Adding a Touch of Nuance to the UN Sustainable Development Goals
Many people are freaking out over the apparent support for the UN Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs) outlined by the BRICS+ group in their recent Declaration.
While I delt with this in some detail in ‘The UN Charter vs Rules Based International Order’ published on September 5th, there are some considerations which I did not share in that location which I would like to briefly touch on today.
“UNSDGs = Pure Evil”… or is this too simplistic?
Here's what people need to keep in mind before jumping into the "proof that everyone is controlled opposition" bandwagon:
First: The UN Sustainable Development Goals are wildly general and open to massive interpretation and is made up of 17 points.
Of course the agenda itself emerged un-naturally with an evil intention in the 1990s to promote a new set of dark age values for a Great Reset system that desires global depopulation, stupidification and de-industrialization. However, since the oligarchy can't say 'we want to kill everyone and restore feudalism'... they had to use generic broad, generic rosy language with uber-vague goals that are:
1) 'end poverty', 2) 'no hunger', 3) 'good health/wellbeing', 4) 'quality education', 5) 'gender equality', 6) clean water/sanitation, 7) affordable clean energy, 8) decent work/economic growth, 9) industry-innovation-infrastructure, 10) reduced inequalities, 11) sustainable cities, 12) responsible consumption/production, 13) climate action, 14) clean water, 15) improved life on land, 16) peace-justice-strengthen institutions, 17) build partnerships to make happen.
There is obviously alot of room for maneuvering here over WHAT AND HOW will these things be defined. For the most part no sane person would think that any of those 17 things are intrinsically evil.
The question is how do you define the problems and what set of values are you applying to address them? If you are a death cultist then you want to value actions on each 17 points which kills people, reduces the effect of life, makes people stupider, selfish and fearful and ironically increases inequality, land abuse, destroys partnerships, undermines life, and all of the other positive generic goals.
The question then becomes: Based on the effects of their policies, ARE China and Russia advancing a death cult agenda?
Is mobility of the individual both social and geographical increasing or decreasing?
Is energy access and affordability per capita, and national increasing or decreasing?
Is poverty decreasing and is longevity increasing?
Are wars increasing or decreasing through their policies?
Are productive industrial forces increasing or decreasing through their policies?
How about business… Are entrepreneurs and small/medium business getting punished by ESG/carbon taxes etc OR are businesses encouraged to access more carbon-based power?
Is the industrial base of China being wired to a dependency on 'green energy systems like windmills/solar panels' as they are being sold in the west OR are those green energy systems only used for residential sectors while industrial activity is supported by hydrocarbon/nuclear/hydro power?
CULTURALLY: are the cultures of Eurasian nations being coerced into embracing a woke, nihilistic anti-family, set of values OR the opposite (clue: it is the opposite).
GENDER EQUALITY: I’ve noticed many people freak out over the words “gender equality” as one of the 17 goals… But if you think there aren't serious issues globally around gender inequality you are out to lunch. Women were just granted the right to drive cars in Saudi Arabia in 2020, and only got the vote in local elections in 2015. Female genital mutilation is still rampant among tribes across Africa, and don't get me started on the abuses females suffer in both India and Pakistan. This generic topic doesn't mean you support the woke agena, or want to eliminate the 'male/female' sexes nor does it mean enforcing equal outcomes independent of merit.
Additionally, for those who are confused why China, Russia and company speak well of abusive international financial institutions like the World Trade Organization, it is here important to hold in mind that the WTO emerged out of the earlier GATT (General System of Tariffs and Trade) which was created at Bretton Woods in 1944 and generally is also made up of vague rules, goals and propositions without a lot of detail supporting 'economic justice', right to trade, economic freedom, blah blah blah.
These institutions are vague, generic and open to being influenced towards the good or towards the evil based upon the reality of political agendas who carry weight. The reason why they are used to destructive ends is because the rules and general principles they promote are not followed so if China, Russia, Iran etc believe that they can use their new-found economic weight to influence them towards sanity instead of embracing the alternative which is total war (which means nuclear war), then I get why they would push in that direction.
Lastly, I go into this reasoning with much much more detail, supporting statistics and references in the following locations:
The other article is: