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
I am not persuaded. There are different social-political approaches being applied. The developed nations via the Paris accords have agreed to reduce carbon emissions for the good of the planet whilst undeveloped nations like China and India keep building power plants - including hundreds of coal plants in China - like gangbusters. Their societies are still in growth mode whereas our societies have agreed to decline. These are two wings of the same overall agenda.
What is that agenda? I don't know exactly (Agenda 2030?) but judging from what happened with covid, in so internationally coordinated a fashion, it has something to do with transitioning (Resetting) to a global system of governance and control. Some call it technocracy. Experts will rule; democracy will be phased out as redundant for advanced, complex societies largely run by AI algorithms.
And I came to this conclusion by reading the BRICS Declarations in both 2022 and 2023. But unlike you I do find the language alarming so I am the sort of reader whose alarm your article addresses. BRICS and UN signed a declaration a couple of years back affirming the Sustainable Growth agenda, feminism, Paris accords and all the rest of it. BRICS also affirms the same agenda. That agenda gave us the global lockdowns in which 3,000,000 US business went under, and similar results the world over. Billionaires throughout the world now own a greater percentage of the world's wealth.
Ergo:
WE ARE BEING PLAYED.
Do I know this? No. But unless I get far more convincing information to the contrary, that is my current assumption. That both the US, EU, Russian and Chinese governments lie to us all all the time.
Of course, as you say, “for the most part no sane person would think that any of those 17 things [SDGs] are intrinsically evil.” As long as they can appear to be doing what’s ostensibly good for everyone, where most of their talking points are not just acceptable but agreeable, they can work towards what they really want to accomplish.
How has any evil ever been able to succeed throughout history? By pretending it is something that it is not — in other words, pretending to be a good. It’s why mixing in the bad with the good has been a standard way to obtain advantage. In our case, looking over the SDGs and the list of methods included for attaining each one, only three SDGs do not include vaccines in their lists. Fourteen SDGs green-lighting vaccines is a very large amount of leverage.
It’s worth pointing out that only recently has the outcry against vaccines become prominent enough, and the data attesting to their harm substantial enough (largely because such data could not be suppressed anymore) to warrant legitimate concerns, effectively eclipsing much previous acceptance of them should one have noticed them amongst, say, SDG protocols. And because vaccine acceptance up till now has been generally widespread, few would seriously feel inclined to challenge their use, especially as they appear in such an overall package of “goods.”
Leaving that particular point aside on the table, some of the other questions you raise, such as whether there is an increase or decrease in war, poverty, energy access and so on, based on or related to outcomes of UN policies, reports or votes, most of those questions are not clearly answerable since the areas of concern tend to involve so many different agents — among which, governments, NGOs, private and financial sectors — all of whom have their vested interests. And depending on which of these sectors have the most influence in any of the given areas of concern, who can say how much skewing occurs to favor which outcomes, both inside and outside the ostensible reach of UN actions? Also, which UN represntatives are fully in one private club or another? There is little reason to think that a supposed “high degree of transparency” should prevail at the UN, when you have already demonstrated how easily certain kinds of interests and objectives can converge in a Royal Institute of International Affairs or a Council on Foreign Relations, no? In considering such questions, it’s clear that a massive amount of interdependence is at work, to the extent that it’s doubtful any one person even within such a system could grasp its scope. Which makes it easier for many various decisions to be largely corralled into predetermined — that is, desired — outcomes. And considering the amount of internal propaganda circulating among all UN agencies, they all know what page they need to be on, so to speak.
Some images I will leave you with. One is the typical UN propaganda speak that whips up the emotions of listeners: UN Secretary General Guterres telling everyone that we’re no longer warming, “now we’re boiling.” (Included, of course, is our collective guilt in not being able to prevent our reaching this point.) A collective mind-skew was also on display, when during the recent UN’s 75th anniversary, part of their outreach was to ask young people (they are always seeking out youth as foot soldiers) to write an essay on “What kind of future do we want?” As I am someone who counts every word, I noted that it did not ask “What kind of future do YOU want?” — which makes the most sense since an individual is hearing, and answering, the question. So, a group-think angle is constantly posited, in which youth orients itself to some kind of larger agenda. How else could they answer the question, as they want to please, they want to do good?
Lastly, some years ago (and I did not check to see if it is still the case), the UN branch in Vienna (although I heard such meetings also took place in New York) held “private” sessions in which certain members and reps were invited to listen to someone give particular kinds of messages through the process commonly called channeling. The persons were channeling some entity or another that provided messages of hope and spiritual guidance for the audience… audience members who are also involved in the daily affairs of the UN.
I leave it at that, since what else can I say except that the UN appears to be an insitution that is liable to particular susceptibilities — and the kind of susceptibilities that always befall an organization that has become far too large to avoid them.
Thanks for spurring me to read those earlier two articles. Much of what you reveal about Russia and China and the Orwellian redefinition of "capitalism" is similar to what Michael Hudson has said about the rentier economy, harkening back to Henry George.
'“UNSDGs = Pure Evil”… or is this too simplistic?'
No.
Meet the wannabe new boss, same as the old boss. Looks far more like the latest attempt to rebrand the same ole globalist cabal to me.
First class explanation, dear Matt with a humorous icing on the cake.
I am not persuaded. There are different social-political approaches being applied. The developed nations via the Paris accords have agreed to reduce carbon emissions for the good of the planet whilst undeveloped nations like China and India keep building power plants - including hundreds of coal plants in China - like gangbusters. Their societies are still in growth mode whereas our societies have agreed to decline. These are two wings of the same overall agenda.
What is that agenda? I don't know exactly (Agenda 2030?) but judging from what happened with covid, in so internationally coordinated a fashion, it has something to do with transitioning (Resetting) to a global system of governance and control. Some call it technocracy. Experts will rule; democracy will be phased out as redundant for advanced, complex societies largely run by AI algorithms.
And I came to this conclusion by reading the BRICS Declarations in both 2022 and 2023. But unlike you I do find the language alarming so I am the sort of reader whose alarm your article addresses. BRICS and UN signed a declaration a couple of years back affirming the Sustainable Growth agenda, feminism, Paris accords and all the rest of it. BRICS also affirms the same agenda. That agenda gave us the global lockdowns in which 3,000,000 US business went under, and similar results the world over. Billionaires throughout the world now own a greater percentage of the world's wealth.
Ergo:
WE ARE BEING PLAYED.
Do I know this? No. But unless I get far more convincing information to the contrary, that is my current assumption. That both the US, EU, Russian and Chinese governments lie to us all all the time.
Of course, as you say, “for the most part no sane person would think that any of those 17 things [SDGs] are intrinsically evil.” As long as they can appear to be doing what’s ostensibly good for everyone, where most of their talking points are not just acceptable but agreeable, they can work towards what they really want to accomplish.
How has any evil ever been able to succeed throughout history? By pretending it is something that it is not — in other words, pretending to be a good. It’s why mixing in the bad with the good has been a standard way to obtain advantage. In our case, looking over the SDGs and the list of methods included for attaining each one, only three SDGs do not include vaccines in their lists. Fourteen SDGs green-lighting vaccines is a very large amount of leverage.
It’s worth pointing out that only recently has the outcry against vaccines become prominent enough, and the data attesting to their harm substantial enough (largely because such data could not be suppressed anymore) to warrant legitimate concerns, effectively eclipsing much previous acceptance of them should one have noticed them amongst, say, SDG protocols. And because vaccine acceptance up till now has been generally widespread, few would seriously feel inclined to challenge their use, especially as they appear in such an overall package of “goods.”
Leaving that particular point aside on the table, some of the other questions you raise, such as whether there is an increase or decrease in war, poverty, energy access and so on, based on or related to outcomes of UN policies, reports or votes, most of those questions are not clearly answerable since the areas of concern tend to involve so many different agents — among which, governments, NGOs, private and financial sectors — all of whom have their vested interests. And depending on which of these sectors have the most influence in any of the given areas of concern, who can say how much skewing occurs to favor which outcomes, both inside and outside the ostensible reach of UN actions? Also, which UN represntatives are fully in one private club or another? There is little reason to think that a supposed “high degree of transparency” should prevail at the UN, when you have already demonstrated how easily certain kinds of interests and objectives can converge in a Royal Institute of International Affairs or a Council on Foreign Relations, no? In considering such questions, it’s clear that a massive amount of interdependence is at work, to the extent that it’s doubtful any one person even within such a system could grasp its scope. Which makes it easier for many various decisions to be largely corralled into predetermined — that is, desired — outcomes. And considering the amount of internal propaganda circulating among all UN agencies, they all know what page they need to be on, so to speak.
Some images I will leave you with. One is the typical UN propaganda speak that whips up the emotions of listeners: UN Secretary General Guterres telling everyone that we’re no longer warming, “now we’re boiling.” (Included, of course, is our collective guilt in not being able to prevent our reaching this point.) A collective mind-skew was also on display, when during the recent UN’s 75th anniversary, part of their outreach was to ask young people (they are always seeking out youth as foot soldiers) to write an essay on “What kind of future do we want?” As I am someone who counts every word, I noted that it did not ask “What kind of future do YOU want?” — which makes the most sense since an individual is hearing, and answering, the question. So, a group-think angle is constantly posited, in which youth orients itself to some kind of larger agenda. How else could they answer the question, as they want to please, they want to do good?
Lastly, some years ago (and I did not check to see if it is still the case), the UN branch in Vienna (although I heard such meetings also took place in New York) held “private” sessions in which certain members and reps were invited to listen to someone give particular kinds of messages through the process commonly called channeling. The persons were channeling some entity or another that provided messages of hope and spiritual guidance for the audience… audience members who are also involved in the daily affairs of the UN.
I leave it at that, since what else can I say except that the UN appears to be an insitution that is liable to particular susceptibilities — and the kind of susceptibilities that always befall an organization that has become far too large to avoid them.
Thanks for spurring me to read those earlier two articles. Much of what you reveal about Russia and China and the Orwellian redefinition of "capitalism" is similar to what Michael Hudson has said about the rentier economy, harkening back to Henry George.