We have often commented on the use of language to shift public perception on important issues. Orwell’s 1984 spelled out with prescient clarity the extent to which language can be manipulated. His chilling description of government slogans such as, “War is Peace” and “Freedom is Slavery,” was fascinating as a fictional and—in his day—futuristic concept. Today, however, for those of us who are awake and not “woke,” the parallels between his writings and our lived experience are too obvious to miss and too dangerous to ignore.

We commented last week on the farm protests in the Netherlands and other countries. What we need to grasp, if we are to understand the forces at work, is that Dutch agricultural policies did not arise in a vacuum. Politicians did not get up one day and say, “How can we make life miserable for our farmers?” Rather, the legislative overreach that is threatening lives and livelihoods, food supply and transportation, independence of thought and action—that overreach is the natural outcome of attitudes shaped by language that we must identify as “newspeak,” and which we must be prepared to resist.

One of those phrases we hear so often and challenge so rarely is “sustainable development.” The goal of those who glibly use this phrase is not to actually support or sustain development. Like many a catchphrase of our times, it hints at a peaceful and content society achieving its production targets without straining the environment or the global infrastructure. It paints a picture of endless and painless recycling, of productive, non-competitive businesses employing only the least disruptive resource processing methods and of engineers and planners whose sole motivation is to leave nature undisturbed, natural resources untapped and human nature unhindered by the laws of physics or the laws of God.

It doesn’t work that way. Human nature and the internal drive to survive and thrive will always manifest in people trying to improve their lives, to live more comfortably and to have more time to do the things they want to do. Most people understand the concept of “short-term pain for long-term gain” and are willing to make some sacrifices today for benefits in the future . . . either for themselves or for their children. Many—though a smaller cohort—are willing to make some sacrifices for their church, their community or their nation. Charitable organizations could not exist without this brighter aspect of human character. An even smaller segment of the population is willing to “give ’til it hurts.” These are the folks who are willing to risk their lives and to give up bodily comforts and financial security in order to achieve a greater good for mankind. A number of missionaries—past and present—have earned a place in this category. Thousands have died as martyrs, and they truly were looking beyond the pleasures of this life to a future reward.

But for any government—even a world government—to demand that citizens of sovereign nations should give unconditional allegiance to their plans (the government’s) and accept their quotas, formulas and conditions, indicates that that government does not understand human behaviour. There is a difference between a donation and a tax. There is a difference between voluntary acts of kindness and coerced distribution of goods. There is a difference between contractual labour and slavery. What people are willing to do for love or for personal gain, they will resent doing under threat of punishment.

That’s where “sustainable development” and the United Nations’ Agenda 2030 come in. In 2015, The U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution identified as: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (PDF). This was a rewrite of Agenda 2021, which was adopted in 1992. With glowing descriptions of the need for and benefits of this world wide “transformation,” Agenda 2030 names 17 goals. The word “sustainable” or “sustained” is mentioned in the titles of 10 out of 17 of those goals. The document calls for: sustainable agriculture, sustainable management of water and sanitation, sustainable energy, sustainable economic growth, sustainable industrialization, sustainable cities, sustainable consumption and production, sustainable use of the oceans, sustainable use of terrestrial resources and sustainable development. The goals also specify inclusivity, gender equality, peace, an end of poverty and hunger, improved nutrition, healthy lives, justice for all and, of course, a commitment to take “urgent action to combat climate change.” Lofty and ambitious goals, all of them dependent on regulations imposed and enforced by governments at all levels and subject to interpretation and approval by world bodies like the U.N. and the WEF (World Economic Forum).

We have no space in this short article to parse and respond to the specifics of Agenda 2030. Our intention here is simply to point out that in the context of its multiple goals, sustainability has lost its meaning. Talk to the farmers in the Netherlands about “sustainable agriculture.” They would like to sustain the farms that feed their families and fellow citizens. Talk to workers in the oil and gas sector in Alberta about sustainable energy and economic growth while cancelling pipelines and drilling. Talk to the peoples of the world about ending poverty and hunger while banning fertilizers and taking farmland out of production for wind and solar energy collection.

The contradictions go on and on. At the centre of the controversy over Agenda 2030 is the question of national sovereignty and the trend toward world government, top-down management, loss of independent thought and action and the dishonest use of language to justify oppression. We know that most governments and most mainstream media have already ceded the language to an elite group of wealthy and influential policy-makers. We’ve seen it in the handling of COVID and we’re seeing it more each day in the language surrounding the topic of climate change. It’s our job to sift through the news and identify the false narratives, the “bait-and-switch” tactics and the underlying motives of those who want “sustainable control” over our lives.

There has never been a more important time to challenge the assumptions being used to justify the loss of freedom and personal sovereignty. Is CO₂ really a pollutant? Do wind and solar farms really produce enough “sustainable” energy to power a replacement fleet of EVs (electric vehicles)? Are crickets a realistic replacement for beef and poultry? Will “gender-inclusivity” really empower women and girls?

It’s time to return to our foundation as a nation, to the Charter-recognized principles of “the supremacy of God and the rule of law.” It’s time to demand honesty in the press and accountability in the legislatures and in the courts. It’s time to return to faith in God. That’s the only path to a sustainable future. Learn more about us at CHP Canada.