Transcription
There exists a global network of NGOs, charities, politicians, academics, and others who collectively decide our global future, often without democratic consent. And they exist as an interconnected network of the ideologically captured elite, from the World Economic Forum to the World Health Organization, or World Trade Organization, or International Court of Justice, or countless NGOs and charities. But at the heart of it all, the United Nations. And they collectively on the trajectory of the world within their elitist echo chambers. So, no matter who we vote for, we always get the same agenda, the same ideology, their ideology. And speaking of the agenda, we're going to use the United Nations Agenda 2030 to explore how this operates.
Hi, my name is Tom, and this is my channel Integral Views. Now, I have read thousands of pages of United Nations 2030 documents and various other associated documents because I really wanted to gain understanding of the mechanisms by which this agenda works. What this fundamentally represents is an inversion of the bottom-up democratic process, whereby ideas are agreed upon within a culture based on the lived experience of citizens within that culture, that then proliferate up into politics and the politicians act upon the priorities of the people. It inverts that process such that you then have an elitist top-down philosophy and an agenda that comes from an elitist group at the top. It is fundamentally not voted for and often cuts directly counter to the democratic will of citizens within a nation. And this is why, no matter how we vote, we always get the same outcomes, progression toward the same outcomes, the same vision, the same agenda.
Before I get started, please remember to like the video if you like it and subscribe to our channel if you're not already and you would like to hear more from me.
But what is the United Nations 2030 agenda? Well, in 2015, it was agreed upon by all heads of state for the nations that are members of the United Nations, and that was in 2015. And then they created these Sustainable Development Goals, of which there are 17. And these Sustainable Development Goals, or SDGs, are replacement or development of Millennium Development Goals, which preceded them. And these Millennium Development Goals, or MDGs, were in place from the year 2000 to 2015. They were developed in collaboration between the UN and the World Bank. And here's a look at the Sustainable Development Goals. You can pause and have a look if you want to. Essentially, what these represent is this utopian vision of the future. The way to think about this is that our leaders, right, the heads of state of the United Nations member states, all got together and convinced themselves of this fantastical version of the future within these little closed echo chambers. And then they went about trying to apply that across the world within their nation states, all contributing toward it. So, for example, no poverty, zero hunger, good health and well-being, quality education, gender equality, go down the list, right? It basically covers everything. And down the bottom there you've got life on land, life in life below water. It's basically everything. The whole world, right, is encapsulated within these SDGs, or Sustainable Development Goals. This is a high-level overview, but when you really get into the detail, you've got all of these different sort of segments, or development goals, that go Sorry, targets or metrics that drop down beneath these Sustainable Development Goals, and they get quite specific around how to achieve these things. So, the point is, at a high level, it looks like this utopian version of the future, this fantastical vision, right? And this is what these leaders have got in their head, and that's why they feel so righteous in terms of implementing it. It kind of acts like a religion in a sense. And on the surface, they're very, very difficult to argue with. So, who's going to argue against having no poverty? Who's going to argue against having zero hunger, etc.
In the United Nations, they have this platform where you can submit progress against these SDGs or Sustainable Development Goals. And this is what it looks like. So, it says, SDG Actions Platform is a global registry of voluntary uh policies, voluntary, mhm. Commitments, multi-stakeholder partnerships, and other initiatives made by governments, the UN system, broad range of stakeholders. So, it's not just governments that are committing to this and then contributing toward it. It's large corporations, it's kind of activist groups, you name it, lots, NGOs, etc. And if you look down at the bar chart down here, and I will zoom in here, what you can see is all of these different initiatives that have been uh submitted against each of these SDGs. So, you've got thousands. This is a massive industry. Now, I've read thousands of pa- literally thousands of pages of UN submissions and I know how this works, okay? I wanted to make sure I did. And essentially, it is a huge industry, the likes of which it's very difficult to convey in a short video. So, I'm not going to go through it in great detail, but trust me, this is a huge industry.
Now, as I said, in 2015, all of the heads of state of the different United Nation member states, they got together and they agreed upon this and then they put their their backing for it, right? So, they signed up to this this program, this agenda. And you can see that here, General Assembly resolution adopted by the General Assembly in 2015. And within this document, and this is coming from the heads of state of the United Nation member states, it says, "On behalf of the peoples we serve, we have adopted a historic decision on a comprehensive, far-reaching, and people-centered set of universal and transformative goals and targets. We commit ourselves to working tirelessly for the full implementation of this agenda by 2030." So, what this is actually saying by our by our heads by our heads of government is we have all adopted and agreed upon this agenda and we will now implement this throughout all of our nations. And the thing I want to point out is that they talk about this being transformative and far-reaching and it very very much is. It touches essentially everything which I'll show later in the video. And this is the vision that our heads have state have adopted. In these goals and targets, we are setting out a supremely ambitious and transformational vision. We envisage a world free of poverty, hunger, disease, and want where all life can thrive. We envisage a a world free of fear and violence, a world with universal literacy, a world with equitable and universal access to quality education at all levels, to health care, and social protection where physical, mental, and social well-being are assured. A world where we reaffirm our commitments regarding the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, and where there is improved hygiene, and where food is sufficient, safe, affordable, and nutritious. A world where human habits are safe, resilient, and sustainable, and where there is universal access to affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy. So, in other words, a utopia. And it's not very difficult to imagine a utopia and just say these things, is it? It's difficult to to to kind of disagree with them. It is a fantasy, right? But what our world leaders are now engaged in is implementing that in a top-down fashion. They want to implement it no matter the democratic will or the local issues, for example, or the priorities of citizens. Right, they will implement policies that they feel contribute toward these goals as a priority.
Now, a lot of criticism that you'll see online about these cabals, these global elite, these networks, will take the position of saying that they are just extremely harmful in terms of their intent, that they are evil and they want to control everything and control everyone, and then, you know, do harm, cause harm. But it's so important that we're accurate. I've read thousands of these documents, I've watched loads of speeches, and I am utterly convinced that the vast majority of them really believe in this utopian vision. They really think that they are doing the right thing, something that's really amazingly good, and they want to be the heroes of their own story. Unfortunately, the results that they're producing are directly counter to what their intentions were. So, just think about it from their perspective. They have been elected as leaders and they care about their legacy. So, then what they do is they go to these United Nations conferences, closed-door conferences, and within those closed doors, where they have experts come and NGOs and people, right, who will come in and all be talking the same language around this utopia. They will become completely convinced of this future utopia and then feel very righteous in their belief for it and the overriding of democratic will because they really believe that they're going to usher in this world, this world with clean water and and amazing education and equality, um you name it, run down right down through the list. Perfect world. That's what they're actually invested in. What they're missing What they're missing is that if you try to implement that kind of thing from the top down, it doesn't work and you start to produce the opposite results because it disconnects the leadership from practical reality of the experience of citizens in in the country.
So, now let's take a look at how these United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals actually manifest within a country, right? So, I'll give you this example. This is from the United Kingdom, and this is Agenda 2030 Global Goals. Now, what this document does is it directly reflects the the sustainable development goals that were decided within the United Nations. It reflects it within the United Kingdom government. And we go much further than this, but this is where it starts. The next step is that United Nation member states will submit these voluntary submissions that track their progress against the United Nations sustainable development goals. The documents that are submitted are very lengthy. I have read around 20 of them. And they are hundreds of pages each. So, I really wanted to understand how this actually functions to make sure I'm representing it correctly. The reason I've done this is cuz I think it's incredibly important. We need to understand how many people in Britain actually understand any of this. And yet, it's determining policy. It's determining the direction of our country. This is what's in the heads of all of our political elite. Okay. Now, the the United Kingdom version of this, it looks like this, right? This is the the cover. And this was produced under the Conservative government, under Boris Johnson's government in 2019 by our very own Rory Stewart. Rory Stewart, who by the way now leads the second most listened to podcast that is uh created in the United Kingdom in the world. So, the man who produced this, who is entirely indoctrinated into this globalist vision, who sits alongside Alister Campbell in his very popular podcast. And I won't talk about him. I really want to, but I'm not going to. Disgraceful man. These two individuals, right, uh talking to millions of people across Britain all the time. And this subtle kind of communication, this subtle view that is all informed by this globalist vision, this globalist agenda. So, this is the document. As I speak, I'm going to scroll through this document. Now, this one for the United Kingdom is 235 pages long and it goes into very great detail that shows how we track progress in many many many many different metrics against each of those sustainable development goals. So this determines, right, a lot of governmental policy. It is prioritized right the way through governmental departments, through the civil service, through government. And it becomes, you know, these metrics that we then prioritize that align into this the United Nations Agenda 2030, which is a globalist agenda. It's not necessarily the priorities of the citizens, but because we start to track statistics that are associated with that agenda, that's what we then focus on. And this happens in successive governments, right? Because essentially the department, when you go from one leadership government, so the conservatives to labor, it doesn't change all of the entire department. Of course, the majority of staff, the civil service, is still there, still working against the same metrics, and those metrics tie in to the 2030 agenda of the United Nations very often. And essentially, in the creation of those metrics, right? Because we're tracking those, what are we not tracking? Are they all aligned perfectly with the priorities of British citizens? Absolutely not, I can tell you that for sure. And it's not just Britain, of course, the EU is at it as well, and so are pretty much all of the United Nations member states. There are dozens and dozens of these documents. It is an industry. Um but the EU love this stuff, so they produce this document one once every year, and this one is 325 pages. And what you'll see in all these documents, not all of them, but a lot of them, is that even the metrics that are used are similar across documents, right? So it's basically countries copying each other and and doing the same things and focusing in the same ways. They even use the same colors for the same different areas. They're all aligned into the sustainable development goals in the United Nations. So, this is how the United Nations globalist ideology and agenda flows directly down as a straight line down from there directly into democratic government, and it starts to determine governmental policy.
And I wondered, is there any way that I can get my view heard and get myself into any of these discussions? Now, what they'll do is they have these high-level political forum on sustainable development. They have these meetings, closed door meetings. And the people that are in those meetings are essentially, you know, the member states, so the heads of the member state or representatives of the member states, and then selected NGOs, academics, charities, people who are invited. So, it's closed. They decide who comes along. And the people who come along are all people who are ideologically captured within that ideology. And so, it becomes a groupthink, an echo chamber of epic global proportions.
Now, I don't want to make this a highly technical review where I go into minute detail, but I'll just give you one example, right, that will show how the priorities of citizens might not align with these larger United Nations agenda sustainable development goals, right? So, this is SDG 10, right? And it says reduce inequality within and and among countries. So, it basically makes it a priority for Britain, for example, to reduce inequality among countries. So, our priority as Britain then becomes reducing inequality between us and other nations. Well, wouldn't our success hopefully lead to us to us moving further ahead and maybe contribute to more inequality? Additionally, if you look at all of our success in the past, right, who's to say that inequality among nations is a bad thing, right? Because actually, in the past, when you see countries really pushing ahead, they were often producing innovations or technologies, etc., that benefit the rest of the world hugely. So, Britain is a great example of that because we had the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, we ended slavery. I'll just put that in there. But, we had the Industrial Revolution, and that caused living standards to raise hugely around the world in a way that had never happened before. That wasn't the result of us reducing inequalities. In a sense, it was because of inequalities we had the ability to do that that then rose the living standards. Okay? And so, the point is that philosophically it's not completely clear that if we do a global socialism where we just make everyone exactly the same that that's actually a net benefit for everyone.
Now, I want to provide a little bit of detail on this one just so you can understand that when you start to go deeper deeper levels of this, you start to see that that high-level goal of reducing inequality that sounds good and difficult to argue against actually manifests as things that yeah, kind of implemented within national policy that might not be aligned with citizens' will. So, for example, 10A, implement the principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries in particular, least developed countries in accordance with the World Trade Organization agreement. So, essentially what this is doing is it is saying we need to have special treatment and preferential treatment within markets for developing countries. How do you implement that globally against what would happen within a free market? And the point is this, who's to say that that's a benefit for that country overall in their development? That is an assumption that's being made. Who's to say that that's correct? Because if you give unfair unfair advantage, special advantage, maybe it prevents them from developing such that they can compete within a free market. And so, I think that it's not completely clear that that's right. Also, you're implementing by force at a global level a distortion of markets. And how do you know? Like, you're assuming, they're assuming that that is a net benefit for the world, but you don't know that that's the case. Cuz how do you know how they would develop otherwise if they weren't given that? It's not completely clear. And when you start doing this globally, that's never been done before, right? Then, yeah, it's not a good thing in my opinion. And there are 169 such targets, right? High-level targets. And then you've got loads of metrics under each one. It's a huge thing. But anyway, 10c, by 2030, reduce to less than 3% the transaction costs of migrant remittances and eliminate remittance corridors with costs higher than 5%. What that means, right, is remittances are the payments that migrants make back to their home country. And what this is saying is that we need to reduce collectively globally, right, the charges, the cost for anybody to send money from where they are to where they came from. So, for example, right, essentially someone comes, say even illegally, into the United Kingdom, is on benefits, and then starts doing these remittances back home, let's say Somalia or Sudan. Okay? Now, what the United Nations is saying is you need to reduce those remittances down to 3% or less by 2030. Who are you to say that? Who are you to say that that is in the interest of British people overall? Who are you to say? And I don't necessarily agree with that, you know, in the context of mass migration whatsoever. So, who is this global undemocratic, unelected consortium, cabal of elites to tell us what it is that we should be doing with regard to remittance charges out of this country? I think that So, essentially, what that's doing, right? They're saying, "Well, we need to reduce global inequality between nations." And then you start to see how illegal immigration and mass migration plays into this. And remittances, it all plays into equality of outcome right across the whole world. There are poor nations, right, that are poor because of their their culture and resources and behaviors, etc. But ultimately what he's saying is now we need to make it all completely equal. And you can see how the ideology drives a lot of the stuff that's happening across a lot of Europe and and the Western world.
Now this approach of globalist top-down elitist governance has really been ramping up through the United Nations for many years before 2015 because they had other sets of development goals before that, right? And now they've got new ones that came in in 2024 and they're all just never never stop. Okay? Now I just want to think about I just want to reflect on how is this all playing out? Is everything really working? Is everything going well? Especially for someone in Britain or Europe or, you know, the developed world. Is this what we really wanted? Is this in our best interest? Now I don't think so. But this is essentially this ever-expanding monster. So you've got the United Nations climate change agency, you've got the UNHCR, the UN refugee agency. And I went and looked at some of the videos they produce and I really got the sense of this this cult. It is this this echo chamber cult, this globalist echo chamber cult that is by invitation only and only if you agree with that in-group in-think of the elite who will then decide what needs to be done and drop that down top top-down onto the world, right? No matter what people think cuz they know better, right? But what are some of the things that this globalist elitist cult get up to on a day-to-day basis? Well, they've got all of these videos so I went and had a look through some of them cuz I wanted to understand. So I'll give you some examples. High-level event to commemorate the International Day to combat Islamophobia, of course. And then this one, high-level celebration of World Water Day 2026, celebrating water. Celebrating water, cool. And then this one, which is on the International Day of Remembrance of victims of slavery of the transatlantic slave trade. I noticed they don't have similar for the Arabian slave trade or many, many other slave trades throughout history. By the way, I made a video on the ridiculous request that comes from the United Nations for huge amounts of reparations to be paid, right? So, isn't that weird how it's so imbalanced? But if you think that's weird, check this out. They're very, very big on these International Day of and Remembrance of events. This cult, right? So, check this one out. 12th International Day of Yoga at the United Nations. International Day of Yoga, all right, if you want, weird. Um, and then how about this one? International Tea Day 2026. This is no joke. That is a >> [laughter] >> These are like multi-hour events within these chambers. Tea. Anyway, right. Next, International Jazz Day, celebrating communities in rhythm. >> [laughter] >> And how about this one? Celebration of World Football Day 2026. Why do we need a United Nations International World Football Celebration Day? We've got the World Cup. What are these people playing at?
Now, the ironic thing about these Sustainable Development Goals is that I think that they are entirely unsustainable. And the reason for this is because they are implemented in a top-down fashion by an established closed-door elite. Okay? Instead of really kind of filtering up from below, from the people through culture, through liberal democracies, and then having politicians enact the will of those people, that would be a sustainable development, right? Because it's aligned with what the people actually want. Right? Instead, it's this top-down elitist control of And it's not just that, it's the fact that it is this ideology. It is very, very cult-like. When you start going through it and you see the colors and everything, you see how people get sucked into it. It becomes their identity. Right? And these are like the politicians, so Keir Starmer's an example, and many others. Right? Ursula von der Leyen, you name it. There are many, many others. Okay? And you can see how it starts to manifest through them. >> [clears throat] >> And what this ultimately causes is that the government lose credibility with the voters, because the governments, the elite, the people in power, who are then part of these global structures, they then start to implement policies that are completely at odds with the priorities of the citizens. And they start to say things that don't align with what's happening on the ground for people. And this is exactly what's happening. Now, in Great Britain, what we're seeing is the establishment policy parties, Labour and Conservatives, being disliked, booted out of government, hanging on by a thread, and eventually will be completely eradicated and gotten rid of. And then in their place, we've got the growth of the Green Party on the left, and then Reform and Restore, etc., on the right. So, they're being They're displacing these establishment parties. And the reason that these establishment parties have really fallen out of favor is because they're aligned with these global-level ideologies that don't represent the actual practical reality for citizens on the ground.
But it's not just me that thinks this. And actually, when I started to read some criticisms, they came to very much the same conclusions as me. And I think the actual beliefs of those who are expressing these views, right, these critical views that align with what I think, I think that they're actually on the political left. So, it it's kind of like we're coming at it from different angles, but reaching the same conclusion. One example of this is this Oxford academic policy and society study, okay? And this is by anthropologists, world-renowned, world-leading anthropologists. And in that document it says the following. In this paper, we have argued the SDGs have brought about a much larger and fundamental shift of direction. If the MDGs, they're the ones that preceded the SDGs, um represented a new infrastructure of measurement at a global scale, quantification of the context of the SDGs can be conceptualized as ideas on steroids. Such powerful ideas that they become unspoken. These are similar to the price of entry where if one does not share the paradigm, one is not part of the conversation. That is such a nice way of expressing it. So, it becomes this all-encompassing ideology or worldview. It becomes the identity of the individual that inhabits that worldview. They then become part of this elite group, and in order to be a member of that elite group, they have to have this belief system that they then go and implement within their nations on the little plebs, right? The the people of that nations who know no better and aren't as good as them because they're part of that elite. So, that's what's actually happening. And further from that document, hence we see the epistemic infrastructure of the SDGs as portraying a paradigmatic shift in the governance of global public policy. Essentially, to summarize that, what it means is that we're seeing this this complete shift in the paradigm of how the world works in terms of governmental policy. So, it's not just a shift a small shift from what the United Nations used to do with setting these priorities. It's a fundamental shift in the way that the world works. And further from this document, fourth, the SDGs are not an add-on to national policies. Instead, they international agendas by being recontextualized within national priorities and plans. Each country is expected to nationalize the SDGs to produce a measurement infrastructure that matches as closely as possible to the global SDG framework to shape and be shaped by national priorities. And what that is saying is that the United Nations Agenda 2030 is not something that governments are doing in addition to their national priorities. In fact, the SDGs or the United Nations Agenda 2030 forms the core of the national priorities. Right? There's a big difference there. It's not like you're doing your national priorities as a government on the basis of the democratic will of the people you represent, and then you happen to do this nice United Nations stuff globally on top. Right? Actually, the way that it works is that you take all of those United Nations 2030 SDGs and you represent you reflect all of the same metrics within your national governance. And then that becomes your priority in a nation-state level. But it's decided from the top undemocratically.
Now, in truth, this has been the way that it's been for humanity for hundreds and hundreds of years. So, you could think about monarchies where they would do kind of a top-down implementation of the way things should work within the country. But the thing that's really insidious about this United Nations model is that it is global in nature. That's a big, big difference. In addition, the way that they're operating in these closed group echo chambers and the way that they're very disconnected from the population, which is why they they say things that just sound completely bizarre so much of the time and don't align with the experience of citizens. right? That is relatively unique because they're forming these global networks now. And it's not just governments, it's also, you know, business leaders or mainstream media um sort of representatives, right? Or or leaders of various different kinds. And so they form these elitist networks. And another thing about it that is very insidious is that they are entirely convinced of their moral righteousness because of their pretty colors that they use and their high-level goals that they are striving toward. So ending poverty, for example, ending hunger. There's many examples. Having, you know, life on land be sustainable and beautiful and in the sea, right? And so they are entirely convinced of their righteousness and that they're doing the right thing for people, right? But the problem is, fundamentally, that well, look at the results that you're producing. So for example, in Britain, we are, right? And uh David Betts, who is a leading commentator and expert and academic on the subject of of civil wars, right? He says that we're likely or that we're Yeah, we could enter civil war. Okay, that's what he says. He kind of says it's kind of inevitable at this point because a lot of the policies that are being implemented by this 2030 agenda at the globalist level are having consequences that were blind spots for them. And this what This is what happens when you do things top-down, right? Is that you implement things and then they have a unintended consequences cuz you didn't consider certain outcomes or certain alternatives cuz you don't know everything. You only track metrics within a certain field. And that's why you have to listen to This is the beauty of democracy. You listen to people, they vote, right? And then you implement their will because they have so much experience in their lives that feed into their vote, right? That that basically represents wisdom. And I think that the closer you can get to direct democracies, right, with referendum frequently, like they have in Switzerland, for example, the better. Because there is a wisdom within people because they have a much wider set of data amongst themselves of their experience than a few selected disconnected elite do. And there are many examples of this, like for example, you know, with mass did they consider really deeply? Did they consider the the cultural differences and how they would actually manifest? How they might result in some really horrific situations in the country and what that then might turn into? Of course not. And will they respond to that or are they still deadlocked onto their their cult-like agenda? Are they flexible that they will change and you know, kind of change course? Are they or are they dead set on these multi-decade agendas? Do you see the problem? Of course, there are many scenarios in which global cooperation is is very important and it's good for us to have mechanisms and institutions for us to be able to do that. But once that ideology starts to spread into this monster, right? That is acting as a de facto global government but without actual direct democratic will being expressed in this top-down elitist fashion, that actually causes more harm than good. That's my view. Because look we've got war, we've got Russia at war with Ukraine, we've got all of the stuff happening in the Middle East with Iran, we've got the situation with Israel and and and [snorts] Gaza and is everything this utopia now? It should be we're only a few years away from 2030. There's supposed to be a utopia coming now. It's clearly not working, right? It's clearly not working.
Now, the United States has already come out and said that it does not support the sustainable development goals in this agenda of 2030. And I think Britain should join forces. I think we should even start to look at removing funding cuz some of the stuff I read is just complete insanity, complete madness, and it's clearly an echo chamber group think. I think they need to remove I think they need to be defunded to a very large extent cuz if they can have international tea days and international yoga days and days of remembrance for this and that and everything, right? Why are we paying Why are we funding that? Seriously. So, I think we need to do a shot across the bow. I think that the next government that comes in power in the United Kingdom should say, "You know what? We don't support this either. We're with We stand with the United States, and we think this is completely mad, so we don't support it either." And by the way, if you look across Europe, a huge number of governments major states are moving further and further right. They are rejecting the policy positions of their establishment governments, right? Which is all the same reason. It's all connected into this. Well, I think that the United Nations should probably change course. I think it's time that you admit that 2030 utopia is not going to manifest anytime soon. And if it does manifest, it's going to happen through the cultural development of different countries. But obviously saying that we don't agree with the United Nations 2030 agenda is not the end of the our ability to provide support cuz we can unilaterally provide support. In fact, we can even bilaterally or trilaterally provide support to whichever country we choose to do that to. So, for example, we could partner with the the US or any other country we want to to go and directly implement infrastructure improvements in developing nations. And I actually think that the whole mechanism of these charities and NGOs and the United Nations is an extremely inefficient vehicle for us to do so because they're having international tea days, etc. They're having days of celebrating water. >> [laughter] >> What are you doing?
Okay, so all right. Um thank you so much for watching. I really appreciate you taking the time. I think this is a really important issue. More people need to be aware of this stuff. Okay, thank you so much for watching this video. Please remember to like the video if you did like it. Subscribe to my channel if you're not already and you would like to hear more from me. Hyping the video really helps and lastly, I've got a buy me a coffee link in the description of this video. Okay, until next time. Cheers.