You can quote several words to match them as a full term:
"some text to search"
otherwise, the single words will be understood as distinct search terms.
ANY of the entered words would match

What’s So Bad About World Rule?

The goals of the UN’s sustainable development agenda are rather pie-in-the-sky targets.

What’s So Bad About World Rule?

But who in their right mind would give them a thumbs down if there was reason to believe they could be achieved?

Here they are if you are not familiar with them:

  1. No poverty.
  2. Zero hunger.
  3. Good health and well-being.
  4. Quality education.
  5. Gender equality.
  6. Clean water and sanitation.
  7. Affordable and clean energy.
  8. Decent work and economic growth.
  9. Industry, innovation, and infrastructure.
  10. Reduced inequalities.
  11. Sustainable cities and communities.
  12. Responsible consumption and production.
  13. Climate action.
  14. Life below water.
  15. Life on land.
  16. Peace, justice and strong institutions
  17. Partnerships for the goals.

Some of these make sense (although all are implausible.) Some of them make no sense at all, although that could be the fault of the effort to make nice, neat soundbites. If you go to the UN’s website, they attempt to explain them in a bit more detail. But, their “detail” is still ambiguous and odd, just picking a goal at random, say, “14-Life below water,” the detail they give is:

Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.”

What exactly does that mean?

I am sure they have ideas. They list targets, projects, etc. in their effort to achieve the goal, but again, much of this seems, at least to me, to be “pie in the sky” stuff.

So what? Many people might ask.

“Isn’t it good to have lofty goals, if they are good goals, and work toward them?” Well, in a word, yes. But that isn’t how this is working.

First of all, the goals are too lofty and unreasonable. The target is too narrow, giving much too much possibility of missing it after firing off dozens of arrows toward it. Each of the arrows fired costs money and requires personal sacrifices.

Some might say the goals are too broad, and in a certain perspective, they are. The basic concept, for example, of “no poverty” is broad, but the specific perspective begs the question: When do you know when you’ve hit the target? What does it mean to eliminate poverty? And who defines that? After throwing billions at this goal, how do you measure the progress? And how do you know what precisely to spend the billions on?

Take goal #13, “Climate action.” What exactly does that mean? And what does action look like, and how does a particular action meet the goal?

It all sounds too good to be true, doesn’t it? That’s just the problem. The goals are presented as if we are a 10-year-old kid. And we just say “yes” to whatever action is taken in attempting to achieve them. If we ever ask why, we are told, “Oh, what we have done to you (limit freedom, demand compliance, take away resources, etc.) was done to meet goal #1,” or #2, or #16, or whatever. And we nod and sheepishly say, “ok.”

Nearly anything they do can fit into one of these goals as the reason for doing it. They can limit all freedoms, reduce our quality of life in a myriad of ways, even kill us, and they will say, “Oh, that’s so we can accomplish goal #6” (fill in whatever number you like). And we will say, “Oh, ok, anything for clean water, anything for no poverty, anything for a healthier life, anything for more equality.” We do this and have been doing it, with no regard to the feasibility, the logic, the risk to benefit, or even the relevance of the action to the goal.

I think of the old Saturday Night Live bit with Jon Lovitz’s liar, “‘You can’t drive 20 miles to see your dying mother. We are insisting on this so that we can control your carbon footprint and thus have a sustainable climate,’ yeah, that’s right, that’s the ticket!” Meanwhile, the actual liar is flying his or her private jet all over the world, making a larger carbon footprint in a year than what you will even come close to making in your lifetime.

So, how do you think these goals can be accomplished?

Well, the first thing you might realize is that pretty much everyone and every country on the planet has to be on board with it. This means us rich folks (relatively speaking) as well as all the poor folks, have to say, “Yes, bring it on.” It is the poor folks who suffer the most if the goals are not achieved—food, clean water, poverty—most of these things don’t apply to most of us.

So, who then do you think will be paying for bringing the poor folks up to a higher standard, and thus bringing the rest of us down to a lower standard? Hmmm. “Hey, it’s ok! I’m down for that!” Sure, you are. Most of us lose our cookies if we have to wait in line for ten minutes at the bank, or if the grocery store runs out of peaches. No one really has a grasp on what sacrifices individually it will take to even out the playing field. This is a concept the bleeding heart liberal rarely understands.

So, if it is true that we all must be on board, then the world has to have some sort of global control, and that global control has to have a lot of power to force us, if necessary, to do what is right by the rest of the world. Obviously, that is meeting the 17 Sustainable Development goals. Therefore, a new central global government must be established, and that government must have full power over everyone and every country. That government cannot be an elected government because that would make the whole thing quite messy, and nothing would ever get done.

As Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada recently said, “There’s a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say, ‘We need to go green . . . we need to start investing in solar.’” That sounds like a reasonable comment to make if you are a wanna-be dictator yourself and want to stay in line with the UN’s agenda.

But is it reasonable for us? Sure, too many people are saying it’s worth it to go communist/dictatorship if it is to meet the Sustainable Development goals. I mean, really, if we don’t, the world will go to hell in a handbasket, and not only will we all die, the planet and all the other animals on it will die as well. So, bring on communism and dictatorship and totalitarianism. If that is what it takes, we all must buckle up and do what’s right for humanity!”

A rather ignorant statement. And maybe most people would not actually say this with words. But their actions, their compliance, and their indifference say it loud and clear. And if people actually do say this, or even think it, they are woefully uninformed. Until one lives in a totalitarian or communist country, one cannot possibly know fully what it is like. It isn’t just being “without things,” it is being forced to live without a soul. The human spirit is completely crushed, and there feels to be no way out from under such stifling oppression.

There is one other thing I am not telling you. And I hesitate to mention it, but I know most of my readers already know what it is. It is a biggie, and no sheep-like person believes it. In fact, if you believe this, you can’t be a sheep, it is that big.

Here it is: The UN Sustainable Development program is a lie. It is all a ploy to get people malleable enough that they will comply with anything, and give up everything, for what they believe is a set of goals designed for the greater good. Only the goals are not real, and no one is actually trying to achieve them. It is presented as a cheese that lures us into the trap, and once in and dedicated to the program, the spring is sprung and we are either dead or mercilessly captured.

How do I know this? Well, it doesn’t take too much brain power to see it. Just read the goals, do they sound reasonable and realistic? And look at the people attempting to attain them. Take Trudeau’s comment as one singular example. Who do you think would be the head of a Chinese-style dictatorship in Canada? Who do you think will not be sacrificing much, if anything, to accomplish that style of governance? And keep in mind that all of this is being planned by huge institutions that are self-created with no elected officials calling the shots. How is that sustainable? —by our agreement, our ignorance, and our blindness, that’s how.

Let’s make our own goals that work for all of us.


If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

Read the full article at the original website


Subscribe to The Article Feed

Don’t miss out on the latest articles. Sign up now to get access to the library of members-only articles.