Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked Verified October 17th 2023
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals are not about sustainability. They’re tools to facilitate the implementation of a One World Government.
The term the globalist alliance uses to describe its network is a “global public-private partnership,” or G3P. The G3P is composed of most of the world’s governments, intergovernmental organizations, global corporations, major philanthropic foundations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and civil society groups. Collectively, they are the “stakeholders” that are implementing the SDGs. While SDG16 claims to advance “peaceful and inclusive societies” and “justice for all,” this goal is really about consolidating authority, exploiting threats to advance regime hegemony, and implementing a centrally controlled global system of digital identity (digital ID). A digital identity is not merely a form of identification. Your “identity” is who you are, and
a digital identity will keep a permanent record of your choices and behaviors, 24/7.
Universal adoption of digital identity will enable the G3P global governance regime to
establish a behavioral-based system of reward and punishment.
The COVID pandemic was used to redefine human rights and to get people used to the
idea that the rights of individuals are conditional and can be ignored or suspended “for
that stands against freedom, justice, and peace, and all of the UN’s SDGs need to beme
that stands against freedom, justice,the and peace, and all of the UN’s SDGs need to be
understood within this context.
At this point in time, it’s crucial to realize that the United Nations’ Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) are part of the plan to implement a One World Government,
where the entire world will be run by unelected bureaucrats beholden to technocratic
ideals.
In a two-part Unlimited Hangout investigative series,independent journalists Iain Davis
and Whitney Webb expose how Sustainable Development Goal No. 16 (SDG16), which
claims to advance "peaceful and inclusive societies" and "justice for all," is really about
consolidating authority, exploiting threats to advance regime hegemony, and forcing a
"centrally controlled global system of digital identity(digital ID) upon humanity."
As explained in Part 1,the term the globalist alliance of technocrats use to describe its
network is a "global public-private partnership," or G3P:
"The G3P is toiling tirelessly to create the conditions necessary to justify the
imposition of both global governance ‘with teeth’ and its prerequisite digital ID
system. In doing so, the G3P is inverting the nature of our rights. It
manufactures and exploits crises in order to claim legitimacy for its offered
‘solutions.’
The G3P comprises virtually all of the world’s intergovernmental organizations,
governments, global corporations, major philanthropic foundations, non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society groups. Collectively, these
form the ‘stakeholders’ implementing sustainable development, including
SDG16."
What SDG16 Is Really About
The central objective of SDG16 is to strengthen the UN-led regime, and of all the
subgoals included in this SDG, the establishment of "a legal identity for all" (SDG16.9), is
the most crucial, as other goals rely on the use of digital identity. As noted by Davis and
Webb:
"Universal adoption of SDG16.9 digital ID will enable the G3P global governance
regime’s to establish a worldwide system of reward and punishment. If we
accept the planned model of digital ID, it will ultimately enslave us in the name
of sustainable development ...
SDG16.9 ‘sustainable development’ means we must use digital ID ... Otherwise
we will not be protected in law, service access will be denied, our right to
transact in the modern economy will be removed, we will be barred from
participating as ‘citizens’ and excluded from so-called ‘democracy.’"
Understanding Digital Identity
The World Economic Forum (WEF), founded by Schwab, has for years promoted the
implementation of digital identity. The problem with calling it "digital ID" is that people
misunderstand it to be something it’s not. There’s a huge difference between identity and
identification.
Identification refers to documents that prove you are who you say you are. A digital
identity is NOT merely a form of identication. Your "identity" is who you actually are,
and a digital identity will keep a permanent record of your choices and behaviors, 24/7.
Your identity encompasses everything that makes you unique, and that’s what the
globalist cabal is really after. Step out of line, and every social media interaction, every
penny spent and every move you’ve ever made can be used against you.
Indeed, having access to everyone’s digital identity is the key to successful manipulation
and control of the global population. Everything you can think of is to be connected to your digital identity, and your behavior, beliefs and opinions will dictate what you can and cannot do within society. It will unlock doors where someone like you is welcome, and lock the ones where you’re not.
If you think the idea of vaccine passports is insane, wait until your access to critical
infrastructure and services is dependent not just on your vaccination status, but also
what books you’ve bought, what ideas you’ve shared, and who you’ve given money or
emotional support to.
Interoperability Will Link Disparate Systems Together
As people are coming to understand the threat of a One World Government, resistance
against digital ID and the social credit score that comes with it has started to mount.
The G3P’s answer to that dilemma is the construction of an interoperable system that
can link disparate digital ID systems together. As explained by Davis and Webb.
"This ‘modular platform’ approach is designed to avoid the political problems
that the social issuance of a national digital ID card would otherwise elicit.
Establishing SDG16.9 global digital ID is crucial for 8 of the 17 UN SDGs. It is
the linchpin at the center of a global digital panopticon that is being devised
under the auspices of the UN’s global public-private partnership ‘regime.’"
You Have No Rights, Only Permits, Under the New World Order
You may be wondering where human rights enter into all of this. If your digital ID records
every move you make, which can then be used against you, won’t that violate some of
your basic rights as a free human being? Well, that depends on how human rights are
defined — and who defines them. Davis and Webb explain:
"... the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ... was first accepted by all
members of the United Nations on December 10, 1948. The preamble of the
Declaration recognizes that the ‘equal and inalienable rights’ of all human
beings are the ‘foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.’
After that, ‘inalienable rights’ are never again mentioned in the entire
Declaration. ‘Human rights’ are nothing like ‘inalienable rights.’
Inalienable rights, unlike human rights, are not bestowed upon us by any
governing authority. Rather, they are innate to each of us. They are immutable.
They are ours in equal measure. The only source of inalienable rights is Natural
Law, or God’s Law.
No one — no government, no intergovernmental organization, no human
institution or human ruler — can ever legitimately claim the right to grant or
deny our inalienable rights. Humanity can claim no collective authority to grant
or deny the inalienable rights of any individual human being.
Beyond the preamble, the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
concerns itself exclusively with ‘human rights.’ But asserting, as it does, that
human rights are some sort of expression of inalienable rights is a fabrication —
a lie.
Human rights, according to the UDHR, are created by certain human beings and
are bestowed by those human beings upon other human beings. They are not
inalienable rights or anything close to inalienable rights.
Article 6 of the UDHR and Article 16 of the UN’s 1966 International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights ... both decree: ‘Everyone has the [human] right to
recognition everywhere as a person before the law.’
Note: We put ‘[human]’ in brackets ... to alert readers that these documents are
NOT referring to inalienable rights. While the respective Articles 6 and 16 sound
appealing, the underlying implications are not.
Both articles mean that ‘without legal existence, those rights may not be
asserted by a person within the domestic legal order.’ As we shall see, the ability
to prove one’s identity will become a prerequisite for ‘legal existence.’ Thus, in a
post-SDG16 world, persons without UN-approved identification will be unable to
assert their ‘human rights’ ...
Article 29.3 of the UDHR states: ‘These [human] rights and freedoms may in no
case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United
Nations.’
In plain English: We are only allowed to exercise our alleged human ‘rights’
subject to the diktats of governments, intergovernmental organizations and
other UN ‘stakeholders.’ The bottom line, then, is that what the UN calls ‘human
rights’ are ... government and intergovernmental permits by which our behavior
is controlled."
COVID Was an Opportunity to Reset the Playing Field
Our behavior is also controlled through censorship and control of information. In its
"COVID-19 and Human Rights" document, published in April 2020, the UN presents
human rights as policy tools and openly admits that "securing compliance" with health
measures that severely restrict (or outright eliminate) human rights will depend on
"building trust," and that includes censoring that which might undermine trust in
authorities.
Censorship of "misinformation" and "disinformation" is also required under the proposed
International Treaty on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response, which places
the World Health Organization at the center of all pandemic-related agendas, and in the
proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHRs). Importantly, both
of these instruments will be binding. As noted by Davis and Webb:
"The current proposed amendments to the IHR illustrate how ‘crises’ provide
unique opportunities for the UN and its partners to control populations —
through purported ‘human rights’ — by exploiting those ‘rights’ as ‘a powerful
set of tools.’
Here is one example of the proposals being put forth: The WHO wishes to
remove the following language from IHR Article 3.1: ‘The implementation of
these Regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and
fundamental freedoms of persons.’
It intends to replace that regulatory principle with: ‘The implementation of these
Regulations shall be based on the principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence and
in accordance with the common but differentiated responsibilities of their
States Parties, taking into consideration their social and economic
development.’
This proposed amendment signies that the UN and its partners wish to
completely ignore the UN’s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights
whenever any of these agencies declares a new ‘crisis’ or identies a new
‘international threat.’ This exemplies the ‘course-correction’ the UN envisioned
would arise from the ‘unique opportunity’ presented by the COVID-19 crisis."
The UN Has Already Assumed Authority; No One Granted It
Right now, the WHO appears to be set up to become the de facto global government, but
the UN is also a contender, and it has openly assumed this authority.
For example, in its "UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda"
document, published in 2013, it states that "A global governance regime, under the
auspices of the UN, will have to ensure that the global commons will be preserved for
future generations."
“ The United Nation’s Charter establishes a global
governance regime that stands against freedom,
justice and peace, and all of the UN’s SDGs need to be
understood within this context.”
As noted by Davis and Webb:
"The UN calls itself a ‘global governance regime.’ It is arbitrarily assuming the
authority to seize control of everything (‘the global commons’), including
humans, both by enforcing its Charter — citing its misnamed ‘Human Rights’
declaration — and by fullling its ‘Sustainable Development’ agenda.
Note that the ‘global governance regime’ will ultimately ‘translate into better
national and regional governance.’ This means that the role of each national
government is merely to ‘translate’ global governance into national policy.
Electing one political party or another to undertake the translation makes no
material difference. The policy is not set by the governments we elect.
As nation-states one by one implement SDG-based policies, the regime further
consolidates its global governance. And since the ‘global governance regime
will be critical to achieve sustainable development,’ the two mechanisms —
global governance and sustainable development — are symbiotic.
Again, by the UN’s own admission, inalienable rights are the ‘foundation of
freedom, justice and peace in the world.’ Yet the UN’s entire Charter-based
human rights framework comprehensively rejects the principle of inalienable
and imm