Agenda 2030

Treason 2030

Back in March 2030, I wrote about the NZ abortion amendment act, an extreme law that was rushed through parliament while we were all distracted by Covid-19. I wanted to know where the mandate came from.  Was it really about “personal choice?”  Shouldn’t the government have been concentrating on more important things, like the pandemic we were all facing? 

Along with those questions, I wondered, “Was the NZ abortion law changed to meet a UN sustainable goal?”

I’ve now found a report that clearly shows the mandate did come from the United Nations: The people’s report on the 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development goals.

Go to the section headed “A more just and equal world,” (sustainable development goal 16.)  Look at recommendation 13 on page 14, and I quote: “abortion is treated as a health issue, removed from the Crimes Act 1961 and related legislation amended.” 

So it’s clear that New Zealand is being transformed by UN Agenda 2030.  Are you in favour of that?

What do you think of the fact that 90.6% of New Zealanders’ submissions were ignored because the government wanted to implement another UN sustainable development goal?

Have you heard about this in the media?

Do you think it’s treason?

treason

    • The betrayal of allegiance toward one’s own country, especially by committing hostile acts against it or aiding its enemies in committing such acts.
    • The betrayal of someone’s trust or confidence.
    •  A betraying; treachery; breach of faith.

Do you think this should be an important election issue?


Links

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern defends proposed abortion law.

Was the NZ abortion law changed to meet a UN sustainable goal?

Duckspeak and Agenda 2030

I will be blogging about the UN’s Agenda 2030, focusing mainly on it’s detrimental effects on New Zealand and Australia.  In case you don’t think it’s a thing, here’s Jacinda Adern speaking about fulfilling the goals of Agenda 2030.  Note, there is no mandate from the people of New Zealand for this.  When she says “we” or “New Zealand,” she’s speaking for herself.  

UN SDG review – Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern

But this is a good example of “Duckspeak.”

“There is a word in Newspeak,’ said Syme, ‘I don’t know whether you know it: duckspeak, to quack like a duck.” – George Orwell, 1984

duck-quack

Adern’s minority government was elected to reduce immigration because of concern about New Zealand’s homeless problem.  We have the worst level of homelessness in the developed world.  Instead of doing anything about it – Adern increased the number of refugees and on Christmas 2019, our country was sneakily signed up to the UN’s Global Migration compact, without New Zealanders’ permission.

I am left asking why?

Adern broken promises

In case you think that “giving our country away” is a bit emotive, here’s the page showing the 1.1 million migrants for New Zealand.   Look and decide for yourself.  The source is the UN DESA (The UN ‘Department of Economic and Social Affairs.’)  Now we can see whose interests Jacinda is acting in – and it’s not New Zealand’s.


18 March 2020, further to this post: I’ve just read about a young gun owner in Waikanae who was harrassed by the police. He was asked questions about the New Conservative party: “Do you know what New Conservative’s immigration policy is?”
Do you know any representatives of the New Conservative party?”

Source: https://waikanaewatch.org/2020/03/16/police-continue-to-intimidate-licenced-firearms-owners/

Why was the NZ Police asking about this political party???

Here is New Conservative’s reply about their immigration policy:

New Conservative

 

 

Dear NZ Police Management,

New Zealand is a sovereign nation, and it’s also supposed to be a democratic one. So please find our immigration policy attached.

PS – You are supposed to enforce law, not a political agenda…

#LetsFixThis

Immigration policy

Immigration is central to many parts of New Zealand’s culture, economy, and future prospects. New Conservative believes that there is a balance to be struck between the important benefits that immigration brings and the wellbeing of those who already call New Zealand “home.”

We believe that those who choose to immigrate should embrace New Zealand’s culture and not try and change it.​

New Conservative will ensure there is no acceptance or allowance of Sharia Law, in any expression, as well as any non-constitutional jurisdictional authority, in New Zealand.

The key New Conservative immigration policy is “Net Zero Immigration”. This would be for a period determined by the time taken to ease housing demand, which could be as little as 12 months (student visas and returning New Zealanders excluded).

Long term immigration policy must be based on which occupations will be available/necessary in the future.​

Prioritising immigrants who can add to our economy and not depend on it.​

Working with NZ based non-governmental organisations operating in troubled zones to identify genuine refugees who are more closely aligned with our nation’s values, and fill our refugee quota with these people, rather than accepting the United Nations allotment.

NZ New Conservative

A Digital Identity will be needed by 2030

According to Sustainable Development Goal SDG 16 of the U.N. Agenda 2030 we’re going to need a digital identity.   This high-minded goal doesn’t tell us that, it simply describes itself as:

SDG 16.9“The promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, the provision of access to justice for all, and building effective, accountable institutions at all levels.”

The devil is in the details.  Drilling down a level to target 16.9, the goal is “By 2030 to provide legal identity for all, including birth registration.”

The World Bank states that birth registration alone is not enough. Health treatments need to be tracked, including vaccinations.  It will be needed for banks and households where there’s “more than one family.”
Source: The criterion problem: Measuring the legal identity target in the post-2015 agenda

The World Bank argues that SDG16.9 is “key to attainment of many other SDG goals.”

Note: “What’s the end goal?”  film producer the late Aaron Russo asked his friend Nicholas Rockefeller.  Rockefeller replied, “The end goal is to get everybody chipped.”

You’ll find Russo’s warning at 10:40 on the clip “Rockefeller Reveals 9 11 FRAUD and New World Order to Aaron Russo.

ID2020

So the U.N., Microsoft, the Rockefeller Foundation and a host of other stakeholders came up with ID2020, a program aimed at giving every human on the planet a digital ID, like a fingerprint, in order to keep everyone connected.

ID2020 banner

When I first mentioned ID2020 in my post ID2020, the Global Digital ID I didn’t know it was part of U.N. Agenda 2030.

I should have realised from the weird conference room the stakeholders were meeting in.  I later learned it was a United Nations Council chamber.

On May 18th, 2018 the World Bank Group and the United Nations signed a Strategic Partnership Framework (SPF), which consolidates their joint commitment to cooperate in helping countries implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Microsoft have positioned themselves to spearhead the ID2020 initiative.  The initiative helmed by Bill Gates is aimed at “getting Digital IDs right.”

“As companies are only now defining what a proper, official online ID looks like, ID2020 seeks to help define what a “good” digital ID is. Gates and the Board of the Alliance have a “Certification Mark” that they award to companies and technologies that meet the criteria of being “good” digital ID tech.

Gates

WHAT’S THE CONNECTION TO VACCINATIONS?

The idea behind some of ID2020’s more controversial technologies is a digital ID that can be implanted into someone in chip form. Ostensibly, this is to help homeless people or people in developing countries by giving them access to blockchain-powered identification.

In theory, the practice would have people receiving free vaccinations through the Bill Gates foundation if they have an ID chip implant. In turn, these implants would carry encrypted, blockchain-backed data that allow for easy access to services you can’t normally get without an ID.

It could also help social workers and researchers keep up with who is up-to-date on their vaccinations.”

Source: Medium – IMPLANTABLE DIGITAL ID VACCINATION SYSTEM IN DEVELOPMENT, YIKES?

Would you agree to have a microchip implanted into your body? That’s the question that Microsoft and a group of pharmaceutical companies are asking.

Implantable device

The Microsoft Certification Mark

Governments, NGO’s and charities have been beavering away on technology projects in order to get their Microsoft Certification Mark.

I was wondering why the Red Cross had disbursed only a third of the donated funds to the victims of the Australian bushfires.  Those expensive Agenda 2030 goals and technology projects will no doubt be costing a lot of money and the public would never donate for a thing like this.  I’ll put the links to the Red Cross at the bottom of the page.

The reason I’m picking on them is because the Red Cross has been in the news about the Australian Bush fire donations and I notice they’ve adopted the green-tape of Agenda 2030 in their practices.

The 169 Sustainable Development Targets

The devil really is in these targets, which you can find here and drill down on by clicking on each of the 17 goals.  Why 169, I wondered?

169 = 13 x 13.

Revelation 13 describes the mark of the beast and the deceiver who forces it on the world.  Will we be the generation to contend with the mark we’ve been warned about in the Bible?

Here’s another unwelcome thought: will the mark alter our DNA?  We’re on the cusp of another technological revolution so I believe it’s possible.  I’m mentioning it so we can be aware of it.

Altering Human Genetics Through Vaccination

“The emergence of this Frankenstein technology is paralleled by a shrill push to mandate vaccines, across the board, for both children and adults. The pressure and propaganda are planet-wide.”

Source: Jon Rappoport


Finally, I believe this will lead to a totalitarian state.  If we refuse the ID, we won’t get access to any services.

The Sustainable Development Goals, Identity, and Privacy: Does their implementation risk human rights?
While birth registration is the only form of identification specifically mentioned in SDG 16.9, the initiatives that have emerged from the goal seem to have barely considered it. Rather, they are concerned about other technologies: the likes of national ID cards, biometrics, and more exotic and untested technologies like blockchain.

“Identity” is an important part of all our lives and having the ability to prove who we are is empowering. Having control over our identity can help not only achieve the necessities of life, but also more fundamental concerns of dignity and autonomy. Implementing SDG 16.9 could be done in a way that does not risk this. Yet, if the push is towards greater implementation of some centralised, unique, insecure, one-size-fits-all identity systems which fail to consider the individual, their needs and rights, it can prove to be the opposite.

ID systems can lead to surveillance, tracking and profiling by states and private companies; they can exclude rather than include; they can limit opportunities and become a tool for control and repression. Without proper consideration, SDG 16.9 could lead to a move against not only the broader Goal 16 for peaceful and sustainable societies, but also be damaging for human rights, and ultimately harm the very people it was intended to help.
Source: Privacy International


The Red Cross

Red Cross Accused of Withholding Millions of Dollars in Donations Meant for Australian Bushfires

COMMENT: Red Cross Using Social Media Spin Doctors To Screw Bushfire Victims

Red Cross director admits that almost $11million from bushfire donations WON’T go to victims and will be used for ‘administration costs’

The Australian Red Cross  – Submission to the Human Rights and Technology project

Red Cross NZ: Red Cross welcomes UN global goals for sustainable development

The Green Tape – Goal 15 of UN Agenda 2030

As the Sunday afternoon sky in New Zealand went an unprecedented orange from Australia’s bush fires, eventually draining into an early sepia toned twilight, I was left dumbfounded. Australia has experienced bush fires before and should know how to deal with them.  Why on God’s green earth did the Australian state and federal governments close fire trails, remove dams and ignore calls to thin out trees and remove undergrowth?

There are news reports like this one from The Sydney Morning Herald, Green ideas must take blame for deaths :Fire trails have been blocked up to turn the land back to its natural state and volunteer firefighters prevented by National Parks and Wildlife Service employees from bulldozing control lines because of damage to vegetation.

“… Instances like that are just too numerous to mention. Governments … have been in too much of a rush to appease green idealism … This thing about locking up forests is just not working.”

“I believe there is an agenda..” an Australian wrote in the comments section of an article from the Volunteer Fire Fighters Association where a firefighter is shown wrapped in green tape.

Fireys-constrained-in-executing-their-duties-by-Greenies-and-green-policies-Terry-Pontikos-1024x576

Artwork on an article by the Volunteer Fire Fighters Association – done by Terry Pontikos.

UN SDG 15
UN Agenda 2030, goal 15

Yes there is an agenda – the green tape of the Sustainable Development Goals for Agenda 2030 – specifically SDG Goal #15.

In the name of this ideological goal, the UN has demanded that the undergrowth be left in the forests to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

What is this sustainable development goal that is causing such poor management of national parks and state forests?

The sustainable goals of Agenda 2030

In 2015, Agenda 21morphed into UN Agenda 2030 which the UN is now openly promoting.  It has 17 high-minded, altruistic and idealistic goals it’s happy to tell the world about, like “ending poverty.”

These goals come with 169 Sustainable Development Goals you are not being told about.  You won’t find them very easily, I had to do some digging, but here’s the link.

Click on goal 15.  One of the 169 goals is SDG 15.2.1, “Sustainable Forest Management” which involves “biomass.”

Generally speaking, biomass includes the stem, stump, branches, bark, seeds and foliage.  It’s more important to the UN Climate Change lobby to keep biomass (the undergrowth) in the name of “reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”  That’s why firefighters and local authorities have been prevented from managing their own forests.

The United Nations doesn’t care that the undergrowth is highly combustible leading to unstoppable fires.  According to them biomass is good as it absorbs carbon dioxide!

Note: carbon dioxide, or CO2 is a trace gas which makes up just 0.04% of the atmosphere.  Yet it is being portrayed by the UN as a harmful greenhouse gas.

This is how the world’s forests are being “conserved” in the name of sustainable development and climate change.

It’s not ‘climate change’ threatening Australia – it’s the belief in climate change.


Biomass and “sustainable” forest management

Here’s the link on the FAO Food and Agriculture page under ‘Key results’ of target 15.1. Quote: “Furthermore, stopping deforestation contributes to reducing of impacts of climate change as forests absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it as biomass.”  

And here’s Australia’s report card from the UN for SDG 15.2.1: “Sustainable Forest Management.”  It seems the Australian government is after a big UN tick for their biomass targets.  Read it and weep.

If you are wondering who the FAO are, the Food and Agriculture Organisation is headquartered in Rome.   It seems sovereign management of the nations’ land is being quietly transferred to the United Nations, under something called “FAO Custodianship.”  This link is for Latin America and the Caribbean.

Clearly the land confiscation and United Nations ideological approach to forest management is a disaster in the making, and not just one confined to Australia given the rise of uncontrollable fires.  This is criminal.

This is what top-down rule by bureaucrats from an UNelected and UNaccountable world government looks like.

I hope I’ve shown you enough to see where this unelected, rampaging, land grabbing, lying, murdering socialist beast is taking us.  Where’s it going?  How much suffering has it already caused?

My recommendation is to read up on the 169 UN Sustainable Development Goals and see which ones are being enacted in your country.


A farmer’s plea to the Australian government:

Craig Calvert“A dairy farmer who spent 13 hours defending his property from a fire that spat out 100m large fireballs has pleaded with the PM to not let any more people die.”

Source: The Daily Telegraph: NSW bushfires: Devil’s inferno, eerie photo of massive blaze

“Shaking and fighting back tears Mr Calvert said that government incompetence had led to the disaster fire season.

“People need help. Australia is scared. To Mr (Morrison), please throw your gloves on, come on down here and see me,” he said.

“Morris (Morrison) step up and get behind us, don’t let anymore people die in the future. You’re the man of the hour, everyone will fall behind you.”

“I’ve got an extensive network who can help with knowledge of the bush and how the environment actually runs. It doesn’t run on paperwork.”

Do you think he’ll be listened to?


The Excuses

And now, here come the “Climate Change” excuses – the fire season is longer, because of “global warming” – so they weren’t able to do backburns.

While many people use the terms interchangeably, hazard reduction is done ahead of bushfire season to reduce the intensity of fires if they do happen, while backburning is done as a last resort to stop a fire that’s already burning.

Mechanical clearing like slashing undergrowth, or even reducing the ground fuel by hand wasn’t done because the local fire authorities are having difficulties getting into national parks to do hazard reduction.

As for backburns, former leader Barnaby Joyce pointed out it’s not like there’s no period to get them done – they could do it in the middle of winter or periods after rain. When they do have occasions to do it, they are constrained by bureaucracy – green tape. Conservation decisions are made by bureaucrats who don’t live in the area.

Former CSIRO scientist David Packham said the same thing in an interview with Sky News Australia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6RrgBrb6R8

“The bushfires are now catastrophic.”  Les Crowe, National Chief Loss Adjuster to the Insurance Council of Australia wrote about a misconception propagated by the media : “This the first time such fires have been rated as catastrophic. True, but not because they were rated any worse than many previous fires. In 2009, following the bush-fire inquiry, the defined categories of fire were renamed. Catastrophic was introduced as the most severe warning. So this description was never intended to make people think they were the worst fires ever. I have heard many media reports entrench this mistake.”

You’ll find his remarks in the comments section of this link: ‘Climate change doesn’t cause fires’ : “You can’t blame climate change when you’ve restricted access to millions of hectares of densely thickened eucalypt forests and wonder why they go up in smoke.

You can’t blame climate change when you haven’t back burned this millennium.

You can’t blame climate change when there are no fire breaks or cool buffer zones installed around towns, houses and critical infrastructure.”


Finally, what’s this about the Rural Fire Brigades struggling for money?

That's full fucked

Links

Index by SDGs 169 targets – click on each goal to see the devil in the details.

FAO Sustainable Development Goals

United Nations Information Centre, Canberra: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

UN Global Compact Network, Australia: Advancing the SDG’s.