What Did The W.E.F Mean By: “You Will Own Nothing And Be Happy, By 2030”

The collaboration between the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Economic Forum (WEF) in shaping the global agenda for 2030 has sparked intense debates and speculation. This partnership, aimed at “addressing global health challenges” and “fostering economic development” has raised eyebrows due to the inclusion of controversial statements such as “You will own nothing and you will be happy.” In this article, we delve into the plans outlined in Agenda 2030, examine prevailing theories, and explore why some people harbor concerns about the future.

Agenda 2030 “official” Goals: The joint initiative between WHO and WEF in Agenda 2030 revolves around achieving sustainable development, with a primary focus on health and economics. The goals include eradicating poverty, ensuring good health and well-being, and promoting inclusive economic growth. While the intentions seem noble, critics argue that the means to achieve these objectives may have profound implications for individual rights and freedoms.

One of the most controversial aspects of Agenda 2030 is the quote “You will own nothing and you will be happy,” attributed to the WEF. This phrase has fueled speculation and concern about potential shifts in property ownership and individual autonomy. Critics fear that it may indicate a move toward a more collectivist society, where personal property rights could be sacrificed for the sake of a perceived greater good.

Here are some bullet points elaborating on why people might have valid concerns:

  1. Erosion of Individual Autonomy:
    • Critics argue that the statement suggests a potential erosion of individual autonomy and the right to make personal choices about property ownership.
    • Surrendering the ability to own property may be perceived as a significant infringement on personal freedom and decision-making.
  2. Collectivist Society Apprehensions:
    • Concerns arise about the promotion of a more collectivist societal model, where individual rights and ownership are sacrificed in favor of a communal approach.
    • Traditional democratic values often emphasize the importance of protecting individual liberties, and a shift towards collectivism may be seen as incompatible with these principles.
  3. Unclear Definition of “Happiness”:
    • The phrase “You will be happy” raises questions about how happiness is defined in this context and who gets to decide what constitutes happiness.
    • Critics argue that a top-down definition of happiness imposed by external entities may not align with diverse individual perspectives and values.
  4. Potential for Authoritarian Control:
    • The idea of relinquishing personal property rights raises concerns about an increased level of control by governing bodies or powerful entities.
    • Critics fear that a shift towards a society where property ownership is limited could create conditions ripe for authoritarian control, limiting dissent and individual expression.
  5. Redistribution Challenges:
    • Skepticism surrounds the practicality of redistributing wealth and resources to create a more equal society.
    • Critics argue that forced redistribution may lead to economic inefficiencies and disincentivize innovation and productivity.
  6. Impact on Innovation and Entrepreneurship:
    • Some worry that a reduction in personal ownership may stifle entrepreneurship and innovation, as the traditional motivation of personal gain and ownership diminishes.
    • A shift away from a society that values individual ownership could potentially discourage risk-taking and initiative.
  7. Potential for Social Discontent:
    • In the absence of clear details on how the vision of “owning nothing” would be implemented, concerns arise about potential social discontent and resistance.
    • Historically, attempts to limit personal freedoms and property rights have often been met with resistance from individuals who value these liberties.
  8. Lack of Transparency in Planning:
    • The lack of transparency in the planning process for Agenda 2030 contributes to concerns, as individuals and communities are left with uncertainty about how these changes may impact their lives.

In summary, the concerns surrounding the quote from Agenda 2030 reflect anxieties about the potential consequences of a shift away from individual ownership and autonomy. The debate underscores the delicate balance between addressing global challenges and safeguarding fundamental principles of democracy and personal freedom.

Several theories have emerged regarding the true intentions behind Agenda 2030. Some view it as a “well-intentioned effort to address pressing global issues collaboratively” Others, however, speculate that the agenda might be a veiled attempt to consolidate power among a select few, potentially infringing upon individual freedoms and property rights. The lack of transparency in the planning process has contributed to the proliferation of such theories.

Let’s look at the Concerns and the Well-Intentioned Efforts in more detail:


  1. Consolidation of Power:
    • Concern: Critics worry that Agenda 2030 may serve as a vehicle for consolidating power among a select few, potentially leading to an oligarchic system that undermines democratic principles.
    • Counterpoint: Proponents argue that collaborative global governance is essential to address challenges that transcend national borders, emphasizing the need for unified efforts.
  2. Potential Infringement on Individual Freedoms:
    • Concern: Skepticism surrounds the possibility that the agenda could infringe upon individual freedoms, especially in terms of property rights. The fear is that centralized decision-making may dictate how individuals use their resources.
    • Counterpoint: Supporters argue that collective decision-making is necessary to tackle global issues effectively, emphasizing the need for coordinated action to address challenges like climate change and poverty.
  3. Lack of Transparency:
    • Concern: The lack of transparency in the planning process raises suspicions about hidden motives and undisclosed agendas. Critics argue that the absence of clear information allows for speculation and fosters mistrust.
    • Counterpoint: Advocates acknowledge the need for improved transparency but argue that the complexity of global governance requires a careful balance between openness and the confidentiality required for effective decision-making.
  4. Potential for Elitism:
    • Concern: Some theorists express concerns that the collaborative effort might inadvertently favor the interests of a global elite, further exacerbating socio-economic disparities.
    • Counterpoint: Supporters contend that the intention is to create inclusive policies that benefit the entire global population, emphasizing the importance of addressing inequality through a cooperative approach.
  5. Democratic Accountability:
    • Concern: Questions arise about the democratic accountability of global initiatives, with critics highlighting the potential for decisions that impact individuals worldwide to be made by unelected or unaccountable entities.
    • Counterpoint: Proponents argue that enhancing global governance is a step towards a more inclusive and democratic international system, where countries work together to address shared challenges.

Well-Intentioned Efforts:

  1. Collaborative Problem-Solving:
    • Perspective: Some see Agenda 2030 as a well-intentioned effort to collaboratively address pressing global issues. The initiative emphasizes collective problem-solving and shared responsibility among nations.
    • Counterpoint: Skeptics argue that collaborative efforts may inadvertently lead to the concentration of power in the hands of a few, potentially undermining the diversity of perspectives required for effective problem-solving.
  2. Addressing Global Challenges:
    • Perspective: Advocates argue that Agenda 2030 is designed to address critical challenges that no single nation can solve alone, such as climate change, poverty, and public health crises.
    • Counterpoint: Critics contend that the global nature of the agenda might provide cover for decisions that benefit certain interests over others, potentially sidelining the needs of specific communities or nations.
  3. Promoting Sustainable Development:
    • Perspective: Supporters emphasize the commitment to sustainable development as a positive aspect of Agenda 2030. The focus on environmental stewardship and social equity aims to create a more balanced and resilient global community.
    • Counterpoint: Detractors question whether the pursuit of sustainability might lead to drastic and unaccountable changes that impact individual freedoms and economic systems.
  4. Global Solidarity:
    • Perspective: Proponents view the agenda as an expression of global solidarity, where nations come together to tackle shared challenges for the greater good.
    • Counterpoint: Critics argue that the emphasis on solidarity may mask power dynamics that disproportionately favor certain nations or entities, potentially leading to an unequal distribution of benefits.

The debate surrounding Agenda 2030 reflects the tension between the potential benefits of global collaboration and the concerns about the concentration of power and the potential infringement on individual freedoms and rights. The lack of transparency in the planning process further intensifies these concerns and contributes to the proliferation of various theories about the true intentions behind the agenda.

Is this not just communism?

The concerns expressed by critics about a potential move toward a more collectivist society, where personal property rights may be sacrificed for the perceived greater good, evoke comparisons with aspects of communism. However, it’s important to note that the term “collectivism” encompasses a range of political and economic ideologies, and the concerns raised in the context of Agenda 2030 are nuanced. Let’s explore this further:

Concerns about a Move toward Collectivism:

  1. Wealth Redistribution:
    • Concern: Critics worry that the potential emphasis on wealth redistribution, a common feature in some forms of collectivism, may lead to a more equal distribution of resources but could also infringe upon individual property rights.
    • Clarification: While wealth redistribution is a feature associated with some forms of collectivism, the concerns here specifically revolve around the methods and extent of such redistribution and its impact on individual property rights.
  2. Centralized Decision-Making:
    • Concern: The fear of a more collectivist society often includes apprehensions about centralized decision-making. Critics express concerns that decisions about resource allocation, property usage, and economic planning might be concentrated in the hands of a few entities.
    • Clarification: This concern aligns with critiques of central planning and control often associated with certain forms of collectivism, particularly in Marxist-Leninist models.
  3. Individual Autonomy:
    • Concern: Critics argue that a move toward collectivism may undermine individual autonomy, as decisions about property ownership and resource allocation may be dictated by broader societal goals.
    • Clarification: The tension between individual autonomy and collective goals is a key aspect of debates about the role of the individual within a collective society.
  4. Potential for Authoritarianism:
    • Concern: Some express concerns that a more collectivist approach may create conditions conducive to authoritarian control, where decisions about property rights are made by a centralized authority for the supposed benefit of society.
    • Clarification: While not inherent to all forms of collectivism, concerns about authoritarianism often arise in discussions about centralization of power.

Communism and Collectivism:

  1. Communism and Common Ownership:
    • Connection: Communism, in its theoretical form, advocates for common ownership of the means of production, aiming for a classless and stateless society. This involves the abolition of private property in favor of collective ownership.
    • Clarification: While the concerns raised about Agenda 2030 share some similarities with aspects of communism, the specific details of how common ownership and wealth distribution would be achieved are not explicitly outlined in the Agenda.
  2. Diverse Forms of Collectivism:
    • Nuance: Collectivism is a broad term that encompasses various ideologies, including socialism, communism, and other forms of communal organization. Not all forms of collectivism advocate for the same degree of centralization or property rights restrictions.
  3. Global Governance vs. National Systems:
    • Distinction: The concerns about Agenda 2030 may involve elements of global governance, which adds a layer of complexity. Communism, historically, has been applied at the national level, whereas Agenda 2030 suggests a more global approach to addressing challenges.

In summary, while concerns about a move toward a more collectivist society resonate with critiques often associated with communism, the specifics of how Agenda 2030 would impact property rights and individual autonomy are not fully articulated. The concerns reflect broader anxieties about the balance between collective goals and individual freedoms within the context of global governance.






2 responses to “What Did The W.E.F Mean By: “You Will Own Nothing And Be Happy, By 2030””

  1. Rick avatar

    I think we know better than than and what their real intentions are..

  2. Martyn avatar

    Wold war 3

Leave a Reply

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: