Agenda 2030 And The “New Economic World Order” – Coming This Year?
Dire economic prognostications exist simultaneously
by The Sleuth Journal | September 23, 2015 | Infowars
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’splanned 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.”
Into this backdrop the Pope descended and spoke at the UN mentioning the Agenda 2030.
“Education conceived in this way is the basis for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and for reclaiming the environment. At the same time, government leaders must do everything possible to ensure that all can have the minimum spiritual and material means needed to live in dignity and to create and support a family, which is the primary cell of any social development. In practical terms, this absolute minimum has three names:lodging, labour, and land; and one spiritual name: spiritual freedom, which includes religious freedom, the right to education and other civil rights.”
At the UN, Pope Francis said:
“In effect, a selfish and boundless thirst for power and material prosperity leads both to the misuse of available natural resources and to the exclusion of the weak and disadvantaged … The poorest are those who suffer most from such offenses, for three serious reasons: They are cast off by society, forced to live off what is discarded and suffer unjustly from the abuse of the environment. They are part of today’s widespread and quietly growing ‘culture of waste.'”
What about the abuse of government, or global government, and the effects people suffer at the hands of it? We can dismiss that evil for the greater evil of environmental abuse.(relativism) Or so that is the implication. But funny how the emphasis is on enviro-abuse when there is a long track record, indeed agenda, from the UN or global politics begging criticism and suspicion. The same poor who will be adversely and negatively impacted by this agenda, drawn further into the cracks, suffering marginalization. Are we trying to create more of a burden on society, or less?
He tells us their noble ambitions and efforts risk becoming “idle chatter which serves as a cover for all kinds of abuse and corruption, or for carrying out an ideological colonization by the imposition of anomalous models and lifestyles which are alien to people’s identity and, in the end, irresponsible.”
What about when they succeed in their lofty goals and agendas? He worries about idle chatter. Well, I worry about their actions and goals, and corrupt power and resources. But notice how the chatter against that is marginalized, ignored, dismissed as extremists, or labeled deniers. Their UN extreme agenda apparently is not a threat, to Francis, only if they do not follow through.
How irresponsible is an agenda which further victimizes downtrodden people while expanding the power of the political elite?
“The present time invites us to give priority to actions which generate new processes in society, so as to bear fruit in significant and positive historical events. We cannot permit ourselves to postpone “certain agendas” for the future. The future demands of us critical and global decisions in the face of world-wide conflicts which increase the number of the excluded and those in need.
“The praiseworthy international juridical framework of the United Nations Organization and of all its activities, like any other human endeavors, can be improved, yet it remains necessary; at the same time it can be the pledge of a secure and happy future for future generations. And so it will, if the representatives of the States can set aside partisan and ideological interests, and sincerely strive to serve the common good. I pray to Almighty God that this will be the case,…”
Referring to the Iran Agreement, and controversy:
“The recent agreement reached on the nuclear question in a sensitive region of Asia and the Middle East is proof of the potential of political good will and of law, exercised with sincerity, patience and constancy. I express my hope that this agreement will be lasting and efficacious, and bring forth the desired fruits with the cooperation of all the parties involved. In this sense, hard evidence is not lacking of the negative effects of military and political interventions which are not coordinated between members of the international community.
“For this reason, while regretting to have to do so, I must renew my repeated appeals regarding the painful situation of the entire Middle East, North Africa and other African countries, where Christians, together with other cultural or ethnic groups, and even members of the majority religion who have no desire to be caught up in hatred and folly, have been forced to witness the destruction of their places of worship, their cultural and religious heritage, their houses and property, and have faced the alternative either of fleeing or of paying for their adhesion to good and to peace by their own lives, or by enslavement.”
He seems to make the whole Iran deal contingent and dependent on the US breaking its ‘partisan and ideological’ divide — an ironic lecture from the Pope of Rome. But never mind the Constitutional, legal, economical and moral reasons for this disagreement. Tenuous partisanship it is not.
“Our world demands of all government leaders a will which is effective, practical and constant, concrete steps and immediate measures for preserving and improving the natural environment and thus putting an end as quickly as possible to the phenomenon of social and economic exclusion, with its baneful consequences: human trafficking, the marketing of human organs and tissues, the sexual exploitation of boys and girls, slave labour, including prostitution, the drug and weapons trade, terrorism and international organized crime.”
And let’s not forget the consequences of this Iran deal, as well as consequences of UN’s entire agenda, including 2030. Those consequences cannot be ignored any more than he says the human rights or environmental issues can be ignored.
“Certainly, many grave problems remain to be resolved, yet it is clear that, without all those interventions on the international level, mankind would not have been able to survive the unchecked use of its own possibilities. Every one of these political, juridical and technical advances is a path towards attaining the ideal of human fraternity and a means for its greater realization.”
I hear mankind would not have been able to survive its unchecked liberty, without the international intervention. The danger is unleashed liberty, which must be held in check.