Agenda 21: Will there be a dystopian society by 2030?

Agenda1...jpg

Agenda3..

Agenda4...

Local Government Implementation of Agenda 21

The local government implementation of Agenda 21 was prepared by ICLEI for the Earth Council’s Rio+5 Forum (April 13-19, 1997 — Rio de Janeiro, Brazil), for the 5th Session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, and for the UN General Assembly’s “Earth Summit+5” Special Session.

United Nations plot to depopulate 95% of the world by 2030

Agenda 21 was United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development and was apparently developed as a means of restructuring the world population to lessen environmental impact and achieve an improved quality of life. One of the main ways of achieving this, however, is through encouraged and direct depopulation.

As the UN put it:

“comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations system, government, and major groups, in every area in which humans have impact on the environment.”

Although the language used in the original 70-page report that the UN published on Agenda 21 is vague and open to interpretation, as well as plausible deniability, the intentions in certain sections are clear. Depopulation to lessen environmental impact and stop overpopulation leading to instability.

While this sounds like a positive thing in some aspects, mere policy changes at governmental level alone cannot create an environment where big enough changes can come about in a short space of time.

Global epidemic: Huge scale depopulation in short time

To achieve such huge scale depopulation with a relatively short deadline the actions were taken would have to be drastic. Either a world war, global epidemic or some kind of widespread starvation caused by massive crop failures would be the only likely ways of achieving this.

The idea also raises the question of which 5% of the global population would be saved? Would these be those strong and hardy enough to survive the conditions placed on the earth that would kill off the remaining 95%, or perhaps the survivors would be chosen selectively from the elite and wealthy? And those who wake up to this evil reality will be imprisoned in FEMA camps before their death. Is this what they are built for?

Whether such a plan could ever actually be successful is another matter. Plans of this size and scope would require the collusion and agreement of at least every first world government in the world, not to mention that the number of resources and effort that would have to go into keeping something like this covered up would be astronomical.

http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/wssd/summarypublication.pdf

Agenda2..

Your plate is the Battlefield(GMO Foods)

1. GMOs are unhealthy.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses.

Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise. Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing factor, doctors groups such as the AAEM tell us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially our children who are most at risk.

The American Public Health Association and American Nurses Association are among many medical groups that condemn the use of GM bovine growth hormone, because the milk from treated cows has more of the hormone IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1)―which is linked to cancer.

2. GMOs contaminate―forever.
GMOs cross pollinate and their seeds can travel. It is impossible to fully clean up our contaminated gene pool. Self-propagating GMO pollution will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. The potential impact is huge, threatening the health of future generations. GMO contamination has also caused economic losses for organic and non-GMO farmers who often struggle to keep their crops pure.

3. GMOs increase herbicide use.
Most GM crops are engineered to be “herbicide tolerant”―they deadly weed killer. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide.

Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in “superweeds,” resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.

4. Genetic engineering creates dangerous side effects.
By mixing genes from totally unrelated species, genetic engineering unleashes a host of unpredictable side effects. Moreover, irrespective of the type of genes that are inserted, the very process of creating a GM plant can result in massive collateral damage that produces new toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies.

5. Government oversight is dangerously lax.
Most of the health and environmental risks of GMOs are ignored by governments’ superficial regulations and safety assessments. The reason for this tragedy is largely political. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for example, doesn’t require a single safety study, does not mandate labeling of GMOs, and allows companies to put their GM foods onto the market without even notifying the agency. Their justification was the claim that they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different. But this was a lie. Secret agency memos made public by a lawsuit show that the overwhelming consensus even among the FDA’s own scientists was that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. They urged long-term safety studies. But the White House had instructed the FDA to promote biotechnology, and the agency official in charge of policy was Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, later their vice president. He’s now the US Food Safety Czar.

6. The biotech industry uses “tobacco science” to claim product safety.

Biotech companies like Monsanto told us that Agent Orange, PCBs, and DDT were safe. They are now using the same type of superficial, rigged research to try and convince us that GMOs are safe. Independent scientists, however, have caught the spin-masters red-handed, demonstrating without doubt how industry-funded research is designed to avoid finding problems, and how adverse findings are distorted or denied.

7. Independent research and reporting is attacked and suppressed.
Scientists who discover problems with GMOs have been attacked, gagged, fired, threatened, and denied funding. The journal Nature acknowledged that a “large block of scientists . . . denigrate research by other legitimate scientists in a knee-jerk, partisan, emotional way that is not helpful in advancing knowledge.” Attempts by media to expose problems are also often censored.

8. GMOs harm the environment.

GM crops and their associated herbicides can harm birds, insects, amphibians, marine ecosystems, and soil organisms. They reduce bio-diversity, pollute water resources, and are unsustainable. For example, GM crops are eliminating habitat for monarch butterflies, whose populations are down 50% in the US. Roundup herbicide has been shown to cause birth defects in amphibians, embryonic deaths and endocrine disruptions, and organ damage in animals even at very low doses. GM canola has been found growing wild in North Dakota and California, threatening to pass on its herbicide tolerant genes on to weeds.

9. GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.
Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2009 report Failure to Yield―the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that GM crop yields were “highly variable” and in some cases, “yields declined.” The report noted, “Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable.” They determined that the current GMOs have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability.
On the contrary, GMOs divert money and resources that would otherwise be spent on more safe, reliable, and appropriate technologies.

10. By avoiding GMOs, you contribute to the coming tipping point of consumer rejection, forcing them out of our food supply.
Because GMOs give no consumer benefits, if even a small percentage of us start rejecting brands that contain them, GM ingredients will become a marketing liability. Food companies will kick them out. In Europe, for example, the tipping point was achieved in 1999, just after a high profile GMO safety scandal hit the papers and alerted citizens to the potential dangers. In the US, a consumer rebellion against GM bovine growth hormone has also reached a tipping point, kicked the cow drug out of dairy products by Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Dannon, Yoplait, and most of America’s dairies.

Article from responsibletechnology.org

WARNING:The Coming Creation of a Transracial/Androgynous Culture

Racial Identity

This is a great video by Youtuber Nubian Times. He speaks his mind and doesn’t care who he offends in the process. But I admire the fact that he speaks his mind. In the video he’s speaking on a recent panel discussion with MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry. Melissa is chatting with her guests about the possibility of a person being ” black” even though they are not biologically of African descent. This is what I call crazy talk. Keep in mind this woman is biracial with a white mother. Yet this mulatto woman is speaking on behalf of black people. She is speaking with a bunch of gay/transgender folks and there is no counter argument on the panel. Melissa and her guests are trying to compare a person who is transgender with a person identifying with another race. This is utter nonsense! First of all, race is biological. I know we are all taught that race is a social construct by the media. As a child I believed that too. But as I got older common sense kicked in. There are obvious differences between racial groups. I see nothing wrong with accepting that fact. There is no reason for people to get offended with the truth. Mixed raced people like Melissa are the cause for all this confusion. I have noticed a lot of mixed raced people that are fence riders when it comes to race issues. Black people are fighting oppression everyday in this racist corrupt society. Anti-blackness is everywhere on this planet. We don’t need idiots like Melissa causing more confusion among our people.

Mixed Race

What about the people in this above pic? Can they all be considered African? Do any of them speak up for African/black people? And when it comes to race,what is the proper definition? Do you believe it’s a social construct? There are different breeds of dogs right? Aren’t there different birds? Why is it so hard for people to accept that race is biological as well? The top ten points I usually hear about race are the following:

1. All humans living today belong to a single species, Homo sapiens, and share a common descent. Although there are differences of opinion regarding how and where different human groups diverged or fused to form new ones from a common ancestral group, all living populations in each of the earth’s geographic areas have evolved from that ancestral group over the same amount of time. Much of the biological variation among populations involves modest degrees of variation in the frequency of shared traits. Human populations have at times been isolated, but have never genetically diverged enough to produce any biological barriers to mating between members of different populations.

2. Biological differences between human beings reflect both hereditary factors and the influence of natural and social environments. In most cases, these differences are due to the interaction of both. The degree to which environment or heredity affects any particular trait varies greatly.

3. There is great genetic diversity within all human populations. Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.

4. There are obvious physical differences between populations living in different geographic areas of the world. Some of these differences are strongly inherited and others, such as body size and shape, are strongly influenced by nutrition, way of life, and other aspects of the environment. Genetic differences between populations commonly consist of differences in the frequencies of all inherited traits, including those that are environmentally malleable.

5. For centuries, scholars have sought to comprehend patterns in nature by classifying living things. The only living species in the human family, Homo sapiens, has become a highly diversified global array of populations. The geographic pattern of genetic variation within this array is complex, and presents no major discontinuity. Humanity cannot be classified into discrete geographic categories with absolute boundaries. Furthermore, the complexities of human history make it difficult to determine the position of certain groups in classifications. Multiplying subcategories cannot correct the inadequacies of these classifications.

Generally, the traits used to characterize a population are either independently inherited or show only varying degrees of association with one another within each population. Therefore, the combination of these traits in an individual very commonly deviates from the average combination in the population. This fact renders untenable the idea of discrete races made up chiefly of typical representatives.

6. In humankind as well as in other animals, the genetic composition of each population is subject over time to the modifying influence of diverse factors. These include natural selection, promoting adaptation of the population to the environment; mutations, involving modifications in genetic material; admixture, leading to genetic exchange between local populations, and randomly changing frequencies of genetic characteristics from one generation to another. The human features which have universal biological value for the survival of the species are not known to occur more frequently in one population than in any other. Therefore it is meaningless from the biological point of view to attribute a general inferiority or superiority to this or to that race.

7. The human species has a past rich in migration, in territorial expansions, and in contractions. As a consequence, we are adapted to many of the earth’s environments in general, but to none in particular. For many millennia, human progress in any field has been based on culture and not on genetic improvement.

Mating between members of different human groups tends to diminish differences between groups, and has played a very important role in human history. Wherever different human populations have come in contact, such matings have taken place. Obstacles to such interaction have been social and cultural, not biological. The global process of urbanization, coupled with intercontinental migrations, has the potential to reduce the differences among all human populations.

8. Partly as a result of gene flow, the hereditary characteristics of human populations are in a state of perpetual flux. Distinctive local populations are continually coming into and passing out of existence. Such populations do not correspond to breeds of domestic animals, which have been produced by artificial selection over many generations for specific human purposes.

9. The biological consequences of mating depend only on the individual genetic makeup of the couple, and not on their racial classifications. Therefore, no biological justification exists for restricting intermarriage between persons of different racial classifications.

10. There is no necessary concordance between biological characteristics and culturally defined groups. On every continent, there are diverse populations that differ in language, economy, and culture. There is no national, religious, linguistic or cultural group or economic class that constitutes a race. However, human beings who speak the same language and share the same culture frequently select each other as mates, with the result that there is often some degree of correspondence between the distribution of physical traits on the one hand and that of linguistic and cultural traits on the other. But there is no causal linkage between these physical and behavioral traits, and therefore it is not justifiable to attribute cultural characteristics to genetic inheritance.

Do you agree with this? Most of it or none at all?

Rachel and Jenner

This is Rachel Dolezal and Bruce Jenner. Two very confused white people. I think they both suffer from very low self esteem.

Cherno Biko

This is picture of Janet Mock and Cherno Biko. Yep you guessed it! They are both men! As a matter of fact Janet and Cherno are both activists for the transgender community. They are writing books,appearing on talk shows and doing lectures. I’ve noticed an increase of black gay/transgender people in the media over the last ten years. It’s like they’re everywhere. They are really trying to redefine what a black man and woman is supposed to be. The white controlled media does everything they can to degrade and dehumanize black people. They want black men to be seen as feminine little punks. And they want black women to be seen as butch,masculine and unattractive. This is one of the reasons why so many black actors have to dress in drag in Hollywood. This is a full assault on the BLACK MIND! They are doing everything they can to destroy how we are seen by the entire world. I’ve seen this madness promoted on ABC,NBC and CBS. And cable stations like CNN,FOX and MSNBC. The media promotes more interracial couples rather than black love stories. So this creates more division and tension between black men and women. This is all by design. These sick bastards in the media know exactly what they’re doing to us. This is what happens when another race of people control your image. They get to decide how you are depicted. No wonder other races think black people are nuts! We look like useless zombies with no cultural identity. We can’t even decide who is black and who is not! Then you throw in the gender confusion…..and you have a recipe for disaster. Can you see what’s slowly happening? Are you a black person who is aware of your surroundings? Do you want liberation for your people? Are you even awake? Or are you one of the useless zombies?