European Commission Welcomes UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

The 2030 Agenda, a universal framework for all countries to help eradicate poverty and achieve sustainable development by 2030, includes an ambitious set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals and will be adopted today at a special UN Summit.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development to be adopted today by the United Nations sets out a global framework to eradicate poverty and achieve sustainable development by 2030, building on theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs) adopted in 2000. As the first ever global agreement setting a universal, comprehensive agenda for action, the 2030 Agenda includes an ambitious set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 associated targets, mobilising all countries and stakeholders towards their achievement and affecting domestic policies. The 2030 Agenda also includes the United Nations Addis Ababa Action Agenda adopted in July which sets out the different means necessary to implement the 2030 Agenda, including domestic resources, private finance and Official Development Assistance (ODA).

The EU has been a leader in contributing to this process from the start. It is now committed to take this agenda forward, both inside the EU (such as through forthcoming EU initiatives like, inter alia, the Circular Economy Strategy which is designed to address more sustainable patterns of production and consumption) and through the EU’s external policies by supporting implementation efforts in other countries, in particular those most in need.

First Vice-President Frans Timmermans, responsible for sustainable development and leading the Commission delegation on behalf of President Juncker, said: “This Agreement is a historic event, and a significant step forward for global action on sustainable development. I am proud to say that from the start, the EU has been strongly committed to reaching an ambitious outcome, with a universal agenda for all countries, rich and poor alike, fully integrating the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainability. The result is a landmark achievement uniting the whole world around common goals for a more sustainable future. We are determined to implement the 2030 Agenda which will shape our internal and external policies, ensuring the EU plays its full part”.The UN Summit to adopt the new 2030 Agenda is taking place at the United Nations Headquarters in New York on 25-27 September and will be attended by more than 150 Heads of State and Government from all over the world. The European Commission is represented by First Vice President FransTimmermans, High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission Federica Mogherini and Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development Neven Mimica.


On the Millennium Development Goals

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have shown that setting goals can help drive unprecedented progress across the globe and achieved remarkable results. They have guided EU development policy for 15 years and the EU has made a major contribution to reaching the goals. The EU and its Member States are collectively the world’s largest development donor by far, providing €58 billion in 2014.

On the new 2030 Agenda

The 2030 Agenda (‘Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development) was informally agreed by consensus at the UN in August this year, and referred to this Summit for formal adoption by the General Assembly. The Addis Ababa Action Agenda agreed in July also forms an integral part of the 2030 Agenda by setting out tools, policies and resources that need to be put in place to ensure that it can be implemented.

The adoption of the 2030 Agenda will mark the culmination of an inclusive three-year process (previously known as “the post-2015 development agenda”) and which was characterised by the unprecedented participation of civil society and other stakeholders. It follows on from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development, and the Financing for Development Conferences. It will also contribute to the ongoing negotiations for a new global climate change agreement to be concluded in December in Paris.

The new 2030 Agenda will re-define how the international community works together on a global commitment to a different kind of future for people and the planet – one which will put the world on a path towards sustainable development. While the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) targeted developing countries, the 2030 Agenda is the first-ever global agreement setting a universal, comprehensive agenda for action that will affect all countries, including domestic policies.

The 17 new Sustainable Development Goals (to be known as “SDGs”) and 169 associated targets balance the three dimensions of sustainable development – environmental, social and economic – covering areas such as poverty, inequality, food security, health, sustainable consumption and production, growth, employment, infrastructure, sustainable management of natural resources, climate change, as well as gender equality, peaceful and inclusive societies, access to justice and accountable institutions.

The new set of goals will ensure the world continues to deliver on the previous MDG and Rio commitments, while also including goals for a range of other areas. Progress towards the MDGs has been uneven around the world, and not all targets were reached. The geopolitical changes of the past 15 years have led to a realisation that a more universal set of targets, requiring integrated solutions, is now more appropriate. The new Agenda is much broader and applies to all countries. It came about in an unprecedented participatory process engaging people from all over the world.

As a universal agreement, the implementation of the new Agenda will require action by all countries. It will be underpinned by a Global Partnership mobilising action by governments and stakeholders at all levels. This Agenda will have a strong follow-up and review mechanism, which will allow monitoring of progress on its implementation and will ensure accountability towards our citizens. One major innovation in the 2030 Agenda is an acknowledgement that working towards sustainable development requires simultaneous progress on three fronts, with economic, social and environmental issues tackled together in an integrated manner.

The full range of resources, both domestic and international, public and private, will be needed for successful implementation. All countries will need to contribute their fair share, taking account of levels of development, national contexts and capacities. National ownership and accountability will be of key importance to achieve the Agenda.

Read full press release here…

With Pope’s Help, U.N. Bypasses Congress on Global Socialism

TN Note: Patrick Wood was interviewed by writer Cliff Kincaid for this article. Sustainable Development is often seen as ‘global socialism’ because there are many similarities between the two. Wood contends that Sustainable Development is a reincarnation of historic Technocracy from the 1930s. However, Kincaid’s conclusion that Sustainable Development will only lead to “more poverty, suffering, and death” is absolutely correct!

Pope Francis didn’t make the list of “Eminent Persons” assembled by the U.N. Secretary General to plan the “global development framework” for the world beyond 2015 and culminating in 2030. But the pope didn’t need to be on the list. After all, the Vatican has endorsed the anti-capitalist “sustainable development” agenda that is being voted on by the nations of the world at the U.N.

However, the American people, through their elected representatives, have had absolutely no input in developing this new global agenda which President Obama will implement without the input or approval of Congress.

John Podesta, the chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign who previously served as counselor to Obama, was picked by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to be a member of the “high-level panel” of “eminent persons” planning the future of the globe.

The world body’s sustainable development goals promise the end of poverty, education, clean water, justice, good health and well-being, jobs for all, decent shelter, and a life of personal dignity. “These are lofty goals,” says Patrick Wood, a commentator on global issues, “but are they for real? Or do they sound like a bait-and-switch scheme that contains a potentially dangerous payload?”

Wood, who has covered global institutions for decades, argues that Pope Francis, the most visible religious figure in the world, has been called upon by the global community to deliver a U.N. address on September 25 “to minimize any possible resistance” to a plan that constitutes nothing less than the overthrow of global capitalism and the destruction of the American way of life.

Wood’s new book, Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation, argues that an elaborate scheme of social engineering will be used to bring into being an anticipated new worldwide utopian system.

In his speech to Congress on Thursday, Pope Francis once again demonstrated his pro-Marxist tendencies, hailing the work of Dorothy Day, an American convert to Catholicism who never renounced her pro-Marxist views but has been described by the media as just an activist for “social justice.” She was a founder of the Catholic Worker Movement and was the subject of a 581-page FBI file for her connections to communists and communist groups.

Carol Byrne, author of The Catholic Worker Movement (1933-1980): A Critical Analysis, documents how Day made common cause with communist-led movements during the Cold War.

Virginia State Senator Richard H. “Dick” Black (R), a Vietnam veteran, has opposed efforts by the American branch of the Catholic Church to make Day a saint, saying that “Vatican archives are filled with reports of Christians martyred under the regimes that Dorothy Day supported.”

While the media pay great attention to the pope, little if any coverage has been given to the involvement of the Vatican in the U.N. “sustainable development” agenda that could radically affect the individual lives of ordinary Americans. The stated purpose of the Podesta panel’s report is to “transform economies through sustainable development.”

It would be nice if the media asked Hillary about the involvement of her campaign chairman in developing this global socialist scheme.

In addition to destroying the American system, the recommendations of this so-called high-level body, especially on the matter of “climate action,” could also have a dramatic impact on the lives of people around the world, including the poor, who need access to energy and real economic development to escape poverty.

Wood notes that Podesta, founder of the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress and member of the elitist Trilateral Commission, went to work for President Obama as a senior policy consultant on climate change. A liberal Catholic, he has an affiliation with Georgetown Law School.

The work of the so-called “high-level panel” was delivered to a “High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development” that met this summer from June 26 through July 8 and produced the final document that nations will endorse.

“In simplest terms,” Wood explains, “Sustainable Development is a replacement economic system for capitalism and free enterprise. It is a system based on resource allocation and usage rather than on supply and demand and free economic market forces.”

The U.N. has been quite open about replacing global capitalism.

Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said last March that “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.” She added, “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.”

Wood said the proposed “transformation” of the world’s current economic system “for a completely untried and untested one” is “dangerously absurd” and could make life worse for the people in the world that the U.N. and the Roman Catholic Church are supposed to help.

He adds, “Any honest economist would instantly balk at such Pollyannaish promises of utopia, and the American public should do so as well. The fact is that these wild promises of prosperity for all are merely the candy coating to deceive the world into going along with its own economic destruction.”

Nevertheless, at the White House on Wednesday and appearing with President Obama, Pope Francis specifically reaffirmed his support for the U.N.’s “sustainable and integral development” model from his “Laudato Si” encyclical.

In a pitch for global socialism, masked in flowery language, Francis, who insisted on his way to the U.S. that he was not a liberal, said, “I would like all men and women of good will in this great nation to support the efforts of the international community to protect the vulnerable in our world and to stimulate integral and inclusive models of development, so that our brothers and sisters everywhere may know the blessings of peace and prosperity which God wills for all his children.”

The pope says nice things about the poor, but the practical result of ditching capitalism for socialism will be more poverty, suffering, and death.

2030 Agenda and the New International Economic Order

With Q3 of the 2015 fiscal year just around the corner, one cannot help but notice unprecedented unease in both financial and social spheres, and perhaps with good reason; with alternative media forecasters, national banks, and supranational institutions alike heralding the coming of “global depression” by the end of 2016, this consensus of seemingly strange bedfellows almost universally agree that something wicked this way comes.

These dire economic prognostications exist simultaneously in a world in which energy and development prospects, both nationally and transnationally, are being reworked – with equally profound implications as the aforementioned financial trend analysis. Be it the Obama Administration’s “Clean Power Plan” or the EU and China’s planned Neomalthusian 2030 carbon emission cutbacks, national entities the world over are positioning themselves for profound shifts in energy, development, trade, and even currency ahead of COP21 in Paris this December, or as some have deemed it, “Agenda 2030.”

The convergence of both engineered economic crisis and an engineered “sustainable development” crisis in late-2015 are hardly coincidental, nor are they insignificant. While the alternative finance community seems destined to eternally squabble about the mechanics of a coming global depression, few have set themselves to the task of projecting what the characterof such a post-depression society will look like – and the “New World Economic Order” it has the potential to initiate.

It is this author’s contention that the character of this coming era can only be understood when financial calamity is viewed in tandem with Agenda 21’s faux-ecological insidiousness; and you, Reader, deserve the knowledge and documentation of this sagacious plot. It’s pervasive, it’s global, and has existed (in its modern form) since at least the 1970s.

Seeking to contextualize this historical continuity, we must first examine the writings of erudite anti-Technocracy researcher, Patrick Wood, and his pioneering work on the Trilateral Commission’s “New International Economic Order” of the 1970s.

Technocracy and the “New International Economic Order”

As an integral decade in this ongoing “Age of Transitions,” the 1970s brought with it previously unimagined sociopolitical and economic shifts. Deflation was prevalent. The decade also saw the rise of the Petrodollar and the end of the gold-backed Bretton Woods era, as well as the seeding of eugenic “environmental catastrophe” memes propagated by works like the Club of Rome’s 1972 publication, Limits to Growth, or John P. Holdren’s equally Neomalthusian and lauded Ecoscience. It also saw the birth of the Trilateral Commission, co-founded by David Rockefeller and Zbignew Brzezinski in 1973, who, among other things, pushed forth the concept of a “New International Economic Order” to quell the world’s ailing economic and environmental “doom and gloom” forecasts.

While the nature of this “New International Economic Order” at the time evaded Mr. Wood and his research partner, Dr. Antony Sutton, the perspective granted by the passage of time has lead Patrick Wood to declare Technocracy to be the true aim of this New Order. He writes:

It is plainly evident today, with 40 years of historical examination behind it, that the “New International Economic Order” was really “new” and envisioned historic Technocracy as replacing Capitalism altogether. Technocracy was based on energy rather than money and its system of supply and demand that regulates pricing. Some distinctives of Technocracy include:

• Elimination of private property and wealth accumulation
• Replacing traditional education with workforce training
• Micromanaging all energy distribution and consumption
• Driving people to live in a limited number of cities and off of rural land
• Enforcing a balance between nature’s resources and man’s consumption of them.

Are you thinking that this list is vaguely familiar? You should, because it represents the modern manifestation of programs like Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, Smart Grid, Cap And Trade, Climate Change, Common Core, massive surveillance operations and a whole lot more. All of this has been brought to us by the machinations of the Trilateral Commission and its members since 1973, and it is all part of its master plan to completely replace capitalism with Technocracy. This is their “New International Economic Order“!

-Patrick Wood, Endgame of Technocracy

The Trilateral Commission, however, was not alone in the propagation of the “New International Economic Order” ideal. As with all things global and “sustainable,” the United Nations is sure to be lurking nearby. The UN’s “Council on Trade and Development” (or UNCTAD) was the chief multinational institution (in cooperation with the Trilateral Commission) in proudly promoting such a New Order throughout the decade:


As noted in my previous article about COP21 and the coming Agenda 21 “update,”documentation on what this “binding and legal agreement” entails directly from UN sources related to the Conference is sparse; that is, until one abandons searching for literature on the “green” facade and goes straight to the source of the “New International Economic Order” itself – that is, global trade governance, as documented by UNCTAD:


t is within UNCTAD’s 2015 policy briefs that we begin to find some semblance of clarity as to what a post-global depression geopolitical and economic environment has in store for us; and as all burgeoning Hegelians know, global problems invite (engineered) global solutions.

UNCTAD and the “Sustainable Multilateral” Vision of Humanity



Over the past 40 years, the “New International Economic Order” has changed its name and structure, but never its primary objectives. Its old name cast away in favor of representing our increasingly captive and globalized world, “Multilateral Global Trade Governance” is its new moniker. The threats of population bombs, peak oil, and Global Cooling prevalent in the 70s, too, have given way to the phantom foes of carbon emissions and “unsustainability” so overtly propagandized to us in the 21st Century.

In true Technocratic fashion, UNCTAD declares the new face of “transformative” and “multilateral” global governance to be underpinned by none other than sustainable development in their 2015 Policy Brief No. 31:



This shift towards “multilateralism” is more than rhetorical, representing a structural change in the nature of globalism. It’s also not limited to UNCTAD, as the IMF, BIS, World Bank, and yes, even the BRICS have been calling for a “New Multipolar World Order” for quite some time. This new form of globalism is slated to be seemingly inclusive, allowing nations like China, Russia, India, and Brazil some measure of regional control, while ultimately being subservient to the “binding and legal agreement” of COP21. Continuing with Policy Brief No. 31:



We see that these new “inclusive multilateral mechanisms” are anything but voluntary, as UNCTAD goes on to conclude that such mechanisms would “preclude competitive liberalization;” in other words, multilateralism is designed to prevent Second and Third World nations from seeking a development structure outside the UN’s “sustainable” vision.

If any are still in doubt as to whether the BRICS alliance and its New Development Bank represent this globalist multilateral trap, UNCTAD steadfastly declare the BRICS to be an integral regional component in this plot:



This latest forecast echoes UNCTAD’s 2014 publication, A BRICS Development Bank: A Dream Coming True? which also holds the BRICS NDB as a key partner in Agenda 21 and its global Technocratic serfdom, written about at length by this author previously.

This bank-against-bank dialectic is the Globalist version of Coke vs. Pepsi. Republicans vs. Democrats. East vs. West. BRICS Bank vs. World Bank. Multilateral vs. Monopolar. All result in the synthesis of “global trade governance” aspired to by the Anglo-American Establishment and Agenda 21.

In UNCTAD’s Policy Brief on Climate Change No. 4, the structure of this new system of governance was enumerated upon by none other than Chinese (Editorial Correction: S. Korean) UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon. If his description does not represent “multilateral globalism,” I don’t know what does:



Supposedly sovereign nations will be subservient to regional entities (BRICS, NAFTA, EU, etc). Regional entities will abide by a commonly agreed upon set of global development and economic standards (COP21). The city, town, and community, long subsumed by ICLEI’s “sustainable development” principles as set forth by Rio ’92, are already in lock-step with this “multilateral globalism.”

“And what of the individual,” one may ponder? Such an “outmoded” concept has no place in theeternal Cybernetic feedback loop of “green” global trade governance as outlined by UNCTAD:



The aforementioned “knowledge sharing,” “peer reviewing,” and “accountability” standards will be handled not wholly by governing bodies, but governing algorithms, as such banal tasks are likely to be managed by our increasingly “smart” cities, metering devices, homes, and cars; a shift destined to portend the increased control such devices will bring to everyday life within this “New Multilateral Economic Order.”

It is unlikely that such sweeping alterations to global as well as social interaction will take place unless “motivated” by periods of crisis. In UNCTAD’s Policy Brief No. 36, the importance of our last global crisis of 2008 in creating the prerequisites for “Green” Globalism is noted:





It therefore stands to reason that the activation of these bilateral, regional, and megaregional trade agreements created in the wake of the 2008 Depression will likewise require economic calamity to activate; calamity that alternative media and the Bank for International Settlementsalike are predicting as inevitable. If such a “transformative” global structure is to be initiated in advance of or around COP21 this December, the remainder of 2015 is likely to be wrought with continued economic uncertainty.

The brief goes on to note a number of transnational corporations complying with this new Green Globalism, some of whom should be familiar to the astute Deep Political reader and researcher:



All have been intimately involved in the Neomercantile “opening of China” and the rampant technological buildup of the East by Western capital since the 90s, with IBM’s insidious participation in programs as varied as the Holocaust, police precrime algorithms, and theinvention of the “smart city” concept being well documented. Of Lucent Technologies and IBM specifically, James Corbett of The Corbett Report writes:

In the same time period, China rose from the 30th-largest target of US R&D investment to the 11th on the back of a doubling of US affiliates in the country. The list of companies that started major R&D activities or facilities in China in the 1990s reads like a who’s who of the CFR-nested Fortune 500 set: DuPont, Ford, General Electric, General Motors, IBM, Intel,Lucent Technologies, Microsoft, Motorola, and Rohm and Haas all had a significant stake in China by the beginning of the 21st century.

-James Corbett, The Great Decoupling: How the West is Engineering its Own Downfall

So it would seem this same set of “CFR-nested Fortune 500” companies responsible for building up China’s industrial and technological capacity are now pushing forth sustainable development with the UN as well as within the BRICS nations themselves. Have these Western entities bolstered China’s modern economic stature out of sheer goodwill? Merely self-interested profiteering? Or is the fulfillment of this greater collectivist agenda the “quid pro quo” demanded by the West in exchange for such niceties as increased regional power in the Asia-Pacific?

This year’s demise of the BRICS economies (most notably China) as well as key Western markets, if not overtly coordinated, certainly provide a unique opportunity to bring about these proposed “global (green) solutions” to “global crises.”

In Closing

As this blog has set out to demonstrate since its inception, globalism is indeed what its title claims – global. It knows no borders, nations, or ideologies, save complete and utter transnational subjugation of autonomous human beings – globally. Technocracy – rule by a class of entrenched elites and “snitch society” technologies – will be the character of this coming global era. Sustainable development (Agenda 21) is its vehicle.

It doesn’t reach the “End of the Road” without a transition from the “Old Economic World Order” to the New, a divergence impossible without a global economic crisis the likes of which has not been seen in nearly a Century.

Agenda 21 and the prospect of economic calamity have been inseparable concepts since the ravings of former UN Under-Secretary General and co-Agenda 21 architect, Maurice Strong, became a matter of public record back in 1992. In talking with late activist George Washington Hunt at a UN Environment Conference in Colorado, Strong, under the auspices of a fictional book he hoped to pen, mused casually about how such a “New World Order” could take shape:

What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?

This group of world leaders forms a secret society to bring about an economic collapse. It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists.  They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodities and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock markets and computers and gold supplies, a panic. Then, they prevent the world’s stock markets from closing. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the leaders at Davos as hostage. The markets can’t close.

-Maurice Strong

Strong abruptly ended his tale by concluding that he “probably shouldn’t be saying things like this.” Not that he had to continue, as from where we stand in 2015, we can see how this tale ends: With Strong’s world on the horizon. The next engineered economic crisis, ready to be sprung with a proverbial “flip of the switch,” will certainly be a global one. Yet Strong’s fantasies of Davos hostage takings of over twenty years ago may prove entirely unnecessary at COP21 in our modern era, as nearly all opposition to Agenda 21 on the global stage has been subsumed by its promise of complete technological control and a seat at the “multilateral table.”

You, though, Reader, have no seat at this table. An ostensibly insignificant cog in an international machine; but armed with the knowledge of what is to come, perhaps a cog that may someday soon decide to grind to a halt. This machine, after all, is each and every one of us.

Original story on 2030 Agenda appeared here first…

Warning: Pope Francis, Utopia & The 2030 Agenda

For the first time in the history of America, a Catholic Pope will address a joint session of the U.S. Congress on September 24, 2015.

With approximately one-third of Congress being Catholic, including Speaker Boehner and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, this promises to be a defining moment of the 114th Congress.
But, why is the Pope really here and what is his real mission?

First, he is here to address the opening session of the UN Summit for the Adoption of Post-2015 Development Agenda (2030 Agenda) that starts the next morning. This is arguably the most important meeting of the United Nations since the so-called Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 that produced the Agenda 21 document and the doctrine of Sustainable Development itself.

Second, the Pope will enshrine his major Encyclical on climate-change titled Laudato Si’, On Care For Our Common Home, which is a forcefull appeal for rapid implementation of all policies contained in 2030 Agenda, namely, Sustainable Development.
The 2030 Agenda promises the end of poverty and hunger, good education and jobs for every person, decent shelter and a life of personal dignity. These are lofty goals, but are they for real? Or do they sound like a bait-and-switch scheme that contains a potentially dangerous payload?


The 2030 Agenda document proposes 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets to their achievement. The framers claim that there was wide public consultation achieved to build consensus between all stake-holders, public and private organizations and citizens. Nonsense.

The actual creation of the 2030 Agenda is easily traced directly back to an earlier UN project called the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda that met in July 2012 and concluded on May 30, 2013. There were only 27 elite members of this group, each handpicked from around the world and summarily appointed by the UN Director-General Ban Ki-moon.

The U.S. was represented by John Podesta, founder of the Center for American Progress and member of the elitist Trilateral Commission, who subsequently went to work for President Obama as a Senior Policy Consultant on Climate Change.

The committee of 27 “Eminent persons” delivered their concluding document to be ratified by another UN group, the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development that met this summer from June 26 through July 8.

It is this very document that is to be presented for a global vote at the general plenary session of the UN on September 25. And, this is an all or nothing vote: Further changes will not be suggested or allowed.

Scope of Transformation

2030 Agenda builds upon Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development that was first created at the Earth Summit held in Rio De Janiero in 1992. It not only extends the original goals, but it also gives them a definitive timeline – 2030 – to be fully implemented.
In simplest terms, Sustainable Development is a replacement economic system for

Capitalism and Free Enterprise. It is a system based on resource allocation and usage rather than on supply and demand and free economic market forces.

Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change referred to this last March when she stated,

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.” [Emphasis added]

She amplified by adding, “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history”

Dangerously Absurd

In short, twenty-seven appointed and narrow-minded UN loyalists have created deeply transformative policies and timelines to literally overturn the world’s current economic system for a completely untried and untested one, and yet it boldly promises to “end poverty and hunger, in all their forms and dimensions,” ensure that “all human beings can enjoy prosperous and fulfilling lives,” and that an era of global peace will result.

This is dangerously absurd. Any honest economist would instantly balk at such Pollyannaish promises of Utopia, and the American public should do so as well. The fact is that these wild promises of prosperity for all are merely the candy coating to deceive the world into going along with its own economic destruction. Yes, the stakes are really that high.

And now you have an idea of why Pope Francis – the most visible religious figure in the world – has been called in to deliver the keynote address on September 25th and why he will smooth-talk Congress the day before to minimize any possible resistance to the plans of these globalist hucksters.

P.S. President Obama has already marginalized Congress, pledging his unequivocal support and signature on the 2030 Agenda document.

The Untimely Demise of Capitalism

Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change recently revealed the UN’s true purpose in the implementation of Sustainable Development on a global scale:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.” [Emphasis added]

She amplified by adding, “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.”
Two questions immediately come to mind. First, does the UN actually have the wherewithal to displace Capitalism and second, what does it mean for us if they do so?

The first question will assuredly be answered on September 25th at the upcoming UN Summit for the Adoption of Post-2015 Development Agenda. This is the most important general meeting of the UN since the 1992 Earth Summit held in Rio De Janiero where Sustainable Development and the Agenda for the 21st Century (Agenda 21) were both given birth in the first place.

The purpose of the current meeting is to herd all nations on earth, including the United States, into signing a politically binding document called the “2030 Agenda” which lists 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets by which to achieve them by 2030.
The answer to the second question is now in view: What goals and targets do they have in mind?

For sugar coating, 2030 Agenda goals include promises of Utopia such as “end poverty and hunger, in all their forms and dimensions “, ensure that “all human beings can enjoy prosperous and fulfilling lives”, and to provide “life-long learning opportunities” for all.
However, the devil’s teeth are found in the fine print. Paragraph 28 of the 2030 Agenda states:

“We commit to making fundamental changes in the way that our societies produce and consume goods and services. Governments, international organizations, the business sector and other non-state actors and individuals must contribute to changing unsustainable consumption and production patterns… to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production.”

Production? Consumption? These are the very cornerstones of Capitalism and Free Enterprise upon which all principles of supply and demand are predicated. Whereas a free market currently determines what is made and what is consumed, the 2030 Agenda intends to overthrow this in favor of a resource-based economic system where “experts” will simply set production and consumption quotas according to their own formulas and computer algorithms.

And what experts, you ask? They will be the unelected, unaccountable and otherwise untouchable social engineers who claim to know better than you what your life should look like. You will be forced to consume less and sacrifice more. Your ability to engage in commerce, to make profits and to create inheritance will be at their whim, not yours. Goods and services will be priced according to resources used instead of supply and demand.
Figueres is absolutely right that replacing free markets will be “the first time in human history”. Although current practices of Sustainable Development around the world have caused many more economic dislocations than successes, the UN simply responds that we need more of it before Utopia is realized.

As a resource-based economic system, the only historical precedent for Sustainable Development is a well-defined economic model called Technocracy, created during the 1930s when the Great Depression was raging. Back then, prominent scientists, engineers and technicians supposed that Capitalism was dead and it was therefore up to them to run all of society as a social engineering project.

Fortunately, the Technocrats failed to gain traction and the movement faded into obscurity. But now it’s back with a vengeance, under the clever guise of Sustainable Development.
Early Technocracy did not go unnoticed, however. Aldous Huxley nailed it in his classic work, Brave New World, which was penned in 1932 at the peak of the Technocracy movement in the U.S. Indeed, the end result of Technocracy was seen to be scientific dictatorship where every detail of life is micromanaged by an unseen hand, driven by uncontestable policies and regulations.

If the upcoming 2030 Agenda meeting is successful in conning world leaders into signing on to it, the euphemism “Brave New World” will be taken to a whole new level as it becomes reality.

R.I.P. Capitalism and Free Enterprise.

This is not the future that America wants, but it is the future that we are about to get.