11 thoughts on “Important: Rosa Koire. UN Agenda 2030 exposed (video)”

  1. Hello 12bytes, 

    This will be my final comment on this subject before I get back to my work on the documents used by Deborah Tavares. The subject of the pros and cons of global environmental regulation is really off topic for me. My own work is about documents and documents only. I hope you understand. 

    YOUR COMMENT; You insinuated James Corbett, an independent, people funded activist, commentator, researcher and documentary filmmaker, is taking money from Big Oil, 

    MY RESPONSE: I like James Corbett. Intelligent. Articulate, Persuasive. Well-meaning and often absolutely correct in my view. 

    But, you and I have a different understanding of what documents constitute evidence of facts, much less of what documents constitute proof of facts. In my world, evidence is not a video reflecting the claims of a media personality like James Corbett, Rosa Koire or Deborah Tavares. Unless such media personalities are themselves the scientists who actually gathered all the underlying raw data and who actually prepared the underlying scientific studies used as proof, these media personalities are merely middlemen whose claims are hearsay at best and spin at worst. 

    Indeed, in  my own work, I do not use videos to establish the truth for that very reason.  Instead, I use videos only to show a charlatan’s lies on camera. In my world, evidence is the underlying raw data long before it ever gets to a media personality to incorporate into their work. So, in my own work, I use only original documents as evidence and as proof of facts.  I do not use videos or recommend them to others.   

    No. James Corbett is not taking money from the elite. Instead, the elite fund the falsification of the underlying raw data and the creation of favorable taking points long before they ever reach the media personality who incorporates them into their own work.

    In the case of Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030, the elite engineered a “false flag” psyop to manipulate and control the opposition. They engineered a “hegelian dialectic”, a “problem-reaction-solution” scam not unlike 9/11 or Operation Northwoods. Here is how they did it.  

    The elite realized that a growing percentage of society had become increasingly alarmed by their manipulation and control over society. So, the elite generated and released sufficient evidence into society which created the illusion that they themselves  (rather than their opponents) were the driving force behind Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030, something that is not actually so. This was done to create a fake “problem” to which the masses predictably “reacted” in propest.. Then, the elite offered the protesting masses a “solution”  which actually served their own interests, rather than the interests of all mankind. That “solution” was the rejection of all environmental regulations like Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030, something they actually wanted all along. 

    But, the elite knew that they would have to go even further to insure their success.They would have to destroy the credibility of their opposition (environmental scientists and the rest of humanity). 

    First, they had to create the illusion that science and math were completely wrong and that no problem even existed for which a remedy should be provided in the first place. How did they do this? They did what they have always done. They lied (“smoking does not cause cancer.”, “nicotine is not addictive”, “DDT is a safe pesticide”, “Monsanto’s Glyphosate (Agent Orange) is a safe herbicide”, “GMO’s are perfectly safe” , “cell phones, WIFI and G5 do not emit harmful radiation”, “climate change is not real”, “Co2 does not cause climate change”, “the world is cooling, not warming”, “we, the global elite want Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 to be adopted globally to destroy our own profits, our own monopolies and our own chokehold over mankind”, “Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 are really two similar Illuminati plots for global domination”, etc.). Note that all of these lies just happen to support the proposition that society has no justification for regulating the elite and thereby reducing their profits. Indeed, in the case of Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030, these lies just happen to support the proposition that mankind will actually destroy itself if it regulates the elite and thereby reduces their profits. How convenient. 

    Second, they did the same thing they have always done. They paid for the creation of “junk science” to support their lies, to confuse the public and make them distrustful of real science and math. Again, they lied (smokers get lung cancer at the same rate as non-smokers”,  “nicotine addiction is purely psychosomatic”, “There is no evidence that DDT harms humans or animals”, “There is no evidence that Glyphosate is a carcinogen or that it causes birth defects or neurological problems”, “There is no evidence that GMOs are harmful to people or the environment”,  “There is no evidence that radiation from cell phones, WIFI or G5 is harmful to humans”, “climate change is a hoax created by the elite to take over the world”, “since the climate cannot possibly change, Co2 cannot possibly change it”, “since the planet is already getting colder anyway, Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 will actually throw the world into a 10,000 year ice age”),  Note that all of these lies just happen to support the proposition that society has no justification for regulating the elite and thereby reducing their profits. Indeed, in the case of Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030, these lies just happen to support the proposition that mankind will actually destroy itself if it regulates the elite and thereby reduces their profits. How convenient. 

    Third, they did what they have always.done. To preserve their monopoly.they discredited any alternative to their monopoly, their competition. In this case, they claimed that all clean energy is dirtier than their dirty energy.  Note that these lies just happen to support the proposition that society has no justification for regulating the elite and thereby reducing their profits. Indeed, in the case of Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030, these lies just happen to support the proposition that mankind will actually destroy itself if it regulates the elite and thereby reduces their profits. How convenient.   

    We all pretend that we are aware of false flag operations and how the elite use them to manipulate society into getting their own way, and yet we have fallen for the biggest false flag of them all.  

    YOUR COMMENT: You keep parroting so-called ‘clean energy’ while failing to comprehend how much ‘dirty energy’ is required to make that possible – again, other than some hydraulic based energy, there is no ‘clean energy’ 

    MY RESPONSE: Ever since I brought the term “parroting” into our conversation, you have parroted it a lot. Which one of us is really the parrot? Regardless, you and I have different definitions of clean energy.  Below are my definitions of clean energy. 

    1. GROUND BASED SOLAR PANELS–These panels collect energy from the sun and convert it to electricity for humanity. FREE, CLEAN, ENDLESS ENERGY.  

    2. SPACE BASED SOLAR PANELS– Ground-based solar panels can only collect energy from the Sun during daylight hours in good weather. Further, 90% of the Sun’s power is lost traveling through the Earths’ atmosphere. So, with ground based panels, we only receive 10% of the Sun’s power for a few hours a day in good weather. In 2009, scientists announced that in the future, solar panels on satellites in space might collect energy from the Sun 24 hours a day (at full power), then beam it to Earth in the form of lasers or radio frequencies (which loses no power travelling through the atmosphere) to receiver stations here on Earth and then convert it to electricity here on Earth for humanity. ENDLESS, FREE, CLEAN ENERGY DAY OR NIGHT..

    3. WIND TURBINES–Wind turbines generate power any time the wind is blowing. FREE, CLEAN, ENDLESS ENERGY.

    4. TIDE TURBINES–Everyone is familiar with turbines in tunnels in dams which generate electricity as the river flows downward through the tunnels and then  through the turbines causing them to spin and generate electricity in that fashion,  like at Hoover Dam, for example. The problem with dams is that they flood lands upstream, can break and flood lands downstream and they make it difficult for migrating fish to swim upstream to their spawning grounds. But, tide turbines are different.

    If positioned at the mouth of bays (like below The Golden Gate Bridge at San Francisco Bay, for example). they would spin every time the tide comes into the bay and every time the tide goes out of the bay. Such below-water turbines would generate electricity when spinning in either direction and can be placed in tubes with screens at either end to protect aquatic life. FREE, CLEAN ENDLESS ENERGY DAY OR NIGHT. 

    That is true clean energy. And, that is the clean energy technology that the elite do not want you to think of when you think of clean energy. Why? Because there is no way that they can compete with this technology, much less control it and monopolize it. These bastards cannot sell the Sun. These bastards cannot sell the wind. These bastards cannot sell the tides. ALL OF THESE SOURCES AS FREE, CLEAN AND FOREVER!

    Did you ever see any of this free, clean energy technology in any James Corbett video? A Rosa Koire video? A Deborah Tavares video? I didn’t think so. 

    Again, thank you for your thoughts and for your time. 

    If you would ever like to discuss the documents of Deborah Tavares with, feel free to contact me again. 

    Otherwise, I wish you the best of luck in your search for the truth. 
     
    All My Best, 

    Snoop

    1. you are incredibly ignorant – i provided many references should you care to educate yourself further, but your biases don’t seem to allow it

      you call solar and wind clean energy and, yes, IF you consider only the energy produced by these technologies, and ignore the support infrastructure they require, then yes, they are clean, however that isn’t how it works in the real world

      does solar, wind or tidal work when there’s no sun, wind or tide? no? so how is that energy deficit satisfied then? from coal/oil/gas plants that have to burn carbon fuels while they remain on standby or reduced capacity and then have to burn a massive amount of fuel while producing no electricity in order to bring them back up to full capacity

      commercial wind turbines last approximately 20 years and cost around 3-4 million, plus maintenance, land costs, a site study, legal and a pile of other costs … and for that you get a whopping 2 MW of power

      there are huge swaths of land that have been destroyed to build massive solar farms which failed to work for various reasons

      and then there’s bio-mass plants that are burning tires in order to produce enough heat to burn trees, trash or other fuels that are environmentally devastating – i notice you didn’t mention these plants as being part of the “clean energy” plan

      and i think we can all agree on the “benefits” of nuclear energy

      you claim the carbon tax provides an incentive to find cleaner energy when there is no incentive whatsoever – again, the added cost of manufacture is simply passed on to the consumer

      > And, that is the clean energy technology that the elite do not want you to think of when you think of clean energy. Why? Because there is no way that they can compete with this technology, much less control it and monopolize it.

      nonsense! they are the ones rolling out and controlling these technologies – they have controlled infrastructure in the U.S. since there’s been a U.S., but we are to believe that somehow they have had an awakening and are suddenly all on our side?

      14 of 17 of the “Sustainable Development” plans – what you call Agenda 21 – involve vaccines – vaccines, which i’m guessing you don’t know, are not in any way safe due to the ingredients including thimerosal, aluminum, fetal cells, DNA, formaldehyde, glyphosate (weed killer) and piles of other crap and toxins, yet if your kid dies after receiving a vaccine, you have no recourse because the manufacturers are exempt from all liability – the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out over 4 billion in damages since its inception and there are studies and estimates that indicate only 1% or less of all vaccine injuries are actually reported – this makes vaccines, which are not subject to the same strict testing as other drugs, one of the most lucrative investments on the planet which is exactly why you’re seeing the push for more of them (there’s 77 shots on the schedule now for kids, and counting) and why you’re seeing all this utter stupidity over the COVID-19 non-pandemic “pandemic” … and it is this “crisis” that is being used to implement “The Great Reset” – i.e. Agenda 21 – what does this tell you about the ethics of the parasitic elite?

      meanwhile autism, food allergies, cancers, seizures and countless other health issues are rising exponentially and there is a plethora of evidence that many of these are in fact attributable to vaccines

      so you go head bow to your masters like Bill Gates and the Rockefeller’s and their ilk and their trans-humanist technocratic one-world government future if you wish – i’ll pass

  2. Hello 12 Bytes,

    Thank you again for another timely reply.

    YOUR COMMENT: I think we’re arguing nuances here.

    MY RESPONSE: Respectfully, I don’t think so.

    YOUR COMMENT: As you admitted, the U.S. is onboard with Agenda 21 as of 2015 apparently, so i don’t see much use in arguing the date.

    MY RESPONSE: Respectfully, the United States has never been onboard with Agenda 21 and is not onboard with Agenda 21 now. The United States rejected Agenda 21 in 1992. For the next 23 year period, before 2015, conspiracy promoters like Deborah Tavares and Rosa Koire fraudulently blamed this rejected environmental proposal for every malady in the United States (both real and imagined) from climate change, global warming, massive land grabs, increased drought, increased forest fires and the depletion of fresh drinking water supplies on one hand to a global takeover, genocide, depopulation, sterilization, gangstalking, 5G radiation and directed energy weapons on satellites in space shooting us with microwaves on the other hand.

    The fact that the U.S. adopted Agenda 2030 in late 2015 did not somehow retroactively convert 23 years of lying about Agenda 21 into the truth. Those 23 years of lies about Agenda 21 were lies during that 23 period and they will always remain lies thereafter. That will never change with the passing of time. Likewise, the fact that Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 both contain sections designed to protect the environment does not somehow convert these two different proposals (which were made 23 years apart) into a single proposal to be retroactively back-dated (after the fact) back to the year 1992, when Agenda 21 was first proposed. These two different proposals were made 23 years apart and they will always remain two different proposals made 23 years apart. That will never change with the passing of time. So, I stand on my claims about Agenda 21.

    YOUR COMMENT: There is no doubt that humans are a destructive force on this planet, i agree with that completely, however the problem is the solutions being proposed, those proposing them, and their real goals.

    MY RESPONSE: Agreed. From a legal standpoint, the solutions being proposed, those proposing them and their real goals are determined by the words appearing on the face of the document itself. There is a legal phrase, “Fraud vitiates everything.” This means that if the the solutions being proposed, those proposing them and the reals goals are different from stated on the face of the document, an agreement can be rescinded.

    There are two possibilities with conventions like Agenda 2030. The intent of the drafters may be benevolent or the intent of the drafters may be malevolent. But, how can we make that determination? We can believe the claims of promoters like Deborah Tavares who say that any action taken by an elected or appointed body (no matter what it is) is malevolent. Or, we can look at the possibility that mankind may actually trying to save itself from its own insanity. I am not so jaded as to reject the latter possibility.

    Let’s look at it from a “cost / benefit” standpoint. What happens if the intent of the drafters of Agenda 2030 is benevolent and we reject it as a hegelian dialectic (problem-reaction-solution) plot to bring about one world government? The answer is that we will go extinct. What happens if the intent of the drafters is malevolent and we accept it and that brings about a one world government? The answer is that we will not go extinct. Which one is worse?

    We should use our critical thinking skills and ask ourselves whether there is any alternative to an international plan like Agenda 2030 to save ourselves from our own insanity. My answer is no. It will take an international plan like Agenda 2030 to save mankind from its own insanity.

    YOUR COMMENT: You mention ‘climate change’ – do you not find it odd that this was called ‘global warming’ a few years ago, then ‘climate change’ and now ‘climate crises’?

    MY RESPONSE: No. Global warming is the largest single factor in climate change. But, global warming is not the only consequence of climate change. So, climate change is the more accurate description. I don’t see a conspiracy or some other juicy story in this.

    YOUR COMMENT: While we are indeed contributing to environmental destruction, there is little scientific evidence that human induced global warming is one of them – as a matter of fact the evidence is, at best, inconclusive and one of the first indications of corruption was the director of the CRU expressing his disappointment that the climate had been *cooling* for the last decade or so – this was exposed in the 2009 CRU data leak (the dump held much more than just email, contrary to what Wikipedia tells us) which became known as Climategate and much more has been exposed and learned since then

    MY RESPONSE: Well, that would certainly explain why the polar ice cap all but vanishes now every summer and why the frequency and intensity of hurricanes (which result from warmer oceans) increases dramatically every year. All kidding aside, 97% of the world’s scientists do agree that human activity is the cause of climate change. Further, 90% of the reports to the contrary are funded by the fossil fuel industry which profits excessive CO2 emissions. But, let’s put all of that aside.

    Every tree is a “factory” for converting carbon dioxide to oxygen. The United States has been stripped of 95% of all of its old growth forests. Th Amazon Rain Forest once produced 25% of the world’s oxygen. But, it has disappeared at a rate of 10,000 acres a day for 50 years. So, not only do we have less oxygen to breathe, we have more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has nothing to do with burning fossil fuel. Environmental proposals like Agenda 2030 are not just about reducing excessive carbon emissions, they are about slowing the rate of global deforestation because deforestation is the second leading cause of climate change.

    YOUR COMMENT: if you want to understand why human induced global warming is a pig with lipstick which has immensely enriched the pockets of many already millionaires, such as Al Gore, i highly suggest starting with the extensive and well referenced independent research done by James Corbett over many years because there is far too much to get into here, including the fallacy of ‘green energy’ which, at this point, is apparently filthier than burning coal it seems, if we are to believe Michael Moore

    MY RESPONSE: Whether or not the environment is benefiting from excessive carbon dioxide emissions is not the point. The environment is not just the atmosphere and the weather. The oceans are becoming increasingly acidic and less able to support ocean life. There are now 60% less living animals on Earth since 1970. Over half of the world’s land mass has been deforested. Pesticides and herbicides have rendered a 75 square mile area at the mouth of the Mississippi River at the Gulf Of Mexico a “dead zone” for ocean life. Should mankind put a “stamp of approval” on all that destruction too?

    YOUR COMMENT: Some of these problems are indeed real however, the problem is that the ‘solutions’ being proposed are not intended to address the problem and therefore aren’t solutions at all.

    MY RESPONSE: How would you know if you rely on sources of information who are paid by those who profit from destroying the environment?

    YOUR COMMENT: There’s always a ‘crisis’ we must face and when one digs deeper one finds that the crisis, one after the other, is either completely or largely manufactured – we are constantly led to believe that world is coming to an end if we don’t act now (i.e. trust government), from holes in the ozone to ‘global warming’, to terrorists (which are trained, armed and financed, or otherwise created, by the U.S. and Israel), to viruses like AIDS and SARS and bird flu and pig flu and COVID-19 and various other ‘epidemics’ and ‘pandemics’, all of which have failed in ultra-spectacular fashion to live up to the projections – governments, as a result of their handlers, are always happy to roll out the next problem-reaction-solution scenario to keep us scared because that fear is then used to control us.

    MY RESPONSE: Yes, there have been false flags. Yes, there is such a thing as the hegelian dialectic..But, elected of appointed “governments” are not the only ones to use them to manipulate humanity. Rothschild is Dutch Shell and BP. Rockefeller is Exxon / Mobil. They have more to lose by environmental regulation than anyone on Earth. They also have more to gain by blocking environmental regulation than anyone on Earth.

    Those who profiteer from destroying the environment (oil, coal, mining, logging, development, chemical, banking, etc.) are the very ones creating and manufacturing the “conspiracy theories” that are mindlessly parroted by conspiracy promoters like Deborah Tavares and Rosa Koire who pretend to be opposing the very elite whose dirty work they are actually doing. These “conspiracies” are the “false flags” and the hegelian dialectic that terrify me.

    YOUR COMMENT: Didn’t we have only 12 years to live 20+ years ago if we didn’t address ‘global warming’?

    MY RESPONSE: We will not know until its too late to avoid its consequences.

    YOUR COMMENT: Wasn’t the hole in the ozone going to give us all cancer?

    MY RESPONSE: During this period, skin cancer rates did increase and the global amphibian population dropped dramatically. But, mankind changed its behavior and avoided the consequences of ozone holes. Hopefully, we can do the same with the environment as a whole and avoid our extinction.

    YOUR COMMENT: Wasn’t AIDS (a non-existent virus, but rather immune system collapse) going to kill us all?

    MY RESPONSE: HIV is not a non-existent virus. But. mankind changed its behavior and avoided the consequences of a global pandemic. Hopefully, we can do the same with the environment as a whole and avoid our extinction.

    YOUR COMMENT: We’re probably pumping out more Co2 now than ever before, partly due to so-called ‘green energy’

    MY RESPONSE: Are you feeling OK?

    YOUR COMMENT: And still all the Co2 we emit is apparently a tiny fraction compared to what the earth produces naturally (oceans particularly), and the level has been far, far higher in the past long before the industrial revolution.

    MY RESPONSE: As I explained above, CO2 levels are not just about excessive CO2 emissions. CO2 levels are increased by deforestation and development.

    YOUR COMMENT: if you want to convince me, or anyone, that human induced climate warming is a thing, then perhaps you can explain how our Co2 is affecting other planets in the solar system (hint: it has to do with that big white-yellow thing in the sky).

    MY RESPONSE: Why? Are aliens burning fossil fuels and deforesting these other planets too?

    YOUR COMMENT: as far as Bill Gates, if you want to understand why he is nothing more than a murderous criminal psychopath, i will again refer you to Corbett who recently released a 4 part documentary about this piece of eugenicist garbage.

    MY RESPONSE: I am not here to defend Bill Gates. I am here to point out that the documents that Deborah Tavares uses to support her claims do not actually support those claims.

    YOUR COMMENT: Gates, if you’re not aware, is yet another self-serving globalist who is at the center of the COVID-19 nonsense, more of which you can learn about from my own coverage of this latest ‘crisis’

    MY RESPONSE: I am not here to defend Bill Gates. I am here to point out that the documents that Deborah Tavares uses to support her claims do not actually support those claims.

    My own sense is that if Bill Gates was really trying to kill us all (or sterilize us all) with vaccines,then he would not likely admit it to the world in a televised TED speech.

    and yet he did exactly that, then on TED and several other times, along with his idiot Planned Parenthood father – perhaps you’re not aware that India kicked him out after his vaccines harmed hundreds/thousands of Indian girls in a large trial performed, in part at least, without parental consent, or that these vaccines sometimes contain a sterilization component

    MY RESPONSE: I am not here to defend Bill Gates. I am here to point out that the documents that Deborah Tavares uses to support her claims do not actually support those claims.

    YOUR COMMENT: Yes, we are creating massive problem for the earth. Yes, we must do something if we are to survive. No, the solutions being proposed by globalists, including Agenda 21, are clearly not the answer.

    MY RESPONSE: Agreed. We should all mindlessly join hands with the super ultra elite (like Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Exxon / Mobil) in opposing our own efforts to save the planet from them. Are you kidding me? Get a grip.

    YOUR COMMENT: if we look at energy, the technology exists, and has for a very long time, to produce extremely cheap, clean, renewable energy that doesn’t rely on wind, solar, hydro or biomass (burning trees, trash and tires, etc.), but that tech is locked up by ultra-powerful, international energy corporations.

    MY RESPONSE: You just made my point for me. The real elite are these very international corporations who profit by destroying the environment, not those who would save the planet from them (as you contend). The real elite (that you just described) block any alternative to their profiteering from destroying the environment, including all cleaner technology. This is why they block any alternative to fossil fuel (as you admit to above). Their real genius of the real elite is that they get their own victims to oppose the very environmental regulation that would save them from extinction (by pretending that saving the world from them is a “conspiracy” when the real “conspiracy” is their continued profiteering by destroying the environment and contributing to the extinction of mankind with the mindless assistance of their own victims).

    YOUR COMMENT: who are onboard with, and indeed financing the ‘green revolution’ because it isn’t green in any way, shape or form

    MY RESPONSE: The real elite pretend to financially support sustainable development and resilient cities to take the collective eye of the people off of the oceans of money they make peddling fossil fuel and destroying the environment. They are playing both sides, but they know which side their bread is buttered on (and it isn’t on sustainable development or resilient cities).

    YOUR COMMENT: One of the primary ‘solutions’ to the non-existent ‘climate crisis’ is a carbon tax – what does the tax accomplish? absolutely nothing except higher prices for the consumer – there are no provisions for reducing Co2, not that it needs to be reduced anyway.

    MY RESPONSE: Nobody likes to pay taxes or higher prices that result from taxes. The purpose of the proposed carbon tax is not to raise money, but to create a financial incentive for using clean energy and a financial incentive for using dirty energy. That way, the people themselves will gravitate towards clean energy because it will be more profitable to do so.

    YOUR COMMENT: What needs to be reduced is the political and social influence of the so-called ‘elite’.

    MY RESPONSE: Agreed. We just disagree on who the real elite actually is. My view is that the real elite are those who profiteer from destroying the planet on which we all depend fro survival (oil, mining, logging, developers, chemical, banks), not those who oppose them to save mankind from extinction.

    Thank you sharing your thoughts.

    Best Regards,

    Snoop

    Post link:
    https://12bytes.org/17748/important-rosa-koire-un-agenda-2030-exposed-video

    You can manage your subscriptions here:
    https://12bytes.org/subcom/?srek=676d90a15ae18d90a6b459a76ed8ca62&srk=97a06204a74446362c561e008e55c404&sra=u&srsrc=e&srp=17748

    1. > the United States has never been onboard with Agenda 21 and is not onboard with Agenda 21 now.

      Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 are essentially the same – both are part of Agenda for Sustainable Development, which the U.S. is absolutely and indisputably onboard with – i could care less if there may be a discrepancy in the date the U.S. or individual states signed on

      Wikipedia: “The United States is a signatory country to Agenda 21, […] President George H. W. Bush was one of the 178 heads of government who signed the final text of the agreement at the Earth Summit in 1992,[17][18] and in the same year Representatives Nancy Pelosi, Eliot Engel and William Broomfield spoke in support of United States House of Representatives Concurrent Resolution 353, supporting implementation of Agenda 21 in the United States.[16][19] Created by a 1993 Executive Order, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) is explicitly charged with recommending a national action plan for sustainable development to the President. […] In the United States, over 528 cities are members of ICLEI, an international sustainability organization that helps to implement the Agenda 21 and Local Agenda 21 concepts across the world.”

      > The intent of the drafters may be benevolent or the intent of the drafters may be malevolent. But, how can we make that determination?

      the same way you learn about anything of this nature; by looking at who is promoting these agendas and their history, and when you do that the picture gets very ugly very fast – i thought you’re an ‘investigative journalist’?

      > What happens if the intent of the drafters of Agenda 2030 is benevolent and we reject it as a hegelian dialectic (problem-reaction-solution) plot to bring about one world government?

      the question has already been answered; government in and of itself is malevolent – have you looked around to see what’s happening in the world lately and who instigates it? M.E. terrorists are being armed, trained and financed by some of the same governments that signed on to Sustainable Development – the U.S. and Israel are burning down the world in every way, and you question their motives and ethics? there is no question as to the “benevolence” of government and their handlers

      > Global warming is the largest single factor in climate change.

      wrong – i already gave you resources – whether you review them is up to you

      > Well, that would certainly explain why the polar ice cap all but vanishes now every summer and why the frequency and intensity of hurricanes (which result from warmer oceans) increases dramatically every year. All kidding aside, 97% of the world’s scientists do agree that human activity is the cause of climate change.

      so then why is the ice at the S pole growing? why is Greenland ice thickening?

      more importantly, if the polar ice cap is melting, then why aren’t sea levels rising beyond the historical rate of, i believe, roughly 1 in. / hundred years? where is all that water going?

      About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus…

      2013 Atlantic hurricane season wrap-up: least active in 30 years

      you’re parroting talking points which have been thoroughly debunked for nearly 2 decades

      you also ignored what i gave you regarding the CMU leak and *dropping temps*

      > Every tree is a “factory” for converting carbon dioxide to oxygen.

      > CO2 levels are increased by deforestation

      good thing we have more of them then – 422 for every living person apparently…

      Scientists discover that the world contains dramatically more trees than previously thought

      what’s being done to the Amazon is a travesty, granted, but let’s not suddenly go blind when ones current beliefs are challenged

      re: hole in the ozone:

      > During this period, skin cancer rates did increase

      …along with the use of sunscreen

      Sunscreen Prevents Cancer, Right? Well, It’s Complicated.

      Study Finds That Sunscreen Enters Into Your Blood Stream Every Time You Put It On – Collective Evolution

      > HIV is not a non-existent virus.

      HIV & AIDS – VirusMyth AIDS WebSite – Missing Virus Award

      Immunological Stressor Agents are the Real Cause of AIDS

      Is AIDS a New Disease?

      etc.

      > The real elite are these very international corporations who profit by destroying the environment, not those who would save the planet from them (as you contend).

      they are one and the same

      > The real elite pretend to financially support sustainable development

      absolute provably false rubbish – Big Oil is one of the major funders of ‘green’ energy

      How & Why Big Oil Conquered The World

      > The purpose of the proposed carbon tax is not to raise money, but to create a financial incentive for using clean energy and a financial incentive for using dirty energy.

      again, absolute rubbish – once again: there are no penalties for corporations producing excess Co2, only a tax which is passed on to you, the consumer – if you think otherwise, then provide evidence

      i’ve given you several links to back my points – i’d appreciate if you’d do the same should you choose to reply

  3. Hello 12Bytes,

    Thank you for your timely reply.

    YOUR COMMENTS: You claim to be an attorney and investigative journalist, yet provide no credentials and therefore these claims are meaningless.

    MY RESPONSE: My work contains links to the actual proof itself (all of which was written by others, not by me). So, no reader need depend on me or my credentials for proof. Instead, the reader need only depend on the proof contained in the links that I provide to them in my work (all of which was written by others, not by me).

    I do not introduce myself as an attorney and an investigative journalist so that my readers simply ignore the proof contained in the links contained in my work (all of which was prepared by others). Instead, I introduce myself as an attorney and an investigative journalist to my reader to assure my reader that I am literate and that I use critical thinking skills in preparing my text for them which appears in between the links containing the proof (so that they understand the significance of that proof before they even got to it).

    YOUR COMMENT: You also YELL a lot, which indicates to me you’re very emotional which seems odd for an attorney in this setting (there’s plenty of examples of this in the forum thread you linked to)

    MY RESPONSE: This is admittedly true. When I found out about that Deborah Tavares forged documents, altered documents and intentionally mischaracterized what the documents really are and what they really say, It made my blood boil. I still cannot hide my outrage. Please accept my apologies.

    YOUR COMMENT: Agenda 21, to my knowledge, consists of many parts which i believe to be part of the UN ‘Sustainable Development’ package – Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 are essentially the same i believe. you claim it was rejected 30 years ago and, while that may be true…

    MY RESPONSE: Yes. The United States rejected Agenda 21 and the Treaty On Bio-Diversity in exactly the same way I descried that rejection above. I know this because I am an attorney and I am familiar with the specific section of the U.S. Constitution which requires the president and the senate to consent to a proposed international treaty or convention for that proposal to become law in the U.S. I also know how to research the Congressional Record. to determine whether the senate ever did consent to those proposals.

    I actually provided a link in my work to the actual transcript of the U.S. Senate’s debate and rejection of the Treaty On Bio-Diversity. The one and only reason that I did not provide a link to the transcript of the U.S. Senate’s rejection of Agenda 21 was that the U.S. Senate was so opposed to Agenda 21 that it was not even given the dignity of a debate much less a vote. The U.S. Senate simply ignored it altogether and thereby withheld its consent in that fashion. Check the Congressional Record for yourself.

    YOUR COMMENT: The 2030 Agenda and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was adopted in 2015 by all countries of the United Nations.(source) also from ‘The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide‘…

    MY RESPONSE: This is true, according to the Congressional Record and that is all that legally counts.

    YOUR COMMENT: When this mandate was set out in 1992, there was little information available on how to proceed. It therefore gives me particular satisfaction to report that, since 1992, more than 1,300 local authorities from 31 countries have responded to the Agenda 21 mandate by developing their own Local Agenda 21 action plans for sustainable development.

    MY RESPONSE: Yes. In 1992, the United States was the only major nation on the planet to reject Agenda 21. The leadership of every other major nation on the planet wanted to change the trajectory of where we were headed. The U.S. did not and now we are paying the price for it in terms of climate change, increased drought, increased forest fires and decreasing supplies of fresh water not contaminated with sewage.

    YOUR COMMENT: Also Bill Gates, a eugenicist and psychopath, his foundation, and the WHO, all thoroughly corrupt, are all heavily involved in this so-called ‘Sustainable Development’ plan.

    MY RESPONSE: I have also seen the videos that characterize Bill Gates in such a fashion. But, even if all of this is true, that is not enough to make me oppose the proposal to slow the rate at which we deplete our natural resources to the same rate at which our natural resources can recover form being depleted, called “sustainable development”. By doing things in such a way, we can continue to deplete our natural resources indefinitely (effectively forever). That means we will be able to support life on our planet indefinitely (effectively forever), including our own. To me, that seems like a good idea when compared to the alternative of completely depleting all of the natural resources upon which all life depends, including our own (and then wondering how to go back in time to change what we have collectively done to our support system).

    YOUR COMMENT: the forum thread you link to starts with “THE HOAXES OF DEBORAH TAVARES (CONSPIRACY, WEAPONIZED WEATHER, FIRES, and DEPOPULATION)”

    YOUR COMMENT: depopulation is a stated goal of Bill Gates, through vaccines, and is implied in the Agenda 21 documents

    MY RESPONSE: I have seen the TED speech vaccine video too. My own sense is that if Bill Gates was really trying to kill us all (or sterilize us all) with vaccines,then he would not likely admit it to the world in a televised TED speech.

    YOUR COMMENT: i don’t think you’re an attorney and you sure as hell aren’t an investigative journalist, at least certainly not one of any caliber.

    MY RESPONSE: The point of my work is not establishing my occupation or avocation with my reader. The point of my work is that the documents that Deborah Tavares uses to support her claims do not actually support those claims. That is important because those documents are the sole foundation for all of her conclusions. Where that leaves those conclusions without any documents to support them, I don’t know.

    Just out of curiosity, do you really think that truth about these documents would somehow be different if I was in a different line of work?

    YOUR COMMENT: be happy to hear your reply

    MY RESPONSE: Well, there you have it.

    Thank you for your thoughts.

    Feel free to contact me any time.

    And, if you ever need U.S. legal research done or need a copy of a particular U.S. law, just say the word.

    I am always happy to help.

    Best Regards,

    Snoop

    1. i think we’re arguing nuances here

      as you admitted, the U.S. is onboard with Agenda 21 as of 2015 apparently, so i don’t see much use in arguing the date

      there is no doubt that humans are a destructive force on this planet, i agree with that completely, however the problem is the solutions being proposed, those proposing them, and their real goals

      you mention ‘climate change’ – do you not find it odd that this was called ‘global warming’ a few years ago, then ‘climate change’ and now ‘climate crises’?

      while we are indeed contributing to environmental destruction, there is little scientific evidence that human induced global warming is one of them – as a matter of fact the evidence is, at best, inconclusive and one of the first indications of corruption was the director of the CRU expressing his disappointment that the climate had been *cooling* for the last decade or so – this was exposed in the 2009 CRU data leak (the dump held much more than just email, contrary to what Wikipedia tells us) which became known as Climategate and much more has been exposed and learned since then

      if you want to understand why human induced global warming is a pig with lipstick which has immensely enriched the pockets of many already millionaires, such as Al Gore, i highly suggest starting with the extensive and well referenced independent research done by James Corbett over many years because there is far too much to get into here, including the fallacy of ‘green energy’ which, at this point, is apparently filthier than burning coal it seems, if we are to believe Michael Moore

      some of these problems are indeed real however, the problem is that the ‘solutions’ being proposed are not intended to address the problem and therefore aren’t solutions at all

      there’s always a ‘crisis’ we must face and when one digs deeper one finds that the crisis, one after the other, is either completely or largely manufactured – we are constantly led to believe that world is coming to an end if we don’t act now (i.e. trust government), from holes in the ozone to ‘global warming’, to terrorists (which are trained, armed and financed, or otherwise created, by the U.S. and Israel), to viruses like AIDS and SARS and bird flu and pig flu and COVID-19 and various other ‘epidemics’ and ‘pandemics’, all of which have failed in ultra-spectacular fashion to live up to the projections – governments, as a result of their handlers, are always happy to roll out the next problem-reaction-solution scenario to keep us scared because that fear is then used to control us

      didn’t we have only 12 years to live 20+ years ago if we didn’t address ‘global warming’? wasn’t the hole in the ozone going to give us all cancer? wasn’t AIDS (a non-existent virus, but rather immune system collapse) going to kill us all?

      we’re probably pumping out more Co2 now than ever before, partly due to so-called ‘green energy’ and still all the Co2 we emit is apparently a tiny fraction compared to what the earth produces naturally (oceans particularly), and the level has been far, far higher in the past long before the industrial revolution

      if you want to convince me, or anyone, that human induced climate warming is a thing, then perhaps you can explain how our Co2 is affecting other planets in the solar system (hint: it has to do with that big white-yellow thing in the sky)

      as far as Bill Gates, if you want to understand why he is nothing more than a murderous criminal psychopath, i will again refer you to Corbett who recently released a 4 part documentary about this piece of eugenicist garbage

      Gates, if you’re not aware, is yet another self-serving globalist who is at the center of the COVID-19 nonsense, more of which you can learn about from my own coverage of this latest ‘crisis’

      My own sense is that if Bill Gates was really trying to kill us all (or sterilize us all) with vaccines,then he would not likely admit it to the world in a televised TED speech.

      and yet he did exactly that, then on TED and several other times, along with his idiot Planned Parenthood father – perhaps you’re not aware that India kicked him out after his vaccines harmed hundreds/thousands of Indian girls in a large trial performed, in part at least, without parental consent, or that these vaccines sometimes contain a sterilization component

      yes, we are creating massive problem for the earth

      yes, we must do something if we are to survive

      no, the solutions being proposed by globalists, including Agenda 21, are clearly not the answer

      if we look at energy, the technology exists, and has for a very long time, to produce extremely cheap, clean, renewable energy that doesn’t rely on wind, solar, hydro or biomass (burning trees, trash and tires, etc.), but that tech is locked up by ultra-powerful, international energy corporations who are onboard with, and indeed financing the ‘green revolution’ because it isn’t green in any way, shape or form

      one of the primary ‘solutions’ to the non-existent ‘climate crisis’ is a carbon tax – what does the tax accomplish? absolutely nothing except higher prices for the consumer – there are no provisions for reducing Co2, not that it needs to be reduced anyway

      what needs to be reduced is the political and social influence of the so-called ‘elite’

  4. Dear 12 bytes,

    Your website publishes the claims of Rosa Koire to the effect that Agenda 21 was a United nations takeover of the United States,

    I am an attorney and an investigative journalist. Respectfully, this information omits some crucial facts about Agenda 21.

    FIRST, THE UNITED STATES REJECTED AGENDA 21 ALMOST 30 YEARS AGO!

    Agenda 21 was merely an environmental suggestion that the United Nations made to all its member nations in 1992. Member nations were permitted, BUT NOT REQUIRED to adopt Agenda 21 for themselves. THE UNITED STATES CHOSE TO REJECT IT!

    Under the United States Constitution, both the President and the Senate must consent to a proposed international treaty or convention before it becomes law in the United States. While the President ceremonially signed Agenda 21, THE SENATE WITHHELD ITS CONSENT TO AGENDA 21. As a result, the United States government REJECTED Agenda 21 almost 30 years ago.

    THAT MEANS AGENDA 21 NEVER APPLIED IN THE UNITED STATES AND DOES NOT APPLY IN THE UNITED STATES NOW. So, whatever Agenda 21 “WOULD HAVE DONE” in the United States if it not been REJECTED is completely irrelevant. It was REJECTED!

    LIKEWISE, THE SO-CALLED “AGENDA 21 MAP” WAS ENTIRELY FAKE AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH AGENDA 21 IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    Instead, the fake “Agenda 21 Map” was a WILDLY-EXAGGERATED piece of PROPAGANDA created by Michael Coffman to generate United States Senate opposition to “The U.N. Treaty On Bio-Diversity”, something entirely different from Agenda 21. (This is why the fake map only depicts the United States, rather than all member nations of the United Nations.). As it turned out, the United States Senate also rejected “The U.N. Treaty On Bio-Diversity”. So, neither “Agenda 21” nor “The U.N. Treaty On Bio-Diversity” (which the fake “Agenda 21 Map” purported to illustrate) ever applied in the United States. BOTH WERE REJECTED!

    The mere fact that some elected local governments have since passed regulations to protect some of the remaining environment has NOTHING to do with Agenda 21. These elected local governments merely concluded (entirely on their own) that some protection of the environmental was warranted.

    AGENDA 21 IS MERELY PART OF THE LARGER PATTERN DESCRIBED BELOW. CLICK HERE.

    Google “The Hoaxes Of Deborah Tavares”, or click here. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?130336-The-hoaxes-of-deborah-tavares-(conspiracy-weaponized-weathe

    “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” –Voltaire

    Best Regards,

    Snoop

    1. you claim to be an attorney and investigative journalist, yet provide no credentials and therefore these claims are meaningless – you also YELL a lot, which indicates to me you’re very emotional which seems odd for an attorney in this setting (there’s plenty of examples of this in the forum thread you linked to)

      Agenda 21, to my knowledge, consists of many part which i believe to be part of the UN ‘Sustainable Development’ package – Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 are essentially the same i believe

      you claim it was rejected 30 years ago and, while that may be true…

      The 2030 Agenda and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was adopted in 2015 by all countries of the United Nations.

      (source)

      also from ‘The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide‘…

      When this mandate was set out in 1992, there was little information available on how to proceed. It therefore gives me particular satisfaction to report that, since 1992, more than 1,300 local authorities from 31 countries have responded to the Agenda 21 mandate by developing their own Local Agenda 21 action plans for sustainable development.

      also Bill Gates, a eugenicist and psychopath, his foundation, and the WHO, all thoroughly corrupt, are all heavily involved in this so-called ‘Sustainable Development’ plan

      the forum thread you link to starts with “THE HOAXES OF DEBORAH TAVARES (CONSPIRACY, WEAPONIZED WEATHER, FIRES, and DEPOPULATION)”

      depopulation is a stated goal of Bill Gates, through vaccines, and is implied in the Agenda 21 documents

      i don’t think you’re an attorney and you sure as hell aren’t an investigative journalist, at least certainly not one of any caliber

      be happy to hear your reply

      1. Hello 12Bytes,

        MY EARLIER RESPONSE: > the United States has never been onboard with Agenda 21 and is not onboard with Agenda 21 now.

        YOUR COMMENT: Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 are essentially the same – both are part of Agenda for Sustainable Development, which the U.S. is absolutely and indisputably onboard with – i could care less if there may be a discrepancy in the date the U.S. or individual states signed on.

        MY RESPONSE: Yes. Both of these two proposals were made 23 years apart. Yes. Both of these two proposals related to similar subject matter. But, that doesl not change the reality that the United States rejected Agenda 21 almost 30 years ago in 1992. Likewise, that does not change the reality that conspiracy promoters like Rosa Koire and Deborah Tavares blamed Agenda 21 for every malady in the United States (both real and imagined) between the years 1992 and 2015, despite that Agenda 21 did not apply to the United States during that period and does not apply to the United States now. Why that does not make your blood boil is difficult for me to understand. These two women were lying to the American people for 23 years!

        MY EARLIER COMMENT: > The intent of the drafters may be benevolent or the intent of the drafters may be malevolent. But, how can we make that determination?

        YOUR COMMENT: the same way you learn about anything of this nature; by looking at who is promoting these agendas and their history, and when you do that the picture gets very ugly very fast – i thought you’re an ‘investigative journalist’?

        MY RESPONSE: Your analysis is far too superficial and and incomplete. As an investigative journalist, I also look at who actually opposes such international environmental regulation. This analysis paints an even more terrifying picture. Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 were opposed (and continue to be opposed) by the most powerful elite on the planet, those who profit by destroying all of the natural resources upon which all life on the planet depends. This real elite includes large international corporations engaged in oil, natural gas, coal, mining, logging, land development, commercial fishing and the banks and corporations that support them.

        As I explained yesterday, the real genius of this real elite is that it has duped people like Rosa Koire and Deborah Tavares into doing its dirty work for it. Through these and similar patsies, the real elite has duped the public into believing that saving the natural resources upon which all depends is itself the conspiracy and that their own continuing to profiteer by destroying the natural resources upon which all life depends is not a conspiracy.

        BELOW IS A SECTION OF THE ACTUAL “TABLE OF CONTENTS” OF “AGENDA 21” ON THE VERY FIRST PAGE OF “AGENDA 21”.

        SECTION II. CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES FOR DEVELOPMENT
        9. Protection of the atmosphere 9.1 – 9.35
        10. Integrated approach to the planning and management of land resources 10.1 – 10.18
        11. COMBATING DEFORESTATION 11.1 – 11.40
        12. MANAGING FRAGILE ECOSYSTEMS: COMBATING desertification and DROUGHT 12.1 – 12.63
        13. Managing fragile ecosystems: sustainable mountain development 13.1 – 13.24
        14. Promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development 14.1 – 14.104
        15. CONSERVATION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 15.1 – 15.11
        16. Environmentally sound MANAGEMENT OF BIODIVERSITY 16.1 – 16.46
        17. Protection of the oceans, all kinds of seas, including enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, and coastal areas and the protection, rational use and development of their living resources 17.1 – 17.136
        18.PROTECTION OF THE QUALITY AND SUPPLY OF FRESHWATER RESOURCES: application of integrated approaches to the development, MANAGEMENT and use OF WATER RESOURCES 18.1 – 18.90
        19. Environmentally sound management of toxic chemicals, including prevention of illegal international traffic in toxic and dangerous products 19.1 – 19.76
        20. Environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes, in hazardous wastes 20.1 – 20.46
        21. Environmentally sound MANAGEMENT OF solid wastes and SEWAGE-RELATED ISSUES 21.1 – 21.49
        22. Safe and environmentally sound management of radioactive wastes

        AND, ALL OF THIS IS ON THE VERY FIRST PAGE OF AGENDA 21 HERE.
        https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf

        BELOW IS THE ACTUAL TEXT OF AGENDA 21.

        https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf
        (THIS IS A MUST READ.). BEGIN AT SECTION 11.1 AT ABOUT 25% THROUGH THE TEXT. THE ACTUAL TEXT OF AGENDA 21 READS AS FOLLOWS:

        AGENDA 21 – CHAPTER 11

        COMBATING DEFORESTATION

        PROGRAMME AREAS

        A. Sustaining the multiple roles and functions of all types of FORESTS, FOREST LANDS and WOODLANDS.
        Basis for action

        11.1. There are major weaknesses in the policies, methods and mechanisms adopted to support and develop the multiple ecological, economic, social and cultural roles of TREES, FORESTS, and FOREST LANDS. Many developed countries are confronted with the effects of air pollution and FIRE DAMAGE ON THEIR FORESTS. More effective measures and approaches are often required at the national level to improve and harmonize policy formulation, planning and programming; legislative measures and instruments; development patterns; participation of the general public, especially women and indigenous people; involvement of youth; roles of the private sector, local organizations, non-governmental organizations and cooperatives; development of technical and multidisciplinary skills and quality of human resources; FORESTRY extension and public education; research capability and support; administrative structures and mechanisms, including intersectoral coordination, decentralization and responsibility and incentive systems; and dissemination of information and public relations. This is especially important to ensure a rational and holistic approach to the sustainable and environmentally sound development of FORESTS. The need for securing the multiple roles of FORESTS and FOREST LANDS through adequate and appropriate institutional strengthening has been repeatedly emphasized in many of the reports, decisions and recommendations of FAO, ITTO, UNEP, the World Bank, IUCN and other organizations.

        Objectives
        11.2. The objectives of this programme area are as follows:
        a. To STRENGTHEN FOREST-RELATED NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, to enhance the scope and effectiveness
        of activities related to the management, CONSERVATION and sustainable development of FORESTS, and to effectively ensure the sustainable utilization and production of FORESTS’ goods and services in both the developed and the developing countries; by the year 2000, to strengthen the capacities and capabilities of national institutions to enable them to acquire the necessary knowledge for the PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION OF FORESTS, as well as to expand their scope and, correspondingly, enhance the effectiveness of programmes and activities related to the management and development of FORESTS;
        b. To strengthen and improve human, technical and professional skills, as well as expertise and capabilities to effectively formulate and implement policies, plans, programmes, research and projects on management, CONSERVATION and sustainable development of all
        types of FORESTS and FOREST-based resources, and FOREST LANDS inclusive, as well as other areas from which FORESTS BENEFITS CAN BE DERIVED.

        AND, THIS IS ONLY THE FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS OF SECTION 11 OF AGENDA 21!

        IMPORTANT:
        You will note from the actual WRITTEN words of Agenda 21 itself (above), THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR EXPANDING THE WILDERNESS INTO AREAS ALREADY OCCUPIED BY PEOPLE (so as to systematically drive them out of their rural and suburban homes and into increasingly smaller, densely packed, over-populated “KILL CITIES” or “SMART CITIES” in furtherance of the planned extinction of mankind).

        APPLICATION OF CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS:
        FACT: When corporate interests are threatened by proposed laws which would reduce their profits, they launch a public relations campaign against those proposed laws. But, they do not admit that they actually oppose the proposed laws for reasons of their own selfish interests. Instead, they pretend that they oppose the proposed laws to protect the interests of society in general (out of the goodness of their own hearts).

        EXAMPLE: CONSIDER THIS EXAMPLE AS IT RELATES TO AGENDA 21.

        If made into law, Agenda 21 (a proposed law) would slow the rate at which oil, logging & mining corporations and land developers, like Deborah Tavares, could destroy the remaining forests (and thereby slow the rate at which they generate profits).

        So, these corporate interests launch a public relations campaign against Agenda 21. But, they do not admit that they actually oppose Agenda 21 to protect their own profits. Instead, they pretend to oppose Agenda 21 to protect the rest of society (out of the goodness of their own hearts).

        So, they come up with a CAREFULLY-CRAFTED LIE intended to get the rest of society to oppose Agenda 21 as much as they do. Instead of admitting that Agenda 21 would only slow down the rate at which oil, logging & mining corporations and land developers, like Deborah Tavares, could destroy the remaining forests to generate profits, they falsely claim that Agenda 21 WOULD ACTUALLY WORK IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION!

        Specifically, they falsely claim that Agenda 21 WOULD ACTUALLY EXPAND THE FORESTS AND WILDERNESS INTO AREAS THAT WERE ALREADY DEVELOPED AND ALREADY OCCUPIED BY HUMANS, thereby systematically driving homeowners out of their rural and suburban homes and into increasingly-smaller, tightly packed, over-populated “Kill Cities” (something that Agenda 21 would not actually do).

        This FRAUDULENT characterization of Agenda 21 would serve to make ALL THE REST OF SOCIETY join with those who profit by destroying the forests. The rest of society would OPPOSE “AGENDA 21” in the mistaken belief THAT THEY WERE SAVING THEIR OWN HOMES (AND THEIR OWN VERY LIVES) IN THE PROCESS. Now, THAT is a brilliant lie. But, it gets even better.

        By telling such a lie, oil, logging & mining corporations and real estate developers, like Deborah Tavares, could continue DESTROYING THE FORESTS and continue to cash in without any opposition from the rest of society WHILE SIMULATANEOUSLY BLAMING “AGENDA 21” (WHICH NEVER BECAME LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE) FOR THE HARDSHIPS THAT THEY THEMSELVES KNOWINGLY INFLICT ON THE REST OF SOCIETY BY DESTROYING THE REMAINING FORESTS IN THE PURSUIT OF PROFITS (increased droughts and therefore increased forest fires, decreased fresh water supplies uncontaminated by sewage, etc.). Now, THAT is a TRULY brilliant lie, blaming a SUGGESTION that never became law, for the hardships suffered by Californians, when the SUGGESTION that never became law WAS ACTUALLY DESIGNED AND INTENDED TO PREVENT THOSE VERY HARDSHIPS FROM OCCURRING IN THE FIRST PLACE!

        MY EARLIER COMMENT: > What happens if the intent of the drafters of Agenda 2030 is benevolent and we reject it as a hegelian dialectic (problem-reaction-solution) plot to bring about one world government?

        YOUR COMMENT: the question has already been answered; government in and of itself is malevolent – have you looked around to see what’s happening in the world lately and who instigates it? M.E. terrorists are being armed, trained and financed by some of the same governments that signed on to Sustainable Development – the U.S. and Israel are burning down the world in every way, and you question their motives and ethics? there is no question as to the “benevolence” of government and their handlers

        MY RESPONSE: I do not regard mankind saving itself from corporate insanity as the conspiracy. I regard the failure of mankind to save itself from corporate insanity as the conspiracy. Which do you believe international corporations REALLY support? Think! Use your critical thinking skills. International corporations do not profit or benefit from environmental regulation.

        MY EARLIER COMMENT: > Global warming is the largest single factor in climate change.

        MY EARLIER COMMENT: > Well, that would certainly explain why the polar ice cap all but vanishes now every summer and why the frequency and intensity of hurricanes (which result from warmer oceans) increases dramatically every year. All kidding aside, 97% of the world’s scientists do agree that human activity is the cause of climate change.

        YOUR COMMENT: so then why is the ice at the S pole growing? why is Greenland ice thickening?

        MY RESPONSE: They are not. The reverse is true. Why do you insist on parroting the claims of the global elite which are destroying all of the natural resources upon which life depends? You are doing their dirty work for them. You ought to be ashamed.

        YOUR COMMENT: you’re parroting talking points which have been thoroughly debunked for nearly 2 decades.

        MY RESPONSE: Please do not ask me to thank the global elite for what they are doing to our planet in the name of their profits. I will not do it. You shouldn’t either. You should be ashamed.

        YOUR COMMENT: you also ignored what i gave you regarding the CMU leak and *dropping temps*

        MY RESPONSE: Are the forests expanding too?

        MY EARLIER COMMENT: > Every tree is a “factory” for converting carbon dioxide to oxygen. > CO2 levels are increased by deforestation.

        YOUR COMMENT: good thing we have more of them then – 422 for every living person apparently…

        MY RESPONSE: Does every internal combustion engine, jet engine, rocket engine, steel mill, coal fire power plant and forest fire have its own expanding forest of trees to generate the oxygen they burn too?

        YOUR COMMENT: what’s being done to the Amazon is a travesty, granted, but let’s not suddenly go blind when ones current beliefs are challenged.

        MY RESPONSE: Yes. It is a travesty. And, who do you think is behind it? Corporations or environmentalists? And, I agree with you that a person’s belief system causes them to accept only that information which validates their own belief system and to reject all information which does not validate their own belief system. This is why you cannot accept that the global elite’s think tanks are are the true source of all of your beliefs and talking points about the environment, Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030. Likewise, this is also why I cannot accept that the global elite have mankind’s best interest at heart by opposing environmental regulations like Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 which would threaten their monopolies, threaten their profits and threaten their choke hold mankind.

        MY EARLIER COMMENT: > During this period, skin cancer rates did increase

        YOUR COMMENT: …along with the use of sunscreen

        MY RESPONSE: You mean we didn’t supply the world’s frogs and salamanders with sunscreen? What about those people in undeveloped countries? Did they get the memo about using sunscreen? How about the air drop of sunscreen? Did they get that?

        MY EARLIER COMMENT > HIV is not a non-existent virus.

        MY EARLIER COMMENT; The real elite are these very international corporations who profit by destroying the environment, not those who would save the planet from them (as you contend).

        YOUR RESPONSE: they are one and the same.

        MY RESPONSE: They are one and the same only for the purpose of duping patsies and useful idiots (into thinking that environmentalists have an ulterior motive and international corporations do not) and for purposes of controlling their opposition. Otherwise, they could not be more different. Se explanation below.

        MY EARLIER COMMENT: > The real elite pretend to financially support sustainable development

        YOUR COMMENT: absolute provably false rubbish – Big Oil is one of the major funders of ‘green’ energy

        MY RESPONSE: It is true that Rockefeller and Rothschild have publicly supported sustainable development and resilient cities and financed some of the same. But, that was only intended to create the illusion that they are “behind” environmentalism
        so as to create suspicion and distrust of environmentalism so as to cause society to oppose and reject environmental proposals like Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 so as to allow them to continue profiting by destroying the natural resources upon which all life depends. The global elite know exactly what they are doing with such publicity stunts and they would not do it if it did not result in their continued financial choke hold over mankind. Such a publicity stunt is simply a minor cost of doing business and it works with wonderfully with patsies and useful idiots like Deborah Tavares.

        MY EARLIER COMMENT: > The purpose of the proposed carbon tax is not to raise money, but to create a financial incentive for using clean energy and a financial incentive for using dirty energy.

        YOUR COMMENT: again, absolute rubbish – once again: there are no penalties for corporations producing excess Co2, only a tax which is passed on to you, the consumer – if you think otherwise, then provide evidence

        MY RESPONSE: First, my words above contain a typo. I meant to say that the purpose of the carbon tax was to create a financial incentive to use clean energy (at the consumer level) and to create a financial DISINCENTIVE for using dirty energy (at the consumer level. Yes, the burden of paying such taxes will be passed along to the consumer and the tax will result in the customer choosing cleaner energy more often than they would without the tax.

        YOUR COMMENT: i’ve given you several links to back my points – i’d appreciate if you’d do the same should you choose to reply

        MY RESPONSE: My work is not about the pros and cons of Agenda 21 or Agenda 2030. The sole focus of my work is that the documents used by Deborah Tavares in support of her claims do not actually support her claims. Agenda 21 is only one of sixteen examples of this truth. I only mentioned Rosa Koire in these comment because she (like Deborah Tavares) had no idea that the United States had rejected Agenda 21 almost 30 years ago and that it never applied in the United States.

        My time is valuable and while I have enjoyed our dialogue, I do not have the time to continue our dialogue if it does not relate to the subject of my work (the documents of Deborah Tavares). I think you will agree that I have responded to your comments in great detail over the last three day period. But, my dialogue with you has become a full-time job and its now time for me to get back to my work on the document of Deborah Tavares. I hope you understand.

        Now, if you’d like to discuss my work on the documents of Deborah Tavares, I’m game. Read my work and feel free to contact me any time.

        Thank you for your thoughts and your time in conveying them to me.

        All My Best,

        Snoop

        1. > Yes. Both of these two proposals were made 23 years apart. Yes. Both of these two proposals related to similar subject matter. But, that doesl not change the reality that the United States rejected Agenda 21 almost 30 years ago in 1992.

          again, the date that the U.S. or the states signed on is irreverent at this point – the point is that the U.S. is onboard now and the agenda is not the bright light you have been mesmerized by

          > Your analysis is far too superficial and and incomplete.

          of course it is – so is yours – the difference is that i’ve provided resources which expand upon the information i’ve provided, and which you obviously haven’t researched, whereas what few resources you have provided are the mainstream talking points

          you insinuated James Corbett, an independent, people funded activist, commentator, researcher and documentary film maker, is taking money from Big Oil, a claim which is laughable on its face – he produced a 2 part docu series specifically about Big Oil which you could lean much from, and which i linked to earlier, but my guess is that your confirmation bias won’t allow it

          again, he has also researched and reported on the ‘climate crisis’ for years, including interviewing several (of many) independent scientists who had their careers compromised because their data contradicts that of the “97%” you refer to – again, a figure which has been absolutely debunked, yet you ignore this, just as you ignore the importance of the CRU leak and just as you ignore the data that clearly shows that the sea level is not rising beyond the historical norm – so again, where is all that water going from the polar ice caps you claim are melting to virtually nothing every summer?

          you parrot the nonsense about deforestation, implying there are fewer trees, which is easily debunked beyond the study i linked to – rather than acknowledge you were wrong, your response is to move the goal post – you did the same with the sunscreen-cancer argument and climate changes on other planets in the solar system (i guess our Co2 is affecting them too?)

          you keep parroting so-called ‘clean energy’ while failing to comprehend how much ‘dirty energy’ is required to make that possible – again, other than some hydraulic based energy, there is no ‘clean energy’

          care of Corbett Report

          Myth #1. The earth is warming!

          On what time scale? 16 years? 2000 years? 10000 years? 420000 years? 65 million years? (Answer: None of the above)

          Myth #2. This year was the hottest year ever!

          Was that before or after NASA and the NOAA altered the temperature record to make recent years warmer?

          Myth #3. 97% of scientists agree on global warming!

          You mean 97% of 77 scientists in an unscientific online poll?

          Myth #4. Sea levels are rising!

          Yes…at a rate of 7 inches per century.

          Myth #5. Hurricanes are increasing!

          US landfalling hurricanes are at their lowest intensity in a century. (Bonus fact: Accumulated Cyclone Energy is at a 30 year low!)

          Myth #6. But…polar bears!

          The polar bear population has quintupled in six decades and the USGS admits their numbers are near “historic highs.”

          Myth #7. Climategate was hype and it’s been debunked.

          The UK Information Commissioner found the climategate scientists guilty of breaking the law by hiding data from the public.

          Myth #8. Models project a temperature increase of over 2 degrees in this century.

          And these same models overestimated warming over the past 15 years by 400%.

          Myth #9. Weather is not climate.

          Actually, yes. And this is true when it’s hot outside, too.

          Myth #10. Climate denial is a well-funded conspiracy.

          Actually, the reverse. The global warming industry has generated over $140 billion in government grants, a $315 billion carbon market and is expected to generate 10s of trillions more in government-sponsored investment in the coming decades.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *