Horrible: Agenda 2030 Goal 1; Wage-Slavery, Social Settlement, Building the 3rd World By Keeping The West In Hunger
All Rights Reserved. You can share under the Fair Share Act crediting the author and the link to the book.
Goal 11 previously published here:
Agenda 2030 and its translation; meaning its true meaning after decoding their language-code is a long process. To read the full translation read the whole book but I try to break down its goals into several articles (each goal in one article with no special order) and post them here so it may grab your attention and you may finally understand in what sticky situation and in what depth we are in this sewage and what is expecting us.
The United Nations AGENDA 2030 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
“Goal 1) End poverty in all its forms everywhere
1.1 By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a day”
Translation: (End, eradicate poverty. What is the definition of poverty and what is the definition of ending poverty? Paying a minimum wage and a population dependent on the government’s welfare can be interpreted as ending poverty. In this fashion, Socialism can be the solution to end poverty. Pay attention to the big trick here. People will not live with less than $1.25, so the limit will be $1.25 but they may live on less than $2.25 forever, and that can be a sustainable achievement as more than this salary may not be sustainable. As noticed, we are told how much is the minimum wage but the maximum wage is kept in secret and it will never be definitive because the base is sustainability. Something sustainable today may not be sustainable tomorrow, just as simple as that and who decides the criteria of sustainability? The United Nations (the Cabal). So say goodbye to freedom right here from the first goal. Sustainability is only a code word designed to hide the will of the oligarchs and colonizers and keep everything obscure. There is no tomorrow for a sustainable world as every second all rules can be changed due to sustainability.)
1.2 “By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions”
Translation: (This sub-goal says: REDUCE half of men and women and children who live in poverty according to the national definition. Read it. It says exactly what I am saying. It doesn’t say reduce the “poverty” of men and women; it says reduce at least by half “the proportion of men, women and children” of all ages living in poverty. Do you listen people? Someday after the United Nations’ takeover of the world, the phrases you see here will become the rule of law, and at that time they will say according to xxx law, we have to “Reduce by half” the number of men, women, and children who “according to our standards” live in poverty. Tell me how many people live in poverty right now at this moment? Isn’t it most of the men, women, and children live in poverty? Isn’t almost the entire Africa by our standards live in poverty? What about Sri-Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and many countries in South America? How poor is enough poor? How poor will they be in future decades when farmers can’t cultivate because of the geoengineering and weather modifications? Do they qualify for the United Nations’ poverty standards to be “reduced”? The item says “according to national dimensions.” What are the national dimensions in America to be considered poor and how many people are qualified for that measure today? Should they be “reduced’?
How is it possible to see such a statement in the United Nations Agenda and not recognize it?)
1.3 “Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable”
Translation: (The globalist is using subjective-relative terms like ketchup on whatever they want. The extension of these definitions is a legal infarct to call anything “subjectively” appropriate, rather than “appropriate” and “substantial” which are both relative adjectives and the criteria of their premise is not legally clear. To what measure and according to what relatives are they applied? We have the mysterious word of “floors” which is obscure to what it refers. Does it refer to socials classes or does it refer to the ground? If it refers to social classes, what does it mean to implement social protection for high class and wealthy? And if it refers to floors as the lower surface of the ground, what does it mean to give it a substantial coverage? Does it mean occupying and being in possession of all grounds and name it legitimate protection of the poor? To abolish ownership of any property? What do they mean by social protection? Will they transfer us into camps and call it protection while protecting the rich “floors”? As you see these are broad concepts that can be interpreted in different ways. What if it means all above together? That is; to completely occupy and protect all national floors and grounds by the government, pay a minimum wage on whoever alive on their pay-list with no rights and ownership while preserving the oligarchs? Well to discover these possibilities we have to rely on what more can we grasp of the entire list of goals.)
1.4 “By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinance”
Translation: (1- Equal not good or high but “equal.” Equal rights to economic resources. Not a high standard of economic resources but “equal rights” to economic resources. Socialism; a copycat of China and Venezuela but ruled by technocrats. They practically say we raise a minimum wage from $1.25 to $2.2, and you will be on our payroll to receive $2.25, so we have fulfilled the promise, instead, you are not allowed to have access to more than $2.25 nor any right to have property ownership as it contradicts the premise of “equal access” for all.
2- Equal access to basic services, ownership, and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources. Do you see the gravity of the situation? By 2030 everybody should have equal access to basic services and ownership. It doesn’t say equal access to ownership; it says equal access to basic services AND equal access to basic ownership AND equal access to basic control over the land and other forms of PROPERTY, INHERITANCE, NATURAL RESOURCES. That simply means the government will let us live in maybe 10 feet cubes and we will all live the same style with the same measurements that the government allows us. If this article would have meant otherwise, how possibly, by using the same wording in this article, you and I and a rich man can have equal access to ownership, control over land, inheritance and natural resources? It doesn’t say “equal right to ownership, it says equal right to basics so, by raising $1.25 to $2.25, it is fulfilled, we have equal ACCESS to BASICS. It is also fine with less than 10 feet cubes space as long as we are all equal, and the list goes on…)
The same line of the article follows like this: ”equal access to appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinance”…
What is appropriate? Who says what is appropriate? What does it mean by appropriate technology? Is technology going to become a monopoly of the government? Will the government decide who is allowed to have access to some technology because the government considers it inappropriate? So the words “appropriate” and “access” are very tricky here because the government can ban some technologies and let equal access to others. Will the usage of the internet be appropriate? Or perhaps visiting some websites will not be appropriate. That means total control which is the central core of agenda 2030 and the nature of the United Nations by default.
Equal access to micro and NOT macro financing is another souvenir of this goal which means Centralized banks, IMF, a world bank to control all finances. The monster we see here is “the government.” It is all over the place interfering with everything, and as this is agenda 2030, the government means The United Nations’ New World Order which will force people to accept poverty as the new norm. Raising a wage from the lowest to very low is their standard and means lowering the “middle class and above” to very new low and this is the new standard; the new modernized world nation with all those horns and trumpets is only a degraded, poor and controlled nation.)
1.1 “By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters”
Translation: (What do they mean by resilence exactly? I google the word and see some translations by google translator as:
-“the ability of a substance or object to spring back into shape; elasticity.”
-“the capacity to recover quickly from difficulties; toughness.”
-“nylon is excellent in wearability and resilience.”
Resilience; or adaptation in the face of adversity, trauma, stress, tragedy or threat is an interesting term. What are climate-related extreme events? What are severe economic, social and environmental shocks? Does this goal not seem more like an alarm rather than a goal? Why does it separate climate-related extreme events from environmental shocks? Why doesn’t it refer to both of them as natural disasters? How can a government “reduce” the exposure of the population to climate-related extreme events? By putting them in concentration camps? Or by drugging them gradually to “reduce” their “vulnerability” and build “resilience”? Or maybe it means by weather modification by the government; people will have the government-desired exposure? This is a United Nations’ most crucial agenda, not a fiction book, so it has all these meanings above. Terms have legal weights and these terms have been chosen for psy-ops with extreme purposefulness, vigilance, and psychological effect. It says people will be controlled in areas defined by the government, so do their weather and their environment. Their way of living will be altered, and their minds will be engineered to the extent of being resilient to any environmental shock, attack or microbiologic epidemic.)
1.a“Ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources, including through enhanced development cooperation, to provide adequate and predictable means for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, to implement programmes and policies to end poverty in all its dimensions”
Translation: Mobilization of resources; from where? From “a variety of sources” …To where? To “developing countries, in particular, least developed countries” …. I feel I am reading one of Soros’s letters. Exact tone, wording, and phrases. So mobilizing resources from a variety of sources which can be nowhere other than from “rich developed countries in Europe, America, Australia, and Canada to the third world countries. Pure Socialism. Taking out your hard-earned money and resources and sending it to the third world countries for no reason to make you poor and make them rich with no effort. Just look at the immigration crisis — the reverse phenomena with the same effect. Pour half of your money into the third world countries as humanitarian help, and they will illegally come here to consume the other half of it through your taxes and make no mistake; those who go under the due process to come legally should wait for years. I wonder why the utopia of this goal stands precisely where the Carbon tax and Kyoto protocol stand? Taxing successful American companies and recycling the money to the third world just where illegal aliens come from. Isn’t it interesting? Instead, the big governmental monopolies and military complex corporations can “Pay Per Pollute.” Umm… Absolutely scientific and absolutely planet savvy. And let us take back for a moment to Brennan’s speech in Council On Foreign Relations. What did he say? He said:
“As promising as it may be, moving for a SAI will also raise a number of challenges for our government and for the international community. On a technical side, green gas emission reductions will still have to accompany SAI to address other climate change effects such as; ocean acidification because ASI alone will not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. On the geopolitical side, the technology’s potential to alter weather patterns and benefit certain regions of the world at the expenses of other nations, could trigger sharp oppositions by some nations.” – John O. Brennan
So it is not only Agenda 2030 talking about transferring the resources from rich countries to poor countries while taxing only rich countries, but also the CIA director in a conference in Council on Foreign Relations which if you may know is one of the most dangerous organizations together with the Trilateral Commission. Here Brennan says: On the geopolitical side, the technology’s potential to alter weather patterns and benefit certain regions of the world at the expenses of other nations, could trigger sharp oppositions by some nations.” He knows they have targeted rich countries. He knows this is an agenda to shift the poles of the world’s economy at our expense.)
In a report titled” MOBILIZATION OF PRIVATE FINANCE” by 7 BY MULTILATERAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS AND DEVELOPMENT FINANCE INSTITUTIONS 2017, on the “International Finance Corporation of World’s Bank Group” aka IFC; a sister organization of the World Bank, page 8 we read:
“In 2015, the global community adopted the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that underpin it, and made commitments at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. In July of the same year, the Third International Conference on Financing for Development recognized that the financial resources needed to achieve the SDGs far exceeded current financial flows. Indeed, as explained in a paper prepared for the Conference and endorsed by the World Bank/IMF Development Committee in April 2015,1 the world needs to move from billions to trillions of dollars of financing to meet the challenge of promoting inclusive, sustainable growth, reducing poverty and inequality, and protecting the planet. A wide range of stakeholders see a critical role for Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) and other Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) in blending public and private finance to scale up financing for development. In adopting the Hamburg Principles last year, the G20 welcomed the role of the MDBs in mobilizing and catalyzing private capital and endorsed a target of increasing mobilization by 25 to 35 percent by 2020. In response, MDBs and bilateral DFIs have taken steps to catalyze more private investment, taking into account quality standards and the risk profile of different markets, as mobilization is generally more difficult in higher risk markets. This includes tapping into larger sources of capital such as pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, and insurance companies. Many do this by leveraging their own capital base by borrowing from capital markets to increase their own ability to finance development. In addition, they catalyze greater private investment through a range of other functions, including: i) helping evaluate and structure high-quality investment projects; ii) helping mitigate real and perceived risk associated with investments that have a positive development impact; iii) mobilizing resources from and co-investing alongside both traditional investors and new sources of commercial financing for develop.”
Did you hear folks?? They have designed, tailored, and wore it all by themselves but pretend that we had some role in the agenda and therefore, we have to comply. To move from billions to trillions of dollars of financing to meet the challenge of promoting inclusive what?? Inclusive financing? Now from racism and inclusivity from what we do, where we work and what we say to forcefully finance other countries to be inclusive? To borrow from international funds to be able to transfer the capital?? Are they insane?
The countries listed are The Philippines Estimated Private Catalyzation Amount: $6.3 billion, Ghana $374 million, Turkey $8.3 billion, Tanzania $108 million, and Panama $47 billion, and then we reach to the final chart of countries to be funneled with the western money flow which is this chart at page 67.
While we are doing our normal lives and just don’t listen to all these warnings, their international looters are serving the main agenda and systematically funneling our money to these countries for no reason other than the socialization of the west and keeping us hungry.)
1.b“Create sound policy frameworks at the national, regional and international levels, based on pro-poor and gender-sensitive development strategies, to support accelerated investment in poverty eradication actions”
Translation: (Push pro-poor category of immigration and gender like a hammer above people’s head. Create sound policies? Do you know what’s wrong with creating policies? According to the law, certain organizations cannot make laws or regulations; however; global organizations like the United Nations “can” craft policies and what makes laws?
Policies make laws.
Through policy to law and through law to action is how agenda 2030 is spreading and almost already in power as all required policies are in place. Besides, there are also “soft laws” which are those laws that are not necessarily presented by the Senate and these “policies” can transform into this category of laws.)