Pictorial History of the Destruction of America--and The Future it Holds

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Walt Holton on November 12, 2009 at 2:57pm

The picture is a big help but still quite overwhelming. It has taken the Gramscians 50 years to assemble this fiasco but it must come down. It is so important for everyone to understand that Treaty law trumps our Constitution and it only takes a few people with wicked intentions to inact a treaty. This is not so because anyone in the world has the power to enforce anything, but from the words of the Constitution itself and the cunning barristers that weild the law like a WMD.

We have been numbed with a plethera of UN summits where non-binding resolutions are sighed and photos are taken; people sleep because they think Copenhagen is just another feel good party with no concequences...think again!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Chad Warren on March 28, 2010 at 5:45pm

Hi, I appreciate the effort of all who have contributed to this site and its goal of educating people at Agenda 21.

However, we must face the fact that even if we got someone to the point of looking at the complete U.N. document itself to back up claims that sustainable development = elimination of 90% of the earth's humans, they might not see the proof.

I'm not seeing it very clearly and I am probably one in a million that would even try to read the document. At best, so far in my reading of it, all I can see is that the language is broad enough to be exploited. In Chapter 5.49 - we see the discussion of planned parenthood based around "ethical and cultural considerations..." Since terms like that aren't defined then I can see how this document can be used to stop births if that is what a democratic body determines is the most popular view.

I'm not blaming anyone but I have felt let down so far in finding these gotcha clauses that reveal how obvious this elite plan is.

So, if we look just at the group of people who, like us, who know we should protect ourselves from a parasite government; we find that we aren't using critical thinking and proper research skills any better than our opponents. This creates a stalemate. Also, this highlights the true enemy - ourselves. Because we are choosing to let others do the research and thinking for us is an example of the very problem we are trying to counteract.

I'm not sure of a solution. Even if we took the time to create translation formulas for each line of text that destroys our inalienable rights, I'm not sure if people would agree or understand and appreciate our effort.

I've noticed this in talking with others and noticing my own behavior. I know this guy who is a member of Share International. You know, the nuts that think the great teacher (Jesus 2.0) has actually appeared on earth now? Anyway, he's an intelligent person despite this insanity. We're all crazy and stupid from time to time, right? (drinking binges, riding motorcycles, etc.) So, I'm essentially parroting these talking points that people have told me in videos about all this U.N. stuff and the fact that his organization is the only religion recognized by the U.N. and that it was started by this woman, Alice Bailey, who was a student of Madame Blavotsky who started Lucifer Publications (later Lucis Trust) which was an occult publisher and funded his Share organization. He and I talked about how Share International is like the term social justice and is provided to a citizen under the heel of a boot on your neck and gun in your face for the good of the people and that this sustainable development really means R.I.P. and not peace with doves and sing-a-longs. (I know you know all this stuff, I'm just saying the points he and I went over.)

So, it was worthless talking to him. He refused to look at the info at the U.N. site about agenda 21. Why? Because he couldn't believe people could be that evil or successful in duping us if they were. I asked if he had ever heard of Stalin or Jim Jones?

I guess, I did the same to him though. He tried to back up his point of how the world can be run more equitably by showing me "The Brandt Report" which is an earlier paper saying the same as this one- regulation by government is needed to prevent market exploitations. I read it. Later, I wanted to re-read it to formulate a response to share with this dude. I got to sustainable development on the first page and didn't want to think anymore because I considered it a waste of time. I remembered the pincer attack idea - attack someone from two opposite sides. This is the same as the Problem, Response, Solution scam - use capitalism to create the widest difference between the haves and have nots; then, use central global regulation to fix the problem that you and the 5 other people who run the world created and have your victims do all the work up to zipping up their body bags they put themselves into.

Was my action in not looking past the word, "sustainable living" just as simplistic as his response that "no one would be evil enough to do what I say and if they did, people would stop them"?

I just don't think any of us really know anything. Its frustrating. No matter how smart we are, we fail the most basic of critical thinking skills like sourcing our facts. In researching the Share group, I found some videos that say the name, "Maitreya" (this is the Great Teacher's name and also is another name for the Buddha, I believe.) equals 666 when the letters are added by values according to a Greek and Hebrew system where letters correspond to numbers. I found the chart with the corespondence between the numbers and letters and I did not find this too be true. If I can't trust a source this simple, how can I trust anything? Aren't all sources merely claims to be contested? For example, I heard that before we sent a rocket to the moon, experts said it wasn't possible due to the weight of propellant. This hypothesis didn't take lighter fuel into account. Ofcourse, the fact that we went to the moon is heavily debated by some.

Isn't this a worthwhile legitimate question? Is it possible that the age of reasoning ran into the internet and now everything is worthlessly debated just like how our Congress is in perpetual deadlock? Has the practice of dialectics been overthrown by relativism? I would like to believe that we all see the stop sign as red and the green light as go. What does it take to put an idea into a shared space no sane person can argue their way out of?

How are we going to fix this - by becoming more rational? That's what got us into this mess isn't it? We do live in the George Orwell Scientist/High Priest - you're nobody if you don't have an iphone world don't we? These supposed haters of religion are the ones who want to come back as a virus and kill everyone- sounds like a self hate cult to me. Evidently, that is what these "computers wearing clothes" have done with the data they've processed? If we try to attract people to being able to make sense and use parliamentary procedure and whatnot won't that just take us to where we are?

If you're feeling rather annoyed and bored at what appears to be my whining; then, I guess I have correctly communicated how I feel and what I see.

Can't we start with something simple? Perhaps, we could send an invitation to people to learn how the current healthcare bill was devised by the insurance companies? A small percentage will read the info and consider that maybe this draft of legislation is not a benevolent gift to the people who didn't ask for it. If these people digest and appreciate this perspective and want more then we can lead them gently toward examining the U.N. and that Santa Claus isn't real or whatever mind shattering reality they wish to endure.

Don't we need to start joining with other similar groups as a republic; so, that we can track our activity/progress and grow this movement into the strongest force for getting all of us out of this mess we've created (as a species over thousands of years)?

And where is a source that lists the simplest most effective ways to communicate from cell to cell of people, both on and offline? I'm sure that prisoners and terrorists have a handbook, why don't we.

We could learn a thing or two from Dr. Martin Luther King. He reluctantly accepted a position of leadership in the civil rights movement. He was successful because he knew that people don't like change; but, if you can sell people on a vision of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow- people will folllow. We need to get better about providing solutions. I always find this difficult because I believe people have to see and agree there is a problem before we can move forward. We need to give people what they need concealed in a package that looks like what they want. That's what the evil folk do, no?

Also, all of us are corrupted in our thinking at a fundamental level. Everytime we see the media, its telling us to do this or that. "Buy one taco, get one free", for example. Everything should be a question, instead its a command (as you see in this sentence). Aren't ideas like this important? Isn't our way of writing a direct reference to how we think?

If other people are like me, in the truth movement; they should consider that its not always best to tell people the truth (unwrapped). I thought you either tell the truth or you're a liar; but, now I know that I have to find out if a person is hungry before I introduce the fruit of knowledge.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Savant Noir (Admin) on March 28, 2010 at 8:39pm

Thank you for your thoughtful reply Chad...

Unfortunately there is no way to point to a single document or a single Bill and build an entire theory of foul play. Certainly by reading Agenda 21 there is nothing bad contained therein. But how is it going to be enacted? You will not read in Agenda that there needs to be a one world government where there is global re-distribution of wealth and all people are on a level playing field (unless you can read between the lines).

So, you must see and understand connections. This is why I always include links to the Club of Rome, for they are the think-tank that has coalesced all these ideas into a single package. When you look at the membership of the Club of Rome; when you read their publications; and then see the outcome of their thought process then embodied in Agenda 21....THEN subsequent legislation can be judged against the backdrop of all that gave rise to its creation.

It requires critical independent thought and the ability to connect the dots. If you are talking to a person that says: "but Obama said I get to keep my Doctor and my health care plan, that these things will never be in jeopardy"...Then you are speaking to an idiot and there is no need to even waste your time or effort.

Hope this helps!

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This