UN One World Government by 2030? By James Reed

     Things are moving along nicely for the New World Order, as they, Thanos-like, crushing all resistance in their path to create a communist world dictatorship, under the guise of “saving the environment,” “muh human rights” and other pc/bs nonsense:
  https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/the-united-nations-wants-a-one-world-government-in-less-than-twelve-years?utm_content=buffere90ef&fbclid=IwAR0AE7zduyo2Fqk58EtNUx3sW9lgyvZ3U-CctcLf5Y312InSFmYPTaupF4M
  https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/the_un_wants_to_be_our_world_government_by_2030.html

“In 2015, seventy years after their original rights-based document, the UN took a giant step towards the global government that was only hinted at in their first organizing document.  They issued a document entitled Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.  This document has 91 numbered sections of the UN’s program for world government.  The UDHR is only referenced once in the entire document in Article 19.  Unlike the original “mother document” that was under 1900 words, this document is 14,883 words. The 91 items are addressing issues under the five headings of People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, and Partnership.  Additionally, the document provides 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to improve life on the planet.

What is meant by the term “sustainable?” The most often quoted definition comes from the UN World Commission on Environment and Development: “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”  The earlier ideas and ideals of rights, freedom, equality, and justice are subsumed under meeting of needs and an explicit environmentalism which emphasizes preventing the depletion of scarce planetary resources.  Of course, the takeoff is the Marxist axiom that society should be organized around the idea of “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.”  Thus, Marxism is implicit in sustainability, but is nuanced by its alliance with seemingly scientific adjustments and goals related to environmentalism. A technical jargon is welded to Marxist intentionality to produce a sense of fittingness and modern progress.

The entire “Transforming Our World” document is cast in a stream of consciousness of pious platitudes for a utopian future. It is an outsize utopian dream. Five of the 17 items pertain to the environment.  There are goals for the cities, for women, for the poor, and even for life under the water.  Absolutely no sphere of human activity is exempt from control by the UN. The key word of course is no longer “rights” except the oblique reference in Article 19.  In fact, this writer did not see the word rights even once in this document even though that word appeared in practically every sentence of the original UN document. The one-worlders of the 1950s and early 1960s are now in the UN driver’s seat, and they have made their move.  The overlay of Marxist talk about “meeting needs” has moved to center stage.  The UN has assigned itself a time frame for moving forward in its plan for planetary hegemony.”

That time frame has 2030, as the year national sovereignty will be eroded to the point it will disappear. This is to be done by the death of a thousand cuts, primarily using the environment and the meaningless idea of “sustainable development” to promote global governance. Then there is the Global Compact on Migration, which will create open borders for the West. That agenda is already well advanced. David Samuel rightly describes the Compact as a “sinister globalist ploy,” his words, not mine:

“To properly understand the trend of world political events in recent years, it is essential to appreciate that a titanic struggle for supremacy between two implacably opposed ideologies is raging right across the Western world. It is an undeclared war waged largely behind the scenes. The attackers are powerful globalist and multi-national interests such as the EU and the UN, supported by many leftist groups funded, paradoxically, by mega-rich financiers. Their ultimate aim is the abolition of borders, migration between countries at will, the dismantling of national identity, the transfer of power to supra-national bodies, and eventually the imposition of a post-democratic unitary world government. The defenders are those who believe that Western-style democracy based on the nation-state remains the least-worst way yet devised of safe-guarding the life, liberty and prosperity of its citizens.
The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, to give it its full name, originated with the bureaucrats of the UN General Assembly in 2016.  It morphed into the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants and then through various stages to become in July 2018 the Final Draft, which is due to be adopted at the IGC (Inter-governmental conference) on international migration in Morocco in December.

At all stages it has had the backing and support of the UN Secretary General, António Guterres, who as the former UN High Commissioner for Refugees was never slow to attack Australia’s immigration policies. The Compact is basically a means by which the UN can install itself within the legislative process of democratic nation states by persuading them to recognise the supremacy of international law, i.e. that proposed by the UN and its agencies, over domestic law. It has been described variously as ‘a vision for world order that promises disorder’ and ‘a plan for borderless chaos’. Albeit wrapped up in the boring prose designed to put you to sleep before you reach the end of the sentence, as so beloved by the EU, it also plans to suppress any criticism of increased immigration by attacking freedom of speech.  In a sinister passage it commits to ‘promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including by sensitising and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants’.

The devil is in the detail as to whether such terms are to be defined objectively or subjectively. On 25 July, Alan Jones asked then Immigration Minister, Peter Dutton, whether he or his government would be signing The Compact and the best he could get out of Dutton was ‘Not in its current form’. Since then, of course, we now have a more conservative Prime Minister. So can we now expect Australia to join the US in refusing to sign The Compact? Let’s hope so. But what of a possible Labor government? With their track record of encouraging people-smugglers (50,000 illegal immigrants and 1,200 deaths at sea), we can only fear the worst. Our best hope is that we can open the eyes of public opinion to what is going on.”

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/the-war-of-the-world/

     So there you have it, straight from the mainstream media. The UN is set to make any meek cries about our genocide, illegal. What little remains of free speech will be gone. Have you contacted politicians like Fraser Anning, Bob Katter and Pauline Hanson yet?