A pointless UN junket? No, a declaration of war on freedom
DANIEL JUPP
YOU may not know this, but right now the fate of Britain is being decided. Your fate is being decided, and your freedom too. It’s not being decided by an election. It’s not being decided by policies or promises you have ever been asked to vote for or against. The decisions being made about your future and your country are not being made in Westminster, in the Houses of Parliament, or even in any part of the United Kingdom.
They are being made at the Qatar National Convention Centre in Doha, some 3,239 miles away, at a bizarre and vast ceremony most people in Britain do not even know is happening. That ceremony is the Second World Summit for Social Development, attended by some 14,000 delegates from almost every nation on Earth. This gathering will confirm plans and agreements dictated by the UN, and already agreed by the representatives of every nation attending, including Britain.
What the Second World Summit for Social Development is re-affirming is the UN’s 2030 Agenda. This is the demand that within five years from now, every nation should be implementing the 17 Sustainable Development Goals outlined in an ambitious, utopian project decided and dominated by the UN. The 17 Goals are all enormous and, on the surface, noble aspirations, including eliminating global poverty, securing universal work and employment, and eradicating inequality. The UN describes the Second World Summit on its website as ‘a renewed commitment to social progress’ and states that it will ‘accelerate action on poverty eradication, the promotion of full employment and decent work, and social inclusion, ensuring that no one is left behind . . . In Doha, world leaders will come together to redefine strategies for social progress, strengthen global partnerships, and promote inclusive policies that foster equitable opportunities for all. The goal: to build societies that are more resilient, inclusive, and sustainable’.
This sense of the whole thing being a pointless junket where delegates get to sound off on a big stage but nothing really happens, is emphasised by the way the Second Summit was launched on Sunday. An aerial display featured 17 parachutists dropping from the sky each holding a flag representing one of the Goals added an element of absurdist theatre. That wasn’t even the end of the strange opening. It was followed by a video, also released on social media platforms, by Mark Lee, a Canadian-Korean artist from the global K-Pop group NCT, whose positive feel-good witterings add to the sense that this is a bunch of very silly rich people trying to feel good about themselves: ‘Young and old, we have a huge role to play. Our voices, our ideas, our creativity can bring people together. Together, we can show that when we move as one, we can make change happen.’
But the trouble is the 17 Sustainable Development Goals aren’t intended to involve ‘our’ voices at all. These large gatherings deciding policy that our governments then enact are fundamentally undemocratic. What Act of Parliament or traditional power gives our Prime Minister, or any lesser minister, the right to shackle the UK to vast and terrifyingly vague transfers of power from the UK to the UN? Did you agree that the UK should follow 17 Goals you couldn’t name? Did anyone? If these were merely vague feel-good aspirations that would be one thing. But they aren’t. They are much more than that.
Behind each vast vague noble aim, like ending poverty or ending inequality, are three very dangerous things: first, the transfer of power from Nation States to the UN (world leaders receive these Goals as instructions they must follow), second, a set of much more specific policies claiming to enact the vaguer overarching goals, and third, direct transformational impacts on the lives of citizens who have had no say in any of this. There is no democratic accountability or discussion. There’s been no national debate. Our delegate goes to the meeting without consulting us, and then returns from the meeting with a set of concrete policies that impact our freedom, our rights, and our standards of living.
Far from having ‘a huge role to play’ the citizen of every nation state enacting these UN determined goals has had no say at all, because neither the UN nor our delegates have bothered to ask us if we agree to any of these goals and the policies attached to them. Ronald Reagan once quipped that the most terrifying words in the English language were ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help’, referencing the cost, incompetence and error often associated with State run enterprises when they interfere in ordinary life or take on tasks better left to private citizens and personal choice. But there is a more terrifying version of that still. It is ‘I’m from a transnational body you have no say over, and your government has handed total power over you to me. I’m here to help.’
During covid, when nation states followed the directives of the World Health Organization (a subsidiary of the UN), we saw policy shaped without accountability in authoritarian directions that inflicted more suffering than it eased. Multiple measures advocated by the WHO turned out to be scientifically illiterate, economically ruinous, and downright dangerous (some might even say murderous, giving the dishonesty on the efficacy and safety of mRNA vaccines).
What the Sustainable Development Goals do is hand that level of control with that lack of accountability to the UN on a whole range of issues which mimic, in many ways, the unrealistic utopian claims of past bureaucratic systems insisting on radical social engineering, social control, centralised direction of food, energy, and health all towards ‘equitable’ outcomes (this is, after all, the same promise made by Communism and the same method in terms of thinking that an unelected powerful body decides all this and everyone complies with it under some kind of Five Year Plan).
The vague 17 Goals are dangerous precisely because their language mimics Marxist aims (universal employment and universal equity, the modern very leftist demand for ‘social justice’ which invariably means injustice for the majority populations of Western nations) while their much more specific attached policies and measures destroy national sovereignty, political accountability, and individual liberty.
Sebastian Lukomski of the campaigning group CitizenGO says: ‘Let me be clear: this summit isn’t about development. It’s about centralising control. They’re assembling the machinery of a global system – one that dictates how you live, what you can buy, where you can travel, even what you’re allowed to say or believe.’
Have you ever had a vote on digital ID? Three million British citizens signed a petition against it: Labour is pressing ahead. Why? Because digital ID is one of the measures required to enact the Sustainable Development Goals. All the money and effort required to eradicate global inequality? That comes from allegedly richer Western nations, impoverishing you supposedly to lift Third World nations out of poverty. All the ‘sustainable’ measures? Those are based on deciding that you have too much, pollute too much, produce too much carbon, and should accept a reduced standard of living for ‘the greater good’.
It turns out that a UN mandated ‘sustainable future’ looks an awful lot like a Soviet-style system of ‘social justice’ and enforced ‘equity’. All of which has never obtained your democratic consent. The Second World Summit for Social Development in Qatar, and your government doing what the UN instructs, is how we get there.
This article (A pointless UN junket? No, a declaration of war on freedom) was created and published by Conservative Woman and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Daniel Jupp
Featured image: Getty Images
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply