Reduce inequality within and among countries.” “Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality.” This is a recipe for government micro-management of everything, and the total destruction of economic freedom. We already know that such a system can never work for the people, most of all for the “little people.” In fact, it will make economic inequality worse.

Top-down economic control failed in the Soviet Union. Back in the 1820s, it failed even in the voluntary socialist community at New Harmony, Indiana. It didn’t work in fascist Italy, either. As to the nazi economy… all I’ll say is, read up about it.

Goal 11: “Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.” “By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries.” If I read that right, it means “force us all into cities.” Where we can enjoy “safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport.” And not much else. No, thanks.

Goal 12: “Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.” “Implement the 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production, all countries taking action, with developed countries taking the lead.” Who the hell are these arrogant sods, that want to set a “10-year framework of programmes” for people in a supposed democracy, without ever giving us the chance to object or even to comment? And there’s more. “By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels.” “Substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse.” These, also, will provide ample opportunities for the state to spy on us and to meddle with our lives.

Goal 13: “Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.” That warlike metaphor, “combat climate change,” tells a lot. As does a quote from the David Cameron speech I referenced above: “There can be no attack on poverty without an assault on climate change.” Yes, they like to use militaristic language. They really are like fascists!

That climate change caused by human activities has never been proven to be a significant problem for the planet, or indeed to be a problem at all, is a truth not (yet) understood by enough people. But it is a truth, nonetheless. To try to prevent people realizing this, virtually all the mainstream media, and most of all the BBC, pump out torrents of lies, misinformation and fear on the subject. The Met Office is in on it, too. As to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is supposed to review and report on the science of the matter, it’s a UN organization.

Further, as I recounted in my essay linked earlier, government has gone so far as to re-write and pervert the precautionary principle into a tool for tyranny, and to suppress any possibility of doing objective cost-benefit analysis on anything involving carbon dioxide emissions. But the reality is that, just as no-one is actually sure how much impact various human activities have on the climate, so no-one is actually sure what would be the effect on the climate of policies restricting these human activities. It could easily be that even deep cuts in human emissions of greenhouse gases could turn out to have no effect at all on the climate. If that were to be so, all the sacrifices people were forced to make would have been in vain.

Yet, this does not stop the promoters of the green agenda from pushing ahead with the recklessness, arrogance and dishonesty so characteristic of them, and making political laws to “combat” climate change. And what policies do they propose to fix the non-problem of alleged climate change? Ones that enable them to destroy our prosperity and our freedoms. Up to and including the destruction of human industrial civilization.

And who will benefit from such policies? Exactly the cabal, including the World Economic Forum and World Bank, multinational corporations, political governments and the UN, that are pushing their wet dream of “Global Redesign,” “Great Reset,” and “sustainable development.” As the saying goes, follow the money.

Goal 14: “Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.” Again, sounds good. But among much else, they want: “By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.” Another meddler’s charter.

Goal 15: “Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.” And: “Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species.” But “degradation” is a subjective thing. And to “halt” biodiversity loss would be a very tall order indeed. It would, in essence, require the Earth and everything on it, human influenced or not, to remain unchanged for ever. That world-view is an extreme, ultra-conservative one. And moreover, it isn’t how nature works.

And all this comes at an enormous cost to human beings. If we are to be expected to preserve the natural habitat for animals, should we not also expect our own natural habitat to be preserved? That is, the peace, justice and freedom which we need to fulfil ourselves, and the free market and free trade which must underpin a prosperous economy? And yet, this Agenda seeks to take away our habitat from us, and to subject us to the rule of fascist-style meddlers.

Goal 16: “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.” Apart from the dubious reference to “sustainable development,” that seems fine at first reading. And the list of “targets” lists several, with which I can actively agree! “Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms.” “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.” “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.”

But ask yourself: How do the promoters, supporters and implementors of this Agenda – and the UK government in particular – behave towards us? Do they behave with transparency? No. Are they free from corruption? No. Do they accept accountability when things go wrong? No. Are their decision-making processes responsive, or participatory, or inclusive of those of us who prefer human freedom to political nonsense? Not a chance. Such dishonesty and hypocrisy are endemic among political classes everywhere.

Goal 17: “Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.” “Strengthen domestic resource mobilization… to improve domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collection.” So, now we know (if we didn’t before) what the “digital ID” and “central bank digital currency” schemes being touted are really for. We are to be treated as no more than “resources” to be taxed and “mobilized” at their will. There’s another word for that: slaves.

But mainly, this “goal” comes over as a rallying cry for those with vested interests in the agenda. Bankers and other “money men.” Big Academe and Green Tech. National politicians. “Stakeholders,” Big Business, Big Tech. Government bureaucracies, quangos, “public-private initiatives,” and quaintly named “civil society organizations.” And, of course, the mainstream media, their propaganda arm. With globalist organizations like the World Bank, World Economic Forum and International Monetary Fund in there too. And the UN and its agencies pulling the strings from the top.

It’s unstated, but obvious, that we the “little people” will be right at the bottom. Far poorer than we deserve to be, and treated as serfs or slaves. If, of course, they allow us to live at all. And with our rights, freedoms and prosperity having been stolen from us by the same vested interests that will have handsomely profited from the agenda.

What isn’t in there

One of the remarkable things about this Agenda is the words which you would expect ought to be in it, but aren’t. Or, at least, are found only a very few times. I already mentioned the complete absence of the word “parent” or “parents.” To talk about education without using that word at least once is… revealing.

The word “freedom” or “freedoms,” to give another example, occurs just three times. In the second sentence of the Preamble, there is a reference to “in larger freedom,” which is mealy-mouthed to say the least. There is a reference to “freedoms” in §19 as part of a very brief nod to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And one of the “targets” of Goal 16 says that governments should “protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.” A bit of a cop-out, no? No, freedom for human beings is not one of the things this Agenda is about.

The word “rights” does occur 23 times, 14 of them as “human rights.” As a comparison, “women” appears 31 times and “men” 12. “Justice” gets only six mentions, while “equality” gets 18, two-thirds of them as “gender equality.” The word “democracy” occurs just once, where it is listed as something “essential for sustainable development.” And “rule of law” gets four mentions only, one of them in the same place as “democracy.” So, these are not important concepts in this agenda. Certainly not compared to “sustainable,” which gets 160 mentions, 91 of them as “sustainable development.”

There is no doubt in my mind, that those that promote this agenda have no respect at all for us human beings, or for our rights or freedoms. The saccharine coating of their words disguises a raging desire to use us as objects for their profit, and to hit and to hurt us if we step out of line in any way.

The promoters and supporters of the “sustainable development” agenda are parasites, or pests, or both. They are traitors to human civilization. They are our enemies, not our friends. We human beings must push back against them. And the first step in the push-back must be for people to recognize them as the parasites and pests they are.

To sum up






Exit mobile version