I first wrote an interpretation of Agenda 2030 during September of 2015 for a Facebook article.
Since then it has been very popular and has achieved many thousands of shares.
My recent experience, however, has led to a revision, which I have created here:
I cannot emphasise enough how important Agenda 2030 is to every human alive today and even those unborn.
Please consider what the United Nations, in conjunction with the World Economic Forum, is really doing and sign the petition attached at the foot of this article.
Here are the Global Goals of Sustainability and my interpretation of the meaning behind each one.
Yes. Ultimately, what you say is true. I, for one- however, do not attribute the Rockefellers with all that.
Giving the impression that the GA would hold any sway was a significant objective. Inviting small, powerless nations into the fold gave the appearance of 'collective security' when, in truth, their membership was a sneaky way to strip them of resources and sovereignty.
I studied international law under a Lebanese-American who attended the signing of the Charter in San Francisco in 1945. Even rode the train to that city from Washington, DC with many of the 'dignataries' who adopted the Charter.
She was an optimist who believed in the language of the pact. She was the youngest attendee. Just a support person.
But her enthusiasm for the impetus affected some of my views.
Considering the League of Nations was where the ground work for the UN was founded, both bodies coming after world wars, it's highly possible that you are correct .
The actions of the UN all these years on may betray the language of the Charter- but I would be willing to bet those who signed on originally did not have devious inclinations in doing so.
Legitimizing the concept of 'collective security' has a nice ring to it, eh?
Sep 19, 2022·edited Sep 19, 2022Liked by Frances Leader
Wow! With the EU in the death grip of the manufactured NATO/Ukraine/Russia war, the utter disruption of trade and winter closing in...that body is just not going to wrap their collectively flailing arms around any thing to do with climate disruption. What about the horrific damage to the environment inflicted on it by war itself?
Those rockets and bombs kill EVERY living thing in their paths. They are loaded with poisons, fuels and chemicals that befoul waterbodies.
While I am all for saving Mother Earth and Father Sky- as long as the issues of war and the preparations for war are not Item #1...these initiatives almost seem frivolous.
I could be way off on this but imagine if JoJo and CHIDI included war and the environment. Talk about timely.
"..everybody had to sacrifice something. What is good about that is that it landed really well in the media and the political sphere." My alarm bells went off after hearing that. Sounds like it got watered down to the point to where the global cabal could work with it.
Another great cause usurped by the powers that be. I predict it will go nowhere.
I first wrote an interpretation of Agenda 2030 during September of 2015 for a Facebook article.
Since then it has been very popular and has achieved many thousands of shares.
My recent experience, however, has led to a revision, which I have created here:
I cannot emphasise enough how important Agenda 2030 is to every human alive today and even those unborn.
Please consider what the United Nations, in conjunction with the World Economic Forum, is really doing and sign the petition attached at the foot of this article.
Here are the Global Goals of Sustainability and my interpretation of the meaning behind each one.
https://francesleader.substack.com/p/agenda-2030-no-escape-no-objections
Yes. Ultimately, what you say is true. I, for one- however, do not attribute the Rockefellers with all that.
Giving the impression that the GA would hold any sway was a significant objective. Inviting small, powerless nations into the fold gave the appearance of 'collective security' when, in truth, their membership was a sneaky way to strip them of resources and sovereignty.
I studied international law under a Lebanese-American who attended the signing of the Charter in San Francisco in 1945. Even rode the train to that city from Washington, DC with many of the 'dignataries' who adopted the Charter.
She was an optimist who believed in the language of the pact. She was the youngest attendee. Just a support person.
But her enthusiasm for the impetus affected some of my views.
Considering the League of Nations was where the ground work for the UN was founded, both bodies coming after world wars, it's highly possible that you are correct .
The actions of the UN all these years on may betray the language of the Charter- but I would be willing to bet those who signed on originally did not have devious inclinations in doing so.
Legitimizing the concept of 'collective security' has a nice ring to it, eh?
Alas, yet another pillar to dismantle I suppose.
Wow! With the EU in the death grip of the manufactured NATO/Ukraine/Russia war, the utter disruption of trade and winter closing in...that body is just not going to wrap their collectively flailing arms around any thing to do with climate disruption. What about the horrific damage to the environment inflicted on it by war itself?
Those rockets and bombs kill EVERY living thing in their paths. They are loaded with poisons, fuels and chemicals that befoul waterbodies.
While I am all for saving Mother Earth and Father Sky- as long as the issues of war and the preparations for war are not Item #1...these initiatives almost seem frivolous.
I could be way off on this but imagine if JoJo and CHIDI included war and the environment. Talk about timely.
"..everybody had to sacrifice something. What is good about that is that it landed really well in the media and the political sphere." My alarm bells went off after hearing that. Sounds like it got watered down to the point to where the global cabal could work with it.
Another great cause usurped by the powers that be. I predict it will go nowhere.