72nd Session of the United Nations' Sustainable Development and Implementation of Agenda 21.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Aliensun

And in the end of that book, everyone dies and the earth is destroyed anyway. Not exactly a great choice to illustrate your point.

Evidently, you missed the whole point of the book. Maybe the TV version of it made it plainer for you (or maybe it distorted the original meaning). But, yes, the earth and every living soul died a physical death to move on to an entirely new real of non-physical existence. A returning to the true consciousness some would say. And some have no concept about that.

Welcome to the human bee hive that is being created by the greedy corrupt elite.
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I am with you 100%.

This is all about destroying cultural identity, sovereignty and individual liberty.

These Globalist scum are absolutely the enemy.

Precisely correct. Their evil runs deep. They promote the agenda intent on the enslavement of all humanity to bring it under the control of te Luciferian elites. They should be resisted at every turn.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Teikiatsu

The planet will be doing fine long after humanity goes extinct. As for resources, our technology has always found new resources to exploit, leaving a trail of creative destruction. This is why the coal industry died. Access to resources has always been the fundamental cause of war. In earliest times it was water and arable land, lately it has been petroleum, and soon it will be rare earths. Now that humanity is aware of its global scope, perhaps it is time to consider options that can avoid the possibility of a civilization destroying conflict?

HHmmm... nope.

Technology and the market have been working out well so far. It only gets screwed up when a handful of people in the government think they know better than the creative power of the human race.

I assume you are very young, and don't remember acid rain and Lake Erie catching fire. You also don't seem to understand that the history of humanity has been one of constant slaughter over access to resources. Either that, or you consider a toxic environment and continual warfare to be "working out well."

You assume wrong.

Basic environmental regulations (and the regs from the 70s are basic and effective) are not the same as restricting human productivity and economics.

a reply to: 4003fireglo

Well, actually "they" have had control of your nation since 1913.

Now they have their sights on the world, try to keep up!

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Teikiatsu

The planet will be doing fine long after humanity goes extinct. As for resources, our technology has always found new resources to exploit, leaving a trail of creative destruction. This is why the coal industry died. Access to resources has always been the fundamental cause of war. In earliest times it was water and arable land, lately it has been petroleum, and soon it will be rare earths. Now that humanity is aware of its global scope, perhaps it is time to consider options that can avoid the possibility of a civilization destroying conflict?

HHmmm... nope.

Technology and the market have been working out well so far. It only gets screwed up when a handful of people in the government think they know better than the creative power of the human race.

I assume you are very young, and don't remember acid rain and Lake Erie catching fire. You also don't seem to understand that the history of humanity has been one of constant slaughter over access to resources. Either that, or you consider a toxic environment and continual warfare to be "working out well."

You assume wrong.

Basic environmental regulations (and the regs from the 70s are basic and effective) are not the same as restricting human productivity and economics.

How do you feel about child labor laws? The forty hour work week? Should we get rid of those governmental restrictions on productivity and economics? The fact is, no private enterprise has voluntarily acted in the best interests of anyone but themselves without public pressure or government regulation. You have drunk the " free market" koolade.

a reply to: Aliensun

The excuse is "to save humanity, but in fact that excuse is only being used to "once more enslave humanity". When you convince people through decades, or even centuries of propaganda that "we are only implementing these draconian laws for your own good", there will be a lot of people who will believe such lies, and those people will embrace their own enslavement. Because you know, "the elites are doing it to save humanity".

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I am with you 100%.

This is all about destroying cultural identity, sovereignty and individual liberty.

These Globalist scum are absolutely the enemy.

This! 100% agree

originally posted by: Kali74
72nd Session and still no world domination?

How embarrassing.

Not from a lack of trying is it?... I mean, if you look at what is happening to this day the elites are close to their goal. BTW, i am pretty certain you can read right?

Or are you one of those people who actually believes that "having the UN control and dictate the global human order" is good? Controlling "freedom of speech", and dictating that only "left-wing sources are beacons of truth and anyone else has to be silenced. We saw in Sweden one of the many cases in which an elderly woman who posted how she saw a refugee defecating in the streets, and she has been facing jail time for posting this.

There are already European nations doing part of what the UN want. BTW, do I need to remind you that many of the nations that are part of the UN to this day are dictatorships? Some of those nations to this day openly treat women like second rate citizens alongside treating people of other religions as second rate citizens?

It is ludicrous to have the UN, which still has dictatorial regimes dictating laws that will rule mankind, as a "beacon that will save humanity".

Ruthless Tyrants Win Seats on UN “Human Rights” Council

UN “Human Rights” Council Now Officially Controlled by Dictators

Not to mention the several scandals the UN has been involved with. From the fact that "UN peacekeeper troops" have been involved in mass rapes, and attacking unarmed civilians, to the "oil for food scandal" in which several UN officials, including the son of Kofi Annan, Kojo Annan, was involved in the scandal alongside many officials of the UN.

Oil-for-Food Panel Rebukes Annan, Cites Corruption

Agenda 21 is up there with Jade Helm...

*yawn*

IDK about YOU but why not have cleaner air/water and cheaper renewable energy.

Seems a no-brainer to me.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I am with you 100%.

This is all about destroying cultural identity, sovereignty and individual liberty.

These Globalist scum are absolutely the enemy.

You mean primitive tribalism?

originally posted by: 4003fireglo

originally posted by: Kali74
72nd Session and still no world domination?

How embarrassing.

Yeah. Apparently "they" have had since 1776 to take over the USA. Who takes that long to take control over a nation?

How many times did they try and didn't succeed? It only takes once to be able to succeed at implementing a dictatorship at a global level.

In the case of nations which in the past were controlled by a dictatorship, it may take decades, or centuries to once again have a dictatorial system completely control that nation/s.

In the U.S. for example rights have been slowly eroded for decades, even though for centuries dictators were trying to once again take over nations like the U.S.

For example, the majority of founding fathers of the U.S. warned against allowing central banks taking control of the economy. Yet it was in 1913, thanks to democrats and a democrat progressive President that finally the Federal Reserve was allowed to take control of the economy of the U.S., even when the U.S. Constitution states that "only Congress shall coin money, in the form of gold and silver, and regulate it's value."
But instead a group that does not have to answer to Congress was given the power to coin and regulate the value of coin in the U.S. since 1913.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Teikiatsu

The planet will be doing fine long after humanity goes extinct. As for resources, our technology has always found new resources to exploit, leaving a trail of creative destruction. This is why the coal industry died. Access to resources has always been the fundamental cause of war. In earliest times it was water and arable land, lately it has been petroleum, and soon it will be rare earths. Now that humanity is aware of its global scope, perhaps it is time to consider options that can avoid the possibility of a civilization destroying conflict?

HHmmm... nope.

Technology and the market have been working out well so far. It only gets screwed up when a handful of people in the government think they know better than the creative power of the human race.

I assume you are very young, and don't remember acid rain and Lake Erie catching fire. You also don't seem to understand that the history of humanity has been one of constant slaughter over access to resources. Either that, or you consider a toxic environment and continual warfare to be "working out well."

You assume wrong.

Basic environmental regulations (and the regs from the 70s are basic and effective) are not the same as restricting human productivity and economics.

How do you feel about child labor laws? The forty hour work week? Should we get rid of those governmental restrictions on productivity and economics? The fact is, no private enterprise has voluntarily acted in the best interests of anyone but themselves without public pressure or government regulation. You have drunk the " free market" koolade.

No one is calling for the rollback child labor laws and the like, NONE of which were accomplished by the UN

How do you feel about UN "success stories" like:
-Oil for Food - FAIL
-Rwandan Genocide UN Peacekeeping- FAIL
-UN designated Srebrenica a "safe-zone" in 1993 - FAIL
-Support of UN for Khmer even after ousted from power and despite Khmer murdering 2.5 million Cambodians - FAIL

UN has proven to be on ongoing failure, that has led to human misery and genocide time and again, besides being beyond-repair-corrupt and an utter waste of money from donor countries and for those whom the money was intended for.

All of the media pushing the transgender and gay rights attitude is making sense.

People thought it was about votes, it seems to me that it is a little bit about votes and more about population conttol.

Something is happening in the information age, it seems that people are getting all worked up and "offended" over the smallest things, some may not be so small to some people, but I'm thinking that the media, whether social, television, internet, and radio are perfecting the effects of the "herd mentality" and this is making it where people do not want children, or are in relationships as to where they are not able to have children.

I believe that the bizarre nature of iiut times is culminating and is eventually going to lead to sone sort of revolution of the masses.

I hope I made a little sense here. It seems a little difficult to convey my message the way I really want t.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Every inch of me as a person says to resist these people, especially with people like Merkel in control, fighting fascism with extremist fascism.

But then again, you see a scenario like star trek, and if it's going to be like that... then there'd be nothing wrong with it. But we can't trust that people like Merkel or Trudeau have our interests in mind, when they deal with devils like the self proclaimed jewish nazi George Soros pulling their strings.

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
Very bizarre,i am sure they planned this out when forming the US,if taxpayers ever invaded Wash DC,then that would be an attack on the queen of England,which is what has been planned,then the UN attacks

Well, the UN was obviously not around in 1776, but you are correct about an attack on DC being an attack on England. Our country was never free from England. We won the battle, not the war. The Treaty of 1783 sealed our fate.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: ravenshadow13

I think they should ban a lot of the unnatural chemicals they have created that are dampening the worlds ability to repair the ecosystem. This includes to some extent CO2 emissions to a certain extent, especially the stuff that comes from all those jets flying around.

if your worried about the ecosystem and c02 destroying it i wouldnt give that a worry at all. one thing thats great about C02 emissions is that we have a huge abundant source of life forms that consume c02 and give us beneficial byproducts in every environment on earth. what id be more worried about are the herbicides, pesticides, insecticides, etc that makes it ways into our waterways and groundwater supply from modern agriculture. on top of that much of the fertilizers we use in modern agriculture releases large amounts of greenhouse gases with nothing to really soak it up and buffer it out other then time unlike with c02.

originally posted by: ravenshadow13
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You know that all the conspiracy theories regarding Agenda 21 began with Glenn Beck's book, right?

I work on this topic all the time and I was literally shocked the first time I heard some of these theories.

Certainly welcome on ATS of course and I suppose there are two sides to every coin--one rather panicked and negative and perhaps misled, and the other with intent to help manage some of the world's greatest threats.

But most people are inherently selfish and short-sighted so I could see how these initiatives might be off-putting, for sure. I'd love to hear other ideas for how we might handle our global crises-- but IMO sustainable growth is literally the most "republican" plan coming out of the UN, as it's all about the power of the private sector and markets.

Would love to know how many folks have actually taken the time to become familiar with the SDGs and associated programs themselves. Honestly they're so basic, in-line with the practices of most of your favorite companies already, and like everything UN related they really don't have strong teeth at all.

Tldr if you don't like it, come up with a better plan to handle the extreme pressures humans are placing on our planet.

Its not Republican and the CTs didn't start with Glenn Beck but I find it curious that one such as yourself would accuse Republicans of this and then turn around and attack a conservative leaning Libertarian for exposing the plan. It just shows you haven't really thought this through much. I always find it strange that the people who most lean toward accepting the most Totalitarian of Agendas are the very ones accusing Republicans of the same. The truth is that these plans have arisen from the minds of such as The Club of Rome... and guess who's in that??? Al Gore, Maurice Strong, Bill
gates, Rockefellers and Rothschild. www.jeremiahproject.com...

originally posted by: WhyDidIJoin
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Every inch of me as a person says to resist these people, especially with people like Merkel in control, fighting fascism with extremist fascism.

But then again, you see a scenario like star trek, and if it's going to be like that... then there'd be nothing wrong with it. But we can't trust that people like Merkel or Trudeau have our interests in mind, when they deal with devils like the self proclaimed jewish nazi George Soros pulling their strings.

Interesting. So George Soros calls himself a "Jewish Nazi?" Please expand on why his Jewishness might be relevant here.

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner
a reply to: 4003fireglo

Well, actually "they" have had control of your nation since 1913.

Now they have their sights on the world, try to keep up!

Oh. It's that whole "blame it on Woodrow 'Two Term' Wilson" thing, innit?