“So-called ‘sustainable development’… is meaningless drivel.”

— James Lovelock, English Scientist

“Humanitarian response, sustainable development, and sustaining peace are three sides of the same triangle.”

— Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations

“Our biggest challenge in this new century is to take an idea that seems abstract – sustainable development – and turn it into a reality for all the world’s people”

— Kofi Annan, former Secretary-General of the United Nations

“Sustainable development is the pathway to the future we want for all. It offers a framework to generate economic growth, achieve social justice, exercise environmental stewardship and strengthen governance.”

— Ban Ki-moon, former Secretary-General of the United Nations

“There are no passengers on spaceship earth. We are all crew.”

— Marshall McLuhan

“Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, perhaps we should control the population to ensure the survival of our environment.”

— David Attenborough

“Humans merely share the Earth. We can only protect the land, not own it.”

— Chief Seattle

“What we are doing to the forests of the world is but a mirror reflection of what we are doing to ourselves and to one another.”

— Mahatma Gandhi

“Many unsustainable behaviors are locked-in and made ‘normal’, not just by the way that we produce and consume, but by the absence of easy alternatives”

— Margaret Beckett

“Sustainability is a political choice, not a technical one. It’s not a question of whether we can be sustainable, but whether we choose to be”

— Gary Lawrence

Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum (WEF) has been a major driving force for some kind of global Great Reset. The United Nations has 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which the WEF has adopted. What exactly is all of this really about? Great progress is being claimed, but to what actual ends? And is the progress real?

Both the Great Reset and the SDGs have set out quite general but hugely ambitious goals. These goals, whatever they may mean in practice, seem admirable enough – and even somewhat visionary – if taken at face value. What is especially troubling in all of this, to me at least, is the frenzied action occurring behind this façade. The goals and actions seem to have a serious dissonance.

Quite a while back, I had an initial look at the WEF’s Great Reset machinations – How Are The Great Resetters Doing? Are We Reset Yet? – and even attempted a rough scorecard. The bottom line there was this:

“The Great Reset is definitely well-underway, but just not in the ways planned by the official Great Resetters. Thinking of ‘Great Reset’ as ‘Great Change’ instead, where we are headed is being driven by us non-Great-Resetters in directions and ways that the official Great Resetters cannot even imagine. Much of this Great Change will be greatly productive and may even be well-worth the disruptions and hassles required to get there.”

More recently, I addressed the probably unintended WEF catch-phrase in this post: “You Will Own Nothing and Be Happy. How Does That Work?” These two posts highlighted some of the behind-the-curtains activity that may tell us much more about the real agenda and goals of the WEF, the U.N., the World Health Organization (WHO), and a number of powerful others.

There are no good guys in the world of big politics and big money

My starting point in such assessments is nearly always “consider the source”, as counselled by the great philosopher Sylvester Stallone: “Consider the source … Don’t be a fool by listening to a fool.” While big politics and big money don’t generally involve “fools”, they do involve a great many highly-flawed individuals whose ambitions, drive, ruthlessness, and myopia virtually guarantee an ultimate disaster, crash, and self-destruction. Or worse.

Both the WEF and the U.N. have openly stated plans for a “One World Government”. This brings to mind George Carlin’s famous quote on government: “My first rule: I don’t believe anything the government tells me.” So perhaps these powerful organizations are actually not pursuing a global government (and global everything else), run of course by themselves. On this one, however, I truly do believe that these government-wannabes are being quite truthful.

The WEF’s Klaus Schwab being open about the true aims: “World Economic Forum globalist Klaus Schwab praises China’s authoritarian regime as ‘role model’ for world”:

“While tens of millions of people the world over have long suspected that the World Economic Forum and its founder, Klaus Schwab, were just a front for global dominance, they had their suspicions confirmed last week [November 2022].”

“In an interview on China state television — all public forums in China are state-owned or controlled, by the way — Schwab finally took off his mask when he praised the authoritarian Communist regime and called it a ‘role model’ for [many] countries.”

“Schwab, 84, made these comments during an interview with CGTN’s Tian Wei on the sidelines of last week’s APEC CEO Summit in Bangkok, Thailand.”

Klaus Schwab in his Bond-villain outfit.
Klaus Schwab in his Bond-villain outfit.

Elon Musk weighs in – cautiously as always

Jamie White republished in Natural News from Infowars.com reports on just this issue: “Elon Musk Blasts WEF: ‘Unelected world government the people never asked for and don’t want’”:

“’WEF is increasingly becoming an unelected world government that the people never asked for and don’t want,’ Musk tweeted in response to WEF founder Klaus Schwab’s announcement of a ‘Global Collaboration Village’ in the Metaverse.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 18, 2023

“Musk then launched a poll asking Twitter to weigh in on whether the WEF should control the world. As of this writing, 86.2% voted ‘NO’ and 13.8% voted ‘YES’ with over 1.5 million votes.”
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 18, 2023

“On Tuesday, Musk also called out the WEF’s claim that overpopulation is a global problem. ‘Population collapse is an existential problem for humanity, not overpopulation!’ he wrote.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 17, 2023

“On Monday, Musk joked that Schwab’s remark of the WEF learning to ‘master the future’ ‘doesn’t sound ominous at all … How is WEF/Davos even a thing? Are they trying to be the boss of Earth!?’”
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 17, 2023”

Musk’s statements do seem to get attention, but he nearly always has a clear point to make: the WEF as a “force for world dominance”.

Elon Musk, trying to look serious and failing.
Elon Musk, trying to look serious and failing.

One world digital currency is on the way

Ethan Huff writes in Natural News that “The one-world digital currency is almost here – but first they have to collapse the global financial system to make way for it”:

“The Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which is often described as the central bank of central banks, is working on a new global central bank digital currency (CBDC) that could become the new one-world digital currency.”

“Known as ‘Project Icebreaker,’ the plan involves coordinating all of the world’s central banks and their respective currencies under a new foreign exchange clearing house for retail CBDCs, meaning digital currencies used by ordinary people and businesses in their day-to-day affairs.”

“Much like the SWIFT payment system for international settlements, Project Icebreaker will enable varying digital currencies to be traded from country to country both quickly and efficiently.”

“The ‘Icebreaker Hub,’ as the BIS is calling it, will facilitate data transfers for an array of transactions that occur at banks, both internally and in their dealings with other banks.”

These are just a few examples of what is apparently going on behind the scenes of the WEF, the U.N., and many others. Certainly enough to raise serious questions about the happy sustainable world being fronted by such organizations.

The WEF’s Great Reset official priorities

From Wikipedia on the Great Reset and the Fourth Industrial Revolution:

“WEF chief executive officer Klaus Schwab described three core components of the Great Reset: creating conditions for a ‘stakeholder economy’; building in a more ‘resilient, equitable, and sustainable’ way, utilizing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics; and ‘harness[ing] the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.’”

“In June 2020, Klaus Schwab, who founded the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 1971 and is currently its CEO, described the three core components of the Great Reset. The first includes creating conditions for a ‘stakeholder economy’; improving policies and agreements on taxes, regulations, fiscal policies and trade to result in ‘fairer outcomes’. The second component addresses how the large-scale pandemic spending programs with private investments and pension funds could improve on the old system by building one that is more ‘resilient, equitable and sustainable’ over the long term by ‘building green urban infrastructure and creating incentives for industries to improve their track record on environmental, social and governance (ESG) metrics’. The third component of a Great Reset agenda is to ‘harness the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution’ for the public good. A July 2020 non-fiction by Schwab and economist Thierry Malleret develops the plan in more detail.”

Sounds good, at least on the surface. Perhaps even “visionary”?

Another version from Emmanuel Martin at GIS Reports: “The ‘Great Reset’: Prospects and Risks”:

“The Great Reset – Five Priorities”

No. 1: a new social contract that fosters social inclusion,

No. 2: a decarbonization of the economy to fight global warming,

No. 3: an intensification of the Fourth Industrial Revolution based on digitalization,

No. 4: a shift from ‘short-term’ shareholder capitalism to ‘longer-term’ stakeholder capitalism,

No. 5: a closer global cooperation on key issues.”

Again, sounds okay, and maybe even good – on the surface.

The Great Reset – Five Priorities.
The Great Reset – Five Priorities.

What about the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals?

Since the WEF and the U.N. seem to have merged their official interests to some degree, it seems important to review the U.N.’s plans: “Sustainable Development Goals”:

United Nations 17 Sustainable Development Goals.
United Nations 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

“The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) or Global Goals are a collection of seventeen interlinked objectives designed to serve as a ‘shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future.’ The short titles of the 17 SDGs are: No poverty (SDG 1), Zero hunger (SDG 2), Good health and well-being (SDG 3), Quality education (SDG 4), Gender equality (SDG 5), Clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), Affordable and clean energy (SDG 7), Decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), Industry, innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9), Reduced inequalities (SDG 10), Sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11), Responsible consumption and production (SDG 12), Climate action (SDG 13), Life below water (SDG 14), Life on land (SDG 15), Peace, justice, and strong institutions (SDG 16), Partnerships for the goals (SDG 17).”

“The SDGs emphasize the interconnected environmental, social and economic aspects of sustainable development by putting sustainability at their center.”

“In 2015, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) created the SDGs as part of the Post-2015 Development Agenda. This agenda sought to design a new global development framework, replacing the Millennium Development Goals, which were completed that same year. These goals were formally articulated and adopted in a UNGA resolution known as the 2030 Agenda, often informally referred to as Agenda 2030. On 6 July 2017, the SDGs were made more actionable by a UNGA resolution that identifies specific targets for each goal and provides indicators to measure progress. Most targets are to be achieved by 2030, although some have no end date.”

Pretty clearly, to me at least, they missed a couple of very important goals:

  1. Eliminate earthquakes
  2. Eliminate hurricanes

Of course, there are always a few naysayers to dampen enthusiasm for such admirable goals and visionary plans (from same Wikipedia link as above):

Too many goals and overall problems.
Scholars have pointed out flaws in the design of the SDGs for the following aspects: ‘the number of goals, the structure of the goal framework (for example, the non-hierarchical structure), the coherence between the goals, the specificity or measurability of the targets, the language used in the text, and their reliance on neoliberal economic development-oriented sustainable development as their core orientation.’”

“The SDGs may simply maintain the status quo and fall short of delivering an ambitious development agenda. The current status quo has been described as ‘separating human wellbeing and environmental sustainability, failing to change governance and to pay attention to trade-offs, root causes of poverty and environmental degradation, and social justice issues.’”

“A commentary in The Economist in 2015 argued that 169 targets for the SDGs is too many, describing them as sprawling, misconceived and a mess compared to the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).”

Has anybody tried to measure progress on the 17 SDG goals?

As Peter Drucker wisely noted, “If you can’t measure it, you can’t change it.” Perhaps with this in mind, it turns out that there is indeed an effort to measure progress on SDG goals: “The Sustainable Development Report”:

“The Global SDG Index and Dashboards Report is the first publication to track countries’ performance on all 17 Sustainable Development Goals. The annual publication, co-produced by Bertelsmann Stiftung and SDSN, includes a ranking and dashboards that show key challenges for each country in terms of implementing the SDGs.”

Sustainable Development Report 2023.
The Sustainable Development Report 2023 marks the eighth edition of the annual assessment of progress for all UN member states towards the Sustainable Development Goals. At the halfway point of the 2030 Agenda, this year’s edition discusses urgent areas for action to accelerate progress in the seven remaining years to 2030, including the critical need for UN member states to adopt an SDG Stimulus.”

View Rankings & Scores.
The report assesses the progress of all 193 UN Member States on the SDGs: This year, Finland, Sweden and Denmark top the rankings. In addition to overall scores, we also feature a spillover index that tracks countries’ positive and negative impacts abroad.”

Source: Sustainable Development Index Scores 2019.
Source: Sustainable Development Index Scores 2019.

While the above dashboard looks at least somewhat hopeful, the scorekeepers’ Executive Summary is rather harsh and critical:

“At the midpoint of the 2030 Agenda [2022], all of the SDGs are seriously off track [emphasis added]. From 2015 to 2019, the world made some progress on the SDGs, although this was already vastly insufficient to achieve the goals. Since the outbreak of the pandemic in 2020 and other simultaneous crises, SDG progress has stalled globally. In most high-income countries (HICs), automatic stabilizers, emergency expenditure, and recovery plans mitigated the impacts of these multiple crises on socioeconomic outcomes.”

“Only limited progress is being made on the environmental and biodiversity goals, including SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 14 (Life Below Water), and SDG 15 (Life on Land), even in countries that are largely to blame for the climate and biodiversity crises. The disruptions caused by these multiple crises has aggravated fiscal-space issues in low-income countries (LICs) and in lower-middle income countries (LMICs), leading to a reversal in progress on several goals and indicators. Despite this alarming development, the SDGs are still achievable. None of their objectives are beyond our reach. The world is off track, but that is all the more reason to double down on the SDGs.”

The ”… world is off track …”? Maybe reality is seriously messing with the SDG agenda? This is indeed a surprise.

Reality, or at least the one I’m familiar with, is always pretty much doing its own thing. This may well not be what the world-fixers have in mind, but just maybe their aspirations were a mite high, and possibly poorly-aimed and/or executed. Blaming the nasty “world” for being uncooperative seems a bit like what government does best.

The only good thing about the Executive Summary is its sharp admonition that things are not going at all well in SDG-world. One might even wonder perhaps whether it is the SDG ambitions and mechanics that are flawed.

Extracted from the rankings table below shows a pretty impressive picture of progress. Finland at the top scores 86.76, while the U.S. is down at a measly 75.91. Better than Russia, at least, way down there at 73.79. The precision in these scores is truly amazing, yes?

Might you, like myself, see these scores as typical of largely-useless government activity? The were undoubtedly expensive, which may be what really counts.

Countries are ranked by their overall score. The overall score measures the total progress towards achieving all 17 SDGs. The score can be interpreted as a percentage of SDG achievement. A score of 100 indicates that all SDGs have been achieved.
Countries are ranked by their overall score. The overall score measures the total progress towards achieving all 17 SDGs. The score can be interpreted as a percentage of SDG achievement. A score of 100 indicates that all SDGs have been achieved.

On the other hand, this all seems like way too much effort by way too many countries and organizations for it not to have a more serious and rather urgent underlying purpose.

What is the evidence of such an underlying purpose?

Is there any evidence – apart from these organizations openly stating such intentions? Well, how about Zbigniew Brzezinski, charter member of the globalists:

“We cannot leap into world government in one quick step…. [T]he precondition for eventual globalization—genuine globalization—is progressive regionalization, because thereby we move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units.”

— Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1995 (former National Security Advisor, member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission)

“Author and activist Naomi Wolf has stated:
‘As a political consultant you learn to reason backwards. You look at the effect—you draw conclusions from the effect [of a policy]. The story is made up, always. You learn that as a political consultant. The principals will set a goal, they will say ‘Get us to this goal,’ and then the Chief of Staff goes to the message shop, meaning the storytellers, and says, ‘Tell a story that will get people to accept this goal.’ And that is how politics works.’”

And the article further states that …

“The ‘sustainable development’ agenda is actually a rebranding of an earlier technocratic agenda that envisioned putting the world’s resources into a global common trust to be administered by technocratic scientists and engineers.”

and worse yet

The Commission on Global Governance.
The Commission on Global Governance was not an official UN body. However, the UN partially financed its activities; other funders included nine governments and several influential foundations, including the MacArthur Foundation, Ford Foundation, and Carnegie Corporation.”

“The group’s membership featured 28 internationally prominent names, including the following:”

  • Barber Conable (U.S.), president of the World Bank from 1986 to 1991
  • Jacques Delors (France), president of the European Commission from 1985 to 1995
  • Enrique Iglesias (Uruguay), president of the Inter-American Development Bank
  • Frank Judd (UK), member of the House of Lords
  • Jan Pronk (Netherlands), Minister for Development Co-operation
  • Adele Simmons (U.S.), member of the Council on Foreign Relations; president of the MacArthur Foundation; member of the UN High Level Advisory Board on Sustainable Development
  • Maurice Strong (Canada), chairman of the Earth Council; secretary-general of Earth Summits I and II
  • Yuli Vorontsov (Russia), ambassador to the U.S., ambassador to the UN”

There is much more out there, but all one really needs is the words directly from the WEF, the U.N., and such. Elon Musk (see above) probably has it right.

Global governance – one world government – is the real objective

If this is indeed the case, as the rulers-and-ruler-wannabes have conveniently stated, then any assessment of performance must address the underlying objective. How are these people and organizations making out on their one world government aims?

Now we get into some really fuzzy stuff, speaking technically of course.

One world government has a number of primary, quite visible dimensions and processes:

  1. Superseding existing governments globally by developing an overarching replacement while reducing their importance and power.
  2. Superseding the existing global monetary systems with a one world currency and financial system.
  3. Implementing globally a digital ID that will replace and extend existing ID formats of all types.

Surveillance and control seems clearly to be the fundamental goal in these.

The mechanics for achieving this one world utopia may be getting quite nasty since time seems to be running out for the globalists. Not only have Russia, China, and the BRICS+ nations made great progress on achieving a multipolar alternate world, the West itself – globalists – is coming unglued in many places.

This inconvenient situation makes it difficult to construct any sort of intuitively-valid Great Reset scorecard. You can’t credibly use Great Resetter goals and then progress against these goals as measured by the Great Resetters themselves. Why, a bit of bias may even slip in.

A Great Reset Scorecard for real people

In the absence of anything better, I have put together my own scorecard version that reflects just my concerns and aspirations (if any) for whatever the Great Resetters and assorted globalists may be up to. Stuff that affects, or might affect, me and perhaps some other real people (see Related Reading below).

This scorecard assumes that the Great Reset in some form or other will be achieved. They are pretty much there already. I figure 2024 for widespread digital IDs, digital money, and an initial version of a one-world-government by the WEF, U.N., and various supporting organizations.

Scorecards often get overly complex. This tends to obscure what may actually be going on. Unless that is the intention. No matter. Better to start off simply and let efforts at understanding and interpretation guide any elaboration.

Pretty clearly, the Great Resetters are making solid progress toward achieving at least one of underlying goals. The one world government effort is leading, but this may just be temporary – Russia, China, and the BRICS+ are beginning to gel as a strong, opposing, multipolar force to counter such globalization.

It is probably just my slight bias in this matter, but the value to non-Great-Resetters like me seems to be zero, or maybe negative. Even though bits and pieces of the Great Resetters agenda may have some visible value, the baggage that goes with these completely negates that value. The Great Resetter agenda is almost certainly aimed solely at Great Resetter gains.

The likelihood of Great Resetter success seems to me to be very small, except perhaps for achieving a One West-World Government. They haven’t a chance of prevailing against the Eurasian and Global South blocks of nations. Plus the very high likelihood of Great Resetter self-destruction.

Bottom line:

Klaus Schwab’s global Great Reset plans via the WEF seem to be on the verge of succeeding – in large measure and in various aspects. The feverish global activity over the United Nations’ 17 SDGs is wonderfully obfuscatory and distracting, probably as intended. As a result, we appear to be getting Greatly Reset, likely with the next year or so.

Such grandiose schemes have a way of self-destructing due to the insane ambitions, delusions, obsessiveness, and personal limitations of the perpetrators. Plus, here, we have one (or two) competing schemes from Russia, China, and the BRICS+. It is truly a global mess. Good thing we have the SDGs for distraction while the rest of the world collapses, as scheduled.

“King Charles and the Globalists set meeting for September at which they will plot how to accelerate goals of U.N. Agenda 2030 and the complete digitization of humanity.”

“The World Economic Forum and United Nations are so concerned that the goals of Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development and the Great Reset (aka technocracy under a one-world beast system) are in jeopardy of not being fulfilled by the appointed date, that they have called for a summit in September to discuss how they can kickstart their stalled totalitarian agenda.”

“The September 18-19 Summit in New York will ‘mark the beginning of a new phase of accelerated progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals,’ according to the U.N. website.”

“… King Charles has his own page on the WEF website in which he outlines the ‘10 actions we must take to drive the green recovery.’ These 10 actions are truly frightening were they ever to be fully implemented as they would allow for basically no freedom in a top-down dictatorship that decides for us how all resources are to be allocated and used.”

“… Schwab openly brags about having “penetrated the cabinets” of major nations with WEF puppets.”

  • Matt Smith via Doug Casey’s International Man lays out his set of working assumptions about where things may be headed: “11 Assumptions About The Future”:

“Amidst this chaotic phase, it’s impossible to predict even the near future. The best we can do is form a hypothesis and orient our actions around it. Let me say – They are assumptions not predictions. I could be wrong. Hell – I hope I’m wrong. But with nearly three years of the “Great Reset” under our belt, I bet you’ll agree – they have merit.”

#1. Less Freedom of movement.

#2. A CBDC is coming.

#3. The digital ID is already here.

#4. GFC 2.0 [Global Financial Collapse/Crisis] and/or the Greater Depression.

#5. Most of my financial assets will disappear at some point.

#6. Increasing crime & disorder.

#7. Supply constraints are increasing around all commodities.

#8. WW3 is coming.

#9. Censorship and Digital Control will enter a new phase.

#10. The US election – regardless of the outcome – is an inflection point and potentially a flash point.

#11. There is a war happening today.”

“Significantly, the bulk of these Parliamentary Acts, as distinct from the Statutory Instruments under which we lived during lockdown, were made as the regulations for the latter were revoked, with the remainder made into law this year. We haven’t, therefore, moved out of a juridical framework — ‘incorporated’ is the word Foucault uses to describe this transition — and which is not, moreover, limited to the legislation I’ve listed here.”

“But what I want to focus on in this book is the incorporation of the judicial institution, which this legislation is clearing the legal barriers to, into what Foucault called the regulatory apparatuses of biopower. These — my Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse — are:

  • Digital Identity
  • The United Nations’ Agenda 2030
  • The World Health Organization’s Pandemic Treaty
  • Central Bank Digital Currency”

“… a ‘COVID-19 Action Platform’, the term itself is now more or less openly used by politicians, civil servants, corporate CEOs, marketing executives, digital engineers, journalists, activists and other promoters of what the World Economic Forum calls ‘stakeholder capitalism’.”

“It’s hard to say which term is more likely to attract censure and censorship when used by those not authorized to do so, but the most accurate description of the Great Reset — and the one most suppressed by those overseeing its implementation — is that it is the historical shift from the economic, political and social paradigm by which the West has been governed for the past forty years into stakeholder capitalism. As the emerging political economy of the West, this seeks to merge the separation of powers between executive, legislature and judiciary on which Western democracy has been founded into a technocratic form of governance that will signal the end of politics, properly speaking, insofar as politics designates — at least in principle — a space of debate, contestation, representation and accountability.”

“For Schwab, whose latest book is titled Stakeholder Capitalism, this merger represents a revolution from shareholder capitalism, in which individual economies overseen by national governments were run for the benefit of company shareholders, into a global economy governed by the same companies, but ostensibly for the benefit of all, inclusively, sustainably, profitably. The investment in which these multinational companies hold a stake, therefore, is the world itself. ‘A global economy that works for progress, people and the planet’ is the subtitle of Schwab’s book, which like those preceding it doesn’t lack in ambition, hubris and a complete disregard for anything one could call democratic process, accountability or a mandate from those it claims to benefit.”

From the Elmer Off-Guardian article.
From the Elmer Off-Guardian article.