In a recent article attacking the false and selfish values of the World Economic Forum and Agenda 2030 of the United Nations, three of the five pillars of Agenda 2030 were revealed as ideological nothingburgers.  All five terms by which Agenda 2030 is introduced are rhetorical devices used to say nothing but, at the same time, to imply that high-mindedness is the seed of the conception of Agenda 2030.

The five terms are People, Planet, Peace, Prosperity, and Partnership.  The first three were mocked and debunked already.  This outraged rejection of the U.N.'s plans will now expose the superficiality and vapidity of their ideas of Prosperity and Partnership.

The goal of Prosperity is, incredibly, summed up in one sentence:
"We are determined to ensure that all human beings can enjoy prosperous and fulfilling lives and that economic, social and technological progress occurs in harmony with nature."  Saying prosperity means to "enjoy prosperous ... lives" is a circular definition at best.  What is happiness?  Answer: To be happy is to have a happy life.  Is any reader edified by this, or is this English usage that should have been put beyond one's written repertoire by the end of seventh grade? 

Then they become more "expansive" and state a partiality toward "economic, social and technological progress."  Yet the globalists consistently communicate the view that economic, social, and technological progress occurring since the Industrial Revolution began, and since Western civilization brought these forms of progress into the world, is a mask for oppression of peoples.  This oppression throughout the world includes but is not limited to women, "people of color," homosexuals, transsexuals, queer persons who have erotic tendencies that cannot be captured in any rubric, various parts of the animal and aquatic kingdoms, and poor people in general who have not benefited from progress as much as they should have.  To read their tirades is to believe that nature itself is collapsing under our colossal mismanagement of the world's resources.

Of course, "abortion rights" are essential for this anti-human one-world government crowd because of women's health, but also because over-population is draining our resources.  Under Karl Marx's labor theory of value, the working poor should have reaped the greatest share of the profits of industrialization but were exploited and did not receive their due.

Notice that the one-sentence definition of prosperity does not say that prosperity should occur in harmony with democratic or republican values such as rights or life or liberty.  It does not say that they should be in harmony with classical rationality and logic à la Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.  It does not say they should be in harmony with Judeo-Christian morality or belief in an omniscient, omnipresent, or omnipotent God, Creator of the Universe.  No, the prosperity machine should be "in harmony with nature."  "Nature" will decide our destiny.  "Nature" created "the land of the free and the home of the brave."  They force-feed this pap to an ignorant — or, to be kind, naïve — world.  

Here, the attraction of certain successful persons to the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche regarding the "übermenschen" (super-men) is crucial.  The supermen appear as advanced products of a morally evolved society.  Influenced by Nietzsche's understanding of the "transvaluation of values," where what has been considered good is bad, and vice-versa, democratic and nationalistic values, particularly those related to Greek rationality and Judeo-Christian morals, should be set aside.  A new type of person must rule, and rule on a global scale.

The "new person" supposedly will usher in this new type of prosperity.  The new prosperity will not be restrained by past boundaries or morals or rationality.  Instead, the world government elite will deliver goods and services under an impulse of unfettered lust for wealth (masquerading as "meeting needs"), and that unfettered urge for wealth will be enforced by a New World Order, a World Government that is portrayed by them as truly free (sic).

The second term in Agenda 2030 that we need to identify and reject is the word "Partnership."  Partnership is defined this way: "We are determined to mobilize the means required to implement this Agenda through a revitalized Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, based on a spirit of strengthened global solidarity, focused in particular on the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable and with the participation of all countries, all stakeholders and all people."

This wordy definition is a restatement of the Marxist principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."  Putting aside the sexism implicit in the use of the possessive pronoun "his" (please forgive the sarcasm), this emphasis on needs in Agenda 2030 replaces the emphasis on rights that was central to the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which appeared as a founding document in 1948.  In that document, the word "rights" appeared in almost every section, whereas in Agenda 2030, the word "rights" appears only once, in Section 19 of 91 sections and 17 principles.  This writer would suggest that global governance to "meet needs" is the updated counterpart of soviets ("workers' councils") to meet needs under communist theory.  However, as we know, communist theory allows for a dictatorship of the proletariat prior to the advent of workers' councils because the dictatorship will help prepare the people for the supposedly greater meeting of needs and greater freedom that they will enjoy under workers' councils.  Workers' councils will provide a refreshing alternative to capitalist oligarchies that deprive people of the true benefits of their labor.

Meanwhile, the poor never had it as good as they have had their lives under capitalism, but don't worry: that happiness is just an illusion that will be revealed once the new communist government is established.  In parallel fashion, the capitalism that enhances and works with the nation-state concept leads to wars, which undermine the joy and prosperity of the world.  Under a one-world government, wars will come to an end, because the benefits of a uniform world law will dilute the inherent competitiveness of capitalist nation-states, and thereby reinforce peace — peace among men and peace with nature.  At the same time, the U.N., which supposedly exists to advance world cooperation and peace has not been able to do more than pass a pitiful resolution against the war in the Ukraine.

We have considered two of the five horribly deceptive terms put forward to inspire readers as they begin to study Agenda 2030.  One of my goals is to tear the mask of words off the horrible face of world government.  It is a face of greed and lust for power rarely seen since the creation of the world.

Image: sanjitbakshi via Flickr, CC BY 2.0.