The great American writer, cultural observer and scholar H.L. Mencken once stated: “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. Power is what all messiahs really seek: not the chance to serve.”
Nowhere is this more evident than in the United Nations’ (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with their globalist and socialist foundations. The underlying collectivist mentality adopted by the UN has historically been embraced by the likes of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao, and was responsible for some of the darkest periods in history.
SDG 6 and What it Affects
In late March 2023, the UN convened a “Water Conference” at its New York City headquarters. To promote the conference, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres declared that it: “…must result in a bold Water Action Agenda that gives our world’s lifeblood (water) the commitment it deserves.” The focus was on the UN’s SDG 6 – let’s call it “globalized water rules for all nations.”
The intent behind Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 is perhaps the most sinister, as it aims for global control over the required substance for human existence: water. For the UN, this is consistent with its past, considering a key founder of the SDG movement, the late left-leaning Canadian billionaire businessman Maurice Strong, was behind a scheme in the late 1980s to drain groundwater from an arid rural agricultural region in Colorado, and sell it to cities like Denver.
The UN’s SDG 6 is focused on Clean Water and Sanitation, and aims to “ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.” Since 2010, when the UN declared water to be a human right, it has systematically proposed standards that move ever closer to global control of water accessibility and use.
Some UN affiliates have gone so far as to declare that a “healthy” environment is also a human right. Naturally, the question arises: who gets to define what a “healthy environment” is? Can anything be a human right if it depends entirely on the labor and investment of others to utilize it? Is a “healthy environment” going to be an ever-changing, moving target to fit the whims of those in control who are defining it?
SDG 6 is presented as being primarily about access to clean drinking water and ensuring basic hygiene. However, even a brief review of related UN documents reveals the true goals through phrases like “Global Water Governance” and “equitable outcomes.” One of the targets of SDG 6 is: “By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels.” Other targets include verbiage like “improve water quality” and “protect and restore water-related ecosystems.” These general phrases paint a rosy, utopian picture in theory, but in the United States, we have already seen the true effects of legislation like the Clean Water Act, which has mainly served as a regulatory club used to beat agriculture and other businesses into compliance, instead of actually improving water quality.
“The Decade for Action”
The March 2023 UN Water Conference occurred in the middle of what the organization declared to be “The Decade for Action—Water for Sustainable Development” (2018-2028). The first UN Water Conference was held in 1977, with numerous subsequent meetings since. One of the main goals of the most recent conference was to create a Water Action Agenda to “accelerate progress.”
While the UN, as well as other globalist groups, often resort to alarmist or crisis rhetoric to advance their agendas, this particular event’s website conveys an even higher degree of urgency–or desperation—than usual, likely because the “climate change emergency” narrative is being rapidly debunked by science, scientists, and facts. Thus, it’s time for the UN to pivot and change its focus.
Prominently displayed on the event’s website is the statement: “Water is a dealmaker for the Sustainable Development Goals, and for the health and prosperity of people and planet. But our progress on water related goals and targets remains alarmingly off track, jeopardizing the entire sustainable development agenda,” i.e. “global control.”
The UN site also contained numerous documents that state the need for the world to move “four times faster” to reach SDG 6 by 2030.
UN Secretary General Guterres stated: “We are draining humanity’s lifeblood through vampiric over-consumption and unsustainable use, and evaporating it through global heating. Governments must develop and implement plans that ensure equitable water access for all people while conserving this precious resource.” Desalination of the world’s plentiful ocean waters is not considered, usually due to the high energy use requiring more fossil fuels.
Agriculture is Targeted
It is absurd to link shortages of clean drinking water in third-world countries with agricultural irrigation in the U.S. But the UN views the world in this way and believes reduced water use by American farmers and ranchers will somehow translate into improved water accessibility in places such as sub-Saharan Africa. This is a true example of what “global water governance” could look like. The UN also has a desire to develop “new, alternative food systems that could reduce the unsustainable use of water in agriculture, while launching a new global information system to guide plans and priorities to realize the SDGs.”
Various speakers at the recent conference vilified the privatization of water. One extremist group even launched a “water justice manifesto,” asserting that personal and domestic needs must take priority over industrial use and profits. Yet, the importance of water for productive uses cannot be underestimated. All of agriculture depends on water, and a safe, nutritious, and plentiful food supply cannot exist without it. For generations, American farmers and ranchers have been international leaders in conserving water.
A research paper from the U.S. National Library of Medicine, by Ralph P. Hall, Barbara Van Koppen, and Emily Van Houweling stated:
“…a priority for providing safe and clean drinking water in rural and peri-urban areas cannot be interpreted as denying families in these locations the opportunity to continually improve their circumstances through increasing access to both domestic and productive uses of water. Given the income generating (or expenditure saving), food security, nutritional, and health benefits from productive activities—such as raising animals or growing irrigated crops and vegetables, or aquaculture—an important question is why the right to water has been focused on safe and clean drinking water and what does this imply for other uses?”
Is Water a Human Right?
Interestingly, there has been an outcry from environmental extremists because, in the past, the United States has not recognized the UN’s international human right to water, as it is entirely antithetical to the United States’ management of water.
Commentary on WBUR (National Public Radio in Boston) by Martha F. Davis stated:
“In 2010, when the U.N. General Assembly voted to recognize the human rights to water and sanitation, the U.S. abstained, arguing that water and sanitation are not human rights. Similarly, when the U.N. Human Rights Council voted earlier this year to recognize the right to a healthy environment — necessarily encompassing water — the Biden administration registered its opposition, again asserting that there is no such international human right.”
In June 2007, the U.S. issued a statement to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, which explained America’s position on water in detail. It included the following:
“Water rights are an important part of water governance in the United States. Thus, while the United States does not recognize or implement a “right to water” under international law, the United States does recognize “water rights” in various contexts as a matter of its domestic law. These rights, which may be held by individuals, private entities, or the government, are legally complex and are primarily governed at the state level. Water rights in the United States have many bases, including Spanish Colonial law, prior appropriation (“first in time, first in right”), English common law (riparian water rights), state water codes, and Indian traditional rights administered at the federal level. Riparian water rights predominate in the eastern United States while prior appropriation water rights are more common in the western United States. Some states, such as California, have multiple legal regimes that govern water use. Overall, states have unique variations in their water rights systems as informed by custom, geography, legislation, and case law.”
The United States’ position on water in the global context seems to be a ray of hope. Nevertheless, we must not forget that productive water use in the U.S. is very much under attack, mainly by the environmental extremist movement. Although the avenues may differ, the end result they seek is the same as the UN: elimination of private land ownership and enterprise, reduction of freedom of food choice, and diminished personal wealth.
The late Canadian-American Psychotherapist Nathaniel Branden once wrote:
“With such (collectivist) systems, the individual has always been a victim, twisted against him-or-her-self and commanded to be “unselfish” in sacrificial service to some allegedly higher value called God or pharaoh or emperor or king or society or the state or the race or the proletariat –or the cosmos. It is a strange paradox of our history that this doctrine – which tells us that we are to regard ourselves, in effect, as sacrificial animals – has been generally accepted as a doctrine representing benevolence and love for humankind. From the first individual…who was sacrificed on an altar for the good of the tribe, to the heretics and dissenters burned at the stake for the good of the populace or the glory of God, to the millions exterminated in…slave-labor camps for the good of the race or of the proletariat, it is this (collectivist) morality that has served as justification for every dictatorship and every atrocity, past or present.”
Protect The Harvest has written extensively about these issues. Stay informed and inform others so we can retain A Free and Fed America.
Learn more:
United Nations Plan for Our Future Series HERE
WOTUS Articles and Information HERE
United States 2007 statement to UN HERE
No Climate Emergency HERE
