From independence, freedom and truth


The truth about the 2030 Agenda

Fernando del Pino Calvo Sotelo

March 5, 2024

The Soviet Communist dictatorship used to repeat its slogans over and over again so that they would be properly absorbed by the population. Likewise, the obsessive repetition of the term “sustainable” and the ubiquitous presence of the multicolor logo of the 2030 Agenda are symbols of the new totalitarianism that is creeping in through the back door in a society weakened by the Culture of Fear and the loss of moral references. On top of this, we must add the power of political correctness, a concept created by Marxism-Leninism, which sets boundaries that cannot be crossed under penalty of being lynching or condemn to ostracism, boundaries that nowadays are decided by a shadowy Higher Authority and transmitted by the obedient mass media. It must be recognized that political correctness has fulfilled its mission, that of stifling free thought and creating a generalized fear of dissent.

In the case of the 2030 Agenda, most companies and institutions repeat the slogan as a sign of social virtue, even though few people are fully aware of its content. What is the 2030 Agenda? And, if it is so important, why has no one voted for it?

What is the 2030 Agenda?

The “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” is an agreement propitiated by the UN in 2015 to replace the forgotten Millennium Declaration (2000-2015). A major difference between the two texts is that the latter went unnoticed while the 2030 Agenda has been stuffed, embedded, pushed, shoved, wedged, introduced in society with such pressure that, in comparison, force-feeding the geese appears to be an act of free will of the poor animals.

The Agenda has 17 goals and 169 targets with the apparent aim of “ending poverty and hunger (…) and protecting the planet”. Its language is voluntarist and grandiloquent: “We envisage a world free of poverty, hunger, disease and want” with “sustainable, inclusive and sustained” growth (a mantra-like refrain repeated all over the text). In fact, the document is completely utopian, which in itself should be a primary source of concern, not least because the utopias of the 20th century – especially Communism – killed more than 100 million people around the world.

The language of the document offers many clues about its true nature. In its 35 pages[1], the word “sustainable” is mentioned 213 times and the word inclusive 40 times. In contrast, the term “freedom” is mentioned only 3 times, “family” only 1 time and “private property” none, i.e. 0, coinciding with the slogan of the World Economic Forum in Davos (WEF), “strategic partner” of the 2030 Agenda: “You will own nothing and be happy”.  

One of the only three times the word freedom is mentioned is to state that the Agenda 2030 seeks to “strengthen universal peace within a broader concept of freedom”. This is a disturbing expression, given that the term freedom requires no new interpretation. Given the Orwellian nature of the text, it is imperative to turn to the “neo-language” described in the novel 1984, in which the Ministry of Love was dedicated to the harshest repression and the Ministry of Truth to the most deceptive propaganda. Thus, the real translation of the above sentence would be the following: “Agenda 2030 aims to strengthen universal domination within a narrower concept of freedom”. That’s easier to understand, isn’t it?

To discern the truth about the dark shadow cast by this UN initiative – that is, by globalism – it is necessary to distinguish between the objectives it advocates, apparently good, and the means it proposes to achieve them, which are completely opposed to the attainment of those ends. Remember that the gulf between apparently beneficial ends and perverse means has been precisely what has characterized the most destructive utopias in history.

A totalitarian program

The first criticism that can be made of the utopian Agenda 2030 program is its totalitarian character, as it aspires to control the entirety of individuals’ lives -including what and how much they eat, and what and how much they consume. As we have mentioned, the concept of freedom is absent and is replaced by a staunch statism. Indeed, individual freedom and private initiative are neglected in favor of a constant state interventionism credited with a benevolent character and a superhuman capacity to solve all problems.

The interventionism it proposes is so exaggerated that it reminds us of the Five-Year Plans of the former USSR. For example, it sets specific targets for GDP growth in the least developed countries and the “doubling” (by legal imperative?) of the weight of industry (“inclusive and sustainable”) in the GDP of those same countries.

The similarities with communism continue, as it also proposes to reduce not only inequality of opportunity, but also “inequality of outcome”. Along these lines, it pledges to make “fundamental changes in the way our societies produce and consume goods and services” and formulates a revealing axiom: economic growth (sustained, inclusive and sustainable) “will only be possible if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed”. Thus, it advocates increasing the progressivity of taxes and strengthening “the regulation and oversight of institutions” from a State that is granted “full permanent sovereignty over all its wealth, its natural resources and its economic activity”.

Finally, it pompously declares that it acts “on behalf of the peoples we serve”. Exactly how and when have “the peoples” expressed themselves on Agenda 2030? And in which country does the ruling class serve the people instead of being served by them?

Climate ideology and religion in Agenda 2030

However, what is most decisive about the 2030 Agenda is that, far from being a politically aseptic document, it has a very determined ideological charge.

First of all, it is materialistic, omitting any transcendental dimension of the human being, making him little more than an animal or a robot, despite the fact that 72% of the planet’s population – the people they claim to serve – believe in God (only 10% declare themselves atheists) and that a large majority believe that there is life after death[2]. Although 62% of the world’s population lives in countries where the right to religious freedom is violated (the Christian religion being the most persecuted[3]), the text does not mention it at any time, nor does it mention freedom of expression. Likewise, its contempt for human beings leads it to place them on the same level as other creatures in a world “where all forms of life can thrive without fear or violence”.

Of course, the 2030 Agenda defends gender ideology (a word repeated 16 times in the document): “the systematic incorporation of a gender perspective in the implementation of this Agenda is crucial”. It also supports abortion under the euphemism of “women’s reproductive health” and relegates the family to a secondary position in a world characterized by the relationship of servitude between the master (the omnipotent State) and its servant, an isolated and lonely individual, ignoring the family as the fundamental unit of society and as the subject of rights prior to the very existence of the State.

As for its support for the climate change religion – which it mentions 20 times – the 2030 Agenda has the same pessimistic and catastrophist tone of the first report of the Club of Rome – a seminal document of the globalist movement – with a conscience of scarcity whose only solution is, apparently, the acceptance of a global tyranny led by an elite that wants to make our lives certainly uncomfortable while saving us from a non-existent threat. Thus, it repeats the usual apocalyptic climate litany warning of the “danger to the survival of many societies” caused (among other factors) by an alleged increase in natural disasters and droughts and an alleged depletion of resources, three claims unsupported by the data[4].  

Naturally, the 2030 Agenda proposes to increase the share of renewable energies to achieve “affordable, reliable and sustainable” energy supply and to “double” energy efficiency. The problem is that the renewables to which it implicitly refers (wind and photovoltaic) will never be efficient, reliable or affordable because they are intermittent and depend on sufficient wind or solar radiation, which only occur at certain latitudes, seasons or times of day. Thus, renewable sources will always require a backup of traditional thermal energies, which implies an expensive redundancy of generation systems or, failing that, a life lived between intermittent blackouts.

Objective: to reduce food production

With similar contradictions – in what is perhaps the most obvious proof of its hypocrisy – the 2030 Agenda claims to want to put an end to hunger and double agricultural productivity while proposing measures that promote just the opposite, i.e., that will create famines. Thus, under the usual environmental alibi, the text is a real declaration of war on farmers, which has led in many countries to a justified reaction from them, since they are slowly understanding that they are fighting for their very survival, which is our own.

In the case of cattle farmers, the war takes the form of a grotesque demonization of livestock as a methane emitter and an immoral campaign against the consumption of meat and animal protein, which is key to health. In the case of agricultural farmers, Agenda 2030 wants to impose a reduction in the use of water, fertilizers and pesticides. With its usual duplicity, it claims to want to “increase the efficient use of water resources”, but at the same time it forces to “restore water-related ecosystems, including rivers” (i.e. destroy dams), which reduces the capacity for irrigation. Likewise, under the pretext of reducing marine pollution, it proposes first to control “land-based activities,” including “nutrient pollution” (i.e., fertilizers), and then to reduce “the release of chemicals into the atmosphere, water and soil” (i.e., pesticides). Without water to feed the plants, without fertilizers to nourish the soil, and without pesticides to kill pests, how will agricultural productivity be improved? Won’t this rather reverse the wonderful Green Revolution, which made it possible to multiply crop yields and feed a growing population? I go further: do you really believe that the authors of the 2030 Agenda are unaware that this will be precisely the result?

The case of Sri Lanka is the canary in the mine. In 2021, the government of that country decided to ban chemical fertilizers and pesticides with the typical environmental arguments. Its president boasted about it in a speech at the COP26 climate summit in which he advocated organic farming and renewable energies. “Man must live in tune with nature,” he stated, quoting verbatim a point from Agenda 2030. Three years earlier, the World Economic Forum (WEF) had published an article by the then prime minister publicizing his “vision.” The country achieved an ESG rating of 98.1 out of 100 and became the darling of the UN and a model for implementing the 2030 Agenda. Well, in just six months, agricultural production fell by 20% and prices rose by 50% while certain products, such as tomatoes and carrots, multiplied their price by five. In a rice producing country, the government was forced to import rice, and finally came the famine, the masses stormed the presidential palace and the president fled while the WEF rushed to delete the mentioned article from its website, but the damage was done: today child malnutrition is still a problem in Sri Lanka[5].  


Under the pretty cloak of seemingly noble aims, the 2030 Agenda hides an impoverishing and misanthropic agenda and leads us towards a world with permanent ration cards. It claims to fight poverty, but its policies will only increase it by suppressing freedom and private property, the key drivers of economic progress. It exalts a State to which it endows divine attributes (omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience) while it scorns the individual, to whom it reserves the role of servant of the ruling elite. It makes people believe, against all evidence, that it is States and not individuals who create wealth, forgetting that it is the individual who creates wealth and the parasitic State which confiscates it. Finally, it proposes a paternalistic and neocolonialist attitude towards the people of the poorest countries, denying them their rightful dignity and their capacity to be the actors of their own destiny.

The globalism that inspires Agenda 2030 knows that control (and reduction) of the world population requires control of energy sources and food, the real objective of this social engineering cunningly called climate change.

Finally, as could not be otherwise, from the point of view of its results, the 2030 Agenda is being a disastrous failure, something already recognized by the UN[6] itself and the World Bank[7]. Indeed, with more than half of the timeframe for achieving its apparent objectives having elapsed, neither extreme poverty nor hunger have been reduced, infant and maternal mortality have hardly changed, malaria mortality, far from decreasing, has increased (thanks to the veto of pesticides for “environmental” reasons), and “full employment” remains a chimera.

However, the authors of Agenda 2030 do not care at all about its 17 goals. Their real objective is only one: domination, achieved through the imposition of a new world order based on tight state control and the servitude of a disenfranchised human being.


Receive the latest articles in your email.

Basic information on data protection:

  • Responsible: Fernando del Pino Calvo-Sotelo.
  • Purpose: Sending information on new publications.
  • Legitimation: By checking the acceptance box, you are giving your legitimate consent to process your data.
  • < strong>Recipients: the data will not be transferred and will be stored on the servers of Siteground Spain SL (EU) and Mailchimp (provider of email marketing services) through its company The Rocket Science Group LLC located outside the EU but covered by the “Privacy Shield” security agreement between the EU and the US.
  • Rights: You can exercise your rights of access, rectification, limitation and deletion of data at

Other Featured Posts


April 16, 2024

In these dark times, the word “truth” has become an archaism. A good example is the war in Ukraine, about which the Western political-media class has been practicing its specialty —to lie— for two years. As we have been stating since the very beginning and should be obvious by now (even to journalists), this was...

April 5, 2024

Just as the morning sun slowly but inexorably dissipates the fog, the passage of time ends up clearly drawing the lines that separate truth from deceit, fact from fiction. Almost a year ago, on the very day it began, I predicted the failure of the Ukrainian counteroffensive, so much extolled by the voluntarist Western media,...

March 5, 2024

The Soviet Communist dictatorship used to repeat its slogans over and over again so that they would be properly absorbed by the population. Likewise, the obsessive repetition of the term “sustainable” and the ubiquitous presence of the multicolor logo of the 2030 Agenda are symbols of the new totalitarianism that is creeping in through the...


Thank you for your subscription.


Receive the latest articles in your email.