Foundations of a Global Empire Part 2
The Destruction of United States Sovereignty and Peacekeeping
If you have not read Part 1 of this series, you can find it here.
If totalitarianism wins this conflict, the world will be ruled by tyrants, and individuals will be slaves. If democracy wins, the nations of the earth will be united in a commonwealth of free peoples; and individuals, wherever found, will be the sovereign units of the new world order.
— The Declaration of the Federation of the World, written by the Congress on World Federation, which was adopted by the Legislatures of some states, including North Carolina (1941), New Jersey (1942), and Pennsylvania (1943)
Do you think this was a warning or a promise?
We do hereby solemnly declare: That all peoples of the earth should now be united in a commonwealth of nations to be known as THE FEDERATION OF THE WORLD. That the State of North Carolina, through its Legislature, be petitioned to endorse this Declaration and to request its Senators in Congress to introduce a resolution of similar import in the Congress of the United States, committing the United States to the acceptance of the principle of THE FEDERATION OF THE WORLD and requesting the President of the United States to call an International Convention to formulate a Constitution for THE FEDERATION OF THE WORLD, which shall be submitted to each nation for ratification.
— The Declaration of the Federation of the World as adopted by the North Carolina Legislature
Let's begin...
United Nations Structure
Many people do not realize just how large the United Nations is, how much it effects, or who exactly is involved in running this organization. There is a general misconception about what it is and what it isn't. In order to gain further understanding, let's break this government down.
The United Nations has 6 main bodies of government:
The General Assembly (UNGA)
The Security Council (UNSC)
The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
The Trusteeship Council
The International Court of Justice
The Secretariat
The United Nations General Assembly
The United Nations General Assembly "is the main policy-making organ of the Organization. Comprising all Member States, it provides a unique forum for multilateral discussion of the full spectrum of international issues covered by the Charter of the United Nations. Each of the 193 Member States of the United Nations has an equal vote." Just like any governing body, the United Nations has a president called the United Nations Security-General, who serves a one year term.
There are 6 main committees under the United Nations General Assembly. These include:
Disarmament and International Security (DISEC)
The First Committee deals with disarmament and international security. This includes both nuclear weapons and conventional weapons.Economic and Financial (ECOFIN)
The Second Committee addresses increasing globalization, increasing interdependence, the eradication of poverty, agricultural development, macroeconomic policies, and sustainable urban development.Social, Cultural, and Humanitarian (SOCHUM)
The Third Committee addresses human rights issues, the advancement of women, the protection of children, and the treatment of refugees, as well as racism and discrimination.Special Political and Decolonization (SPECPOL)
The Fourth Committee deals with UN Peacekeeping missions, uses of outer space, decolonization of non-self governing territories (such as the British Virgin Islands), and issues revolving around the Middle East, Israel, and Palestine.Administrative and Budgetary
The Fifth Committee addresses budgetary issues within the United Nations.Legal
The Sixth Committee deals with legal matters and international law, which include accountability, drug control, crime prevention, and international terrorism. Part of this concerns "the application of universal justice".
If you are reading this list and your eyebrows raise up a bit at the words disarmament, then you wouldn't be alone. You do have cause for concern.
In 2001, countries adopted the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (PoA). In the instrument, governments agreed to improve national small arms regulations, to strengthen stockpile management, to ensure that weapons are properly and reliably marked, to improve cooperation in weapons tracing, and to engage in regional and international cooperation and assistance. Within the PoA framework, the General Assembly adopted the International Tracing Instrument (ITI) in 2005, a global instrument for cooperation in weapons tracing. Improving weapons tracing is now part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Together, both instruments constitute the normative framework on small arms and light weapons, which all UN Member States have agreed upon.
United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs: Small Arms and Light Weapons
All United Nations members agreed to tracing and further regulating small arms sales... and an international gun registration plan.
The Biden administration this week signaled that it is eyeing a United Nations small arms treaty that critics claim will lead to an international gun registration plan — including for individual American gun owners.
Two years after former President Donald Trump withdrew from it, a top arms diplomat at the State Department told the global body that the current administration is swinging behind the Arms Trade Treaty.
Washington Examiner: Biden Aims to Sign on to UN’s Global Gun Registration Treaty
What is the end goal regarding small arms disarmament? This is what the UN Chronicle says:
Reducing the existing civilian stockpile. Disarming civilian populations is more difficult than disarming governments. Nevertheless it is arguably more necessary, given that civilians constitute the overwhelming majority not only of gun owners, but also of the victims and perpetrators of gun violence.
Many countries have implemented voluntary programs encouraging citizens to surrender weapons in exchange for cash, household goods or other benefits to individuals. In "Weapons for Development" schemes, the reward for handing in guns is development assistance to improve educational, economic and security conditions for the entire community. The success of voluntary collection has varied around the world: ad hoc local initiatives in US cities have mostly recovered small numbers of guns. Larger quantities tend to be recovered where the collection is part of a coherent national policy and where people perceive that local security is improving.
The perception of security is obviously more important than the reality of actual security.
The single most important step toward reducing demand for small arms is to enhance security, both in the reality and the perception. Strengthening security depends primarily on States and their policies to address the root causes of insecurity, relating to poverty, health, human rights, criminal and social justice. Improving perceptions of security involves many additional actors, including civil society and the media. Policies to reduce gun ownership provide benefits on both fronts, increasing both actual and perceived security, since the reason people want to have guns is because other people have them. Reducing the level of small arms proliferation is crucial in interrupting the spiral of insecurity.
And apparently the whole reason people own guns is due to their own insecurities rather than the acknowledgement that there are bad people in this world who do bad things. Often those bad things affect innocent and unaffiliated people thereby drastically affecting, altering, and destroying their lives. There are people in this world who would place themselves in harm's way to protect their own lives and the lives of others. These selfless individuals understand that bad people can come in the form of individuals, groups of individuals, organizations, and even governments and are willing to stand up to these elements in order to preserve what is right. I would hardly call that an insecurity.
There are also a list of funds and programs under the General Assembly, which includes:
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF)
United Nations Volunteers (UNV)
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT)
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
World Food Programme (WFP)
Also included in this are various other organizations including:
Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO)
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
International Criminal Court (ICC)
International Organization for Migration (IOM)
International Seabed Authority (ISA)
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS)
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)
World Trade Organization (WTO)
United Nations Security Council
As per the United Nations website:
The Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It has 15 Members, and each Member has one vote. Under the Charter of the United Nations, all Member States are obligated to comply with Council decisions.
The Security Council takes the lead in determining the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression. It calls upon the parties to a dispute to settle it by peaceful means and recommends methods of adjustment or terms of settlement. In some cases, the Security Council can resort to imposing sanctions or even authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.
The United Nations leads and the whole world is obligated to follow... even when that means going to war.
What isn't mentioned here is that there are 5 permanent members on the United Nations Security Council. These 5 members have the power to veto any resolution made within this council. Resolutions are "typically enforced by UN peacekeepers, which consist of military forces voluntarily provided by member states." Those 5 permanent members are:
China
France
United Kingdom
United States
USSR (Russia)
One has to wonder how much influence the United Nations has had in the world's conflicts since World War II? I will expand on this more fully later. However, let's get a glimpse at current events to see how the United Nations is influencing current police today.
Meeting today amid the unfolding crisis in Ukraine, the Security Council rejected a draft resolution intended to end the Russian Federation’s military offensive against that neighboring State.
The draft, submitted by Albania and the United States, garnered support from 11 members but was vetoed by the Russian Federation. China, India and the United Arab Emirates all abstained.
Also by the draft, the 15-member Council would have deplored, in the strongest terms, the Russian Federation’s aggression as being in violation of Article 2, paragraph 4 of the Charter of the United Nations — an obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.
The draft would also have the Council decide that the Russian Federation should immediately cease its use of force against Ukraine, and withdraw all its military forces immediately, completely, and unconditionally from that country’s territory.
Another question to ask is why is the United States sending so much aide to Ukraine and what will the final price tag be. The United Nations can't possibly have that much influence on our nation's policies and sovereignty.
Ukraine’s Needs
The updated Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA2), released in March, estimates that the current cost of reconstruction and recovery stands at $411b over the next 10 years and combines both needs for public and private funds. In 2023 alone, Ukraine faces a funding gap of $11b for this year. This includes $6 billion in unfunded budget needs, $3.3 billion in financing for state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and $1.5 billion to mobilize the private sector.
Donor governments: The United States, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, and United Kingdom.
Here is a current breakdown on what has been sent to Ukraine so far since February 24, 2022 through the world bank. The Council on Foreign Relations has broken this down even further.
Per their calculations, only $20 billion to date has been raised by the world's nations and the final price tag going to Ukraine over the next 10 years is $441 billion. Even a Fact Check news article written by Newsweek states that we have given over $77 billion:
However, the Kiel Institute states U.S. spending on all categories of aid has reached around $77 billion, not $200 billion, enacted across four bills since February 2022.
In total, Congress has allocated $113 billion in a combination of mostly military, government, and humanitarian aid to Ukraine since last year, according to the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General.
But, Kiel notes that a "large portion" of this $113 billion "will not flow directly to Ukraine but is instead allocated towards a broad variety of spending purposes."
Newsweek: Fact Check: Have U.S. Taxpayers Sent Over $200B to Ukraine?
April 26, 2023
I am not an accountant, but even I can see that the numbers are off and the price being paid to a foreign nation too high.
How is the World Bank related to all of this? It is a United Nations agency.
United Nations Economic and Social Council
The Economic and Social Council is at the heart of the United Nations system to advance the three dimensions of sustainable development — economic, social and environmental. It is the central platform for fostering debate and innovative thinking, forging consensus on ways forward, and coordinating efforts to achieve internationally agreed goals.
In addition to its 54 members, the Economic and Social Council has over 1,600 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) which it consults with. It has 15 agencies, the 8 commissions, and the 5 regional commissions under its jurisdiction. This includes the World Health Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the High-Level Political Forum which oversees the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
The 15 agencies include:
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
International Labour Organization (ILO)
International Maritime Organization (IMO)
International Monetary Fund (IMF)
International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)
Universal Postal Union (UPO)
World Bank Group, which includes the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), the International Development Association (IDA), and the International Finance Corporation (IFC)
World Health Organization (WHO)
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
World Tourism Organization (UNWTO)
Wait. Is that the same World Bank that committed the world's nations to give $411 billion to Ukraine?
How much influence do these agencies have in world politics?
A United Nations agency is coming under fire today for promoting the sexualization of children as young as age nine and misleading world governments about the negative impact of comprehensive sexuality education.
A newly updated document published by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) says that children should be instructed that abstinence means that a child can decide “when to start having sex and with whom,” and it calls for children as young as nine years old to be able to “describe male and female responses to sexual stimulation.” It also states that an aim of the program is to “help children and young people form respectful and healthy relationships with . . . romantic or sexual partners.”
In January [2018], UNESCO released its latest revised edition of a 2009 guidance document on sexuality education. The document has the backing of multiple United Nations agencies including UNAIDS, UNFPA, UNICEF, UN Women, and World Health Organization. When it was released OutRight Action International—an organization that campaigns for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex rights—told Devex.com that it was involved in putting the new guidelines together, which calls into question the motives and objectives for this guidance.
“There is no doubt UNESCO seeks to diminish the role that parents and cultures play when it comes to sexual issues. In fact, the guidance document calls for children to differentiate between values that they hold versus the values of their parents and guardians. Family Watch finds that deeply disturbing. I think most parents would too,” Slater said.
In addition to concerns about undermining family relationships, Slater said her organization is especially concerned that UNESCO is misleading governments around the world about the effectiveness and impacts of comprehensive sexuality education (CSE).
“CSE is much different than simple sex education. Comprehensive sexuality education programs seek to change societies by changing sexual and gender norms and have an almost obsessive focus on teaching children they have a right to sexual pleasure," Slater said.
Family Watch International: UN Agency Under Fire for Misleading Governments & Sexualizing Children
Comprehensive sex education (CSEs) is a United Nations program and was developed in a cooperative effort between:
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
UN Women
United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)
World Health Organization (WHO)
To date, 5 states have laws regarding comprehensive sex education (CSEs). 3 states require comprehensive sex education (CSEs) for all students. 2 states require comprehensive sex education (CSEs) if it is taught in schools.
The 8 commissions for the United Nations Economic and Social Council include:
Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice
Narcotic Drugs
Population and Development
Science and Technology for Development
Social Development
Statistics
Status of Women
United Nations Forum on Forests
And the 5 regional commissions include:
Economic Commission for Africa (ECA)
Economic Commission for Europe (ECE)
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC)
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)
Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA)
The United Nations Economic and Social Council also has other subsidiary bodies underneath it. These include, but are not limited, to:
Committee for Development Policy
Committee of Experts on Public Administration
Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations
Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)
United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN)
Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management (UNGGIM)
Here is an example of what international political policies one of the subsidiary bodies, known as the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), works on is below:
Is the U.N. saying young children have a right to engage in consensual sex– including consensual sex with an adult? It certainly appears to have officially announced that the world needs to adopt a kinder, gentler approach to what is commonly known as “Statutory Rape” in the civilized world. If not, what does the United Nations mean when it publishes a declaration that: “sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual in fact, if not in law. In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them.”
It goes on to state that “Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy, persons under 18 years of age should participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity, and best interests, and with specific attention to non-discrimination guarantees.” Although the report doesn’t overtly suggest sex with minors should be legalized, it claims that children younger than 18 years of age are capable of willingly having sex with older individuals.
AMAC: U.N. Under Fire for Suggesting Minors Can Consent to Sexual Activity
Trusteeship Council
The main goals of the International Trusteeship System were to promote the advancement of the inhabitants of Trust Territories and their progressive development towards self-government or independence. The Trusteeship Council is made up of the five permanent members of the Security Council -- China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. The aims of the Trusteeship System have been fulfilled to the extent that all Trust Territories have attained self-government or independence, either as separate States or by joining neighboring independent countries.
International Court of Justice
The International Court of Justice is also known as the World Court and is located in the Hague, Netherlands. Per the UN Charter:
Article 93
All Members of the United Nations are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice.
A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may become a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice on conditions to be determined in each case by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.
Article 94
Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.
If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.
United Nations Charter, Chapter XIV: The International Court of Justice
So basically, if you are part of the United Nations, you are part of the International Court of Justice. Any decisions made by the International Court of Justice has to be adhered to by member states or actions will be taken against it.
United Nations Secretariat
The United Nations Secretariat carries out the day-to-day work of the UN as mandated by the General Assembly and the Organization's other main organs. The Secretary-General is the head of the Secretariat, which has tens of thousands of UN staff members working at duty stations all over the world. UN staff members are recruited internationally and locally, and work in duty stations and on peacekeeping missions. Serving the cause of peace in a violent world is a dangerous occupation. Since the founding of the United Nations, hundreds of brave men and women have given their lives in its service.
One thing people may not realize is that the United Nations has no military or army of its own. So, where do their peacekeeping troops come from?
NOTE: If you are unfamiliar with how a nation or governing body can exist without having its own army, I will divert your attention to another substack regarding PrussiaGate at the end of this article.
As Comte de Mirabeau quoted: “Prussia is not a nation with an army, but an army that controls nations.” Prussia was never anything other than an ideology of War against all that it could not control. From the lands the Teutonic Knights had tamed, Prussia used shrewd methods of diplomatic espionage, carried out by its ambassadors and industrialists. Prussia sought to destroy everything it could not control via campaigns of “comply or die”.
The United Nations Secretariat's offices include:
Executive Office of the Secretary-General (EOSG)
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (ODA)
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR)
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA)
United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS)
United Nations Office of Legal Affairs (OLA)
United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (OHRLLS)
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)
However, the "peacekeeping" part of this branch of the United Nations falls under its departments, which include:
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA)
United Nations Department of General Assembly and Conference Management (DGACM)
United Nations Department of Global Communications (DGC)
United Nations Department of Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance (DMSPC)
United Nations Department of Operational Support (DOS)
United Nations Department of Peace Operations (DPO)
United Nations Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA)
United Nations Department of Safety and Security (DSS)
If you want to know what type of peacekeeping the United Nations would engage in, you have only need to look at a place called Katanga from 1960 to 1962.
Produced in 1962, the documentary Katanga the UNtold Story provides a glimpse into what went on. (Note: I would highly suggest you watch it.) The following is an excerpt from it:
In 1960, in Africa, the Belgian Congo received its independence and established its own government in what later became known as Zaire. The new leadership immediately aligned itself with Moscow and began a campaign of terrorism and destruction in order to eradicate all traces of opposition to itself.
When the nation plunged into chaos, one of its provinces called Katanga decided it wanted no part of the Red Revolution. It declared its independence and offered to align itself with the West. The will of the people was expressed in the words of their leader Moïse Tshombé who declared to the world "we are seceding from chaos," Katanga remained a sea of calm amid the bloodshed and violence around it.
And by this contrast, it became a thorn in the side of the central Congolese government which now wanted to pull it back under its control. The Red Regime was not militarily strong enough to accomplish that by itself. So it asked the United Nations to do it for them. The excuse they gave was that they wanted the UN to put down rebellion and to restore law and order in the Congo. But everyone knew that was only a ploy. Katanga already had law and order. The UN sent most of its military forces, not to the Central Congo where thousands of people were being massacred and where law and order were very much needed to be restored, but to Katanga where they were not needed and definitely were not wanted.
The UN declared it was contrary to its own charter to intervene in the internal affairs of the Congo and that it had no intention of doing so. but it was clear from the outset -- that this was not the truth as some of the UN personnel even admitted later in their public speeches and books the real purpose of the UN was to intervene in the Congo's internal affairs and to force an independent anti-communist state back under the rule of the communist puppet regime.
The great irony in all this was that the free world was told, and the American people firmly believed, that the UN force had been sent to the Congo to protect it from Communism.
The documentary you are about to see was produced in the style of the period which is to say the narration is rather formal by today's standards. But the facts contained are accurate in every detail.
I can attest to that because of the research I was able to do while writing the book The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations, in fact the entire first six chapters, were devoted to the Katanga tragedy.
I considered at that time that before we can judge the UN's words and public pronouncements about peace and human rights, we should first look at its deeds. As Lenin phrased it, "Words are one thing. Actions another." I still think that approach to understanding the UN is a good one. And it's for that reason we have re-released this documentary.
The film was made by a small group of private citizens in a last-ditch effort to mobilize American opinion in time to avert the disaster. But only a few prints were made and those reviewed primarily by small audiences. And so even to this day, most Americans are completely unaware of what really happened in Katanga. The reason this story needs to be told after all these years is that we have not seen the last of the UN so-called peacekeeping forces. Unless Congress reacts to the reality of what is now called the New World Order, we are going to see a UN Army used more and more to bring its peculiar brand of peace to the world.
And the best way to envision that future is to know the past.
Needless to say, Katanga ended in multiple human rights abuses at the hands UN Peacekeepers, the assassination of one prime minister, and accusations of forcing political agendas by way of military force. The UN Peacekeepers were conscripted from the militaries of India, Malaysia, Sweden, Ireland, Canada, Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria, Egypt, and Indonesia.
The United Nations has no military of its own.
Declarations Made
There have been a few Declarations made throughout the years. You know of at least one of them — The Declaration of Independence, which was the beginning of this great nation. What you probably don't realize is there were more declarations made afterwards throughout history. Some were far more serious than others.
On April 8, 1944, Will Durant wrote a Declaration of Interdependence which was later presented at a gala dinner at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel in 1945 and read into the Congressional Record in 1949. In it Durant declared racial equality almost a decade before the Civil Rights Movement in 1954. Durant's Declaration of Interdependence stated:
Human progress having reached a high level through respect for the liberty and dignity of men, it has become desirable to re-affirm these evident truths:
That differences of race, color, and creed are natural, and that diverse groups, institutions, and ideas are stimulating factors in the development of man;
That to promote harmony in diversity is a responsible task of religion and statesmanship;
That since no individual can express the whole truth, it is essential to treat with understanding and good will those whose views differ from our own;
That by the testimony of history intolerance is the door to violence, brutality and dictatorship; and
That the realization of human interdependence and solidarity is the best guard of civilization.
Therefore, we solemnly resolve, and invite everyone to join in united action.
To uphold and promote human fellowship through mutual consideration and respect;
To champion human dignity and decency, and to safeguard these without distinction of race, or color, or creed;
To strive in concert with others to discourage all animosities arising from these differences, and to unite all groups in the fair play of civilized life.
ROOTED in freedom, bonded in the fellowship of danger, sharing everywhere a common human blood, we declare again that all men are brothers, and that mutual tolerance is the price of liberty.
And so with Durant's Declaration of Interdependence we see the beginnings of social justice, equality, and equity.
In 1969, Ecology Action printed their version of a declaration of interdependence titled The Unanimous Declaration of Interdependence. Borrowing heavily from Thomas Jefferson, here is a small excerpt from the text:
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all species have evolved with equal and unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; that to insure these rights, nature has instituted certain principles for the sustenance of all species, deriving these principles from the capabilities of the planet’s life-support system; that whenever any behavior by members of one species becomes destructive to these principles, it is the function of other members of that species to alter or abolish such behavior and to reestablish the theme of interdependence with all life, in such a form and in accordance with those natural principles that will affect their safety and happiness.
In 1976, Greenpeace made their Declaration of Interdependence. The language was less flowery than Ecology Action's but mirrored some of the same general principles.
Later in 1992, David Suzuki would mirror both Greenpeace and Ecology Action's declarations. You can find Suzuki's Declaration of Interdependence here.
None of these are half as alarming as the OTHER Declaration of Interdependence that was signed in 1976.
The Declaration of Interdependence, 1976
In 1975, a man named Henry Steele Commager wrote a Declaration of Interdependence and presented it to the World Affairs Councils of Philadelphia on October 24, 1975
On January 30, 1976, on the Bicentennial Anniversary of the year of the signing of our Declaration of Independence, it was taken to Congress Hall — the same location that the Bill of Rights and United States Constitution was ratified and George Washington and John Adams were inaugurated. Congress Hall is located in Independence National Historical Park — which is the birthplace of our United States of America and where the Declaration of Independence was written.
Here is what Henry Steele Commager's Declaration of Interdependence said:
PREAMBLE
When in the course of history the threat of extinction confronts mankind, it is necessary for the people of the United States to declare their interdependence with the people of all nations and to embrace those principles and build those institutions which will enable mankind to survive and civilization to flourish.
Two centuries ago our forefathers brought forth a new nation; now we must join with others to bring forth a new world order. On this historic occasion it is proper that the American people should reaffirm those principles on which the United States of America was founded, acknowledge the new crisis which confronts them, accept the new obligations which history imposes upon them, and set forth the causes which impel them to affirm before all people their commitment to a Declaration of Interdependence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that the inequalities and injustices which afflict so much of the human race as the product of history and society, not of God or nature; that people everywhere are entitled to the blessings of life and liberty, peace and security and the realization of their full potential; that they have an inescapable moral obligation to preserve those rights for posterity; and that to achieve these ends all the peoples and nations of the globe should acknowledge their interdependence and join together to dedicate their minds and their hearts to the solution of those problems which threaten their survival.
To establish a new world order of compassion, peace, justice and security. It is essential that mankind free itself from the limitations of national prejudice, and acknowledge that the forces that unite it are incomparably deeper than those that divide it – that all people are part of one global community, dependent on one body of resources, bound together by the ties of a common humanity and associated in a common adventure on the planet earth.
Let us then join together to vindicate and realize this great truth that mankind is one, and as one will nobly save or irreparably lose the heritage of thousands of years of civilization to survive.
AFFIRMATIONS
WE AFFIRM that the resources of the globe are finite, not infinite, that they are the heritage of no one nation or generation, but of all peoples, nations and of posterity, and that our deepest obligation is to transmit to that posterity a planet richer in material bounty, in beauty and in delight than we found it. Narrow notions of national sovereignty must not be permitted to curtail that obligation.
WE AFFIRM that the exploitation of the poor by the rich, and the weak by the strong violates our common humanity and denies to large segments of society the blessings of life, liberty, and happiness. We recognize a moral obligation to strive for a more prudent and more equitable sharing of the resources of the earth in order to ameliorate poverty, hunger and disease.
WE AFFIRM that the resources of nature are sufficient to nourish and sustain all the present inhabitants of the globe and that there is an obligation on every society to distribute those resources equitably, along with a corollary obligation upon every society to assure that its population does not place upon Nature a burden heavier than it can bear.
WE AFFIRM our responsibility to help create conditions which will make for peace and security and to help build more effective machinery for keeping peace among nations. Because the insensate accumulation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons under international supervision. We deplore the reliance on force to settle disputes between nation states and between rival groups within such states.
WE AFFIRM that the oceans are the common property of mankind whose dependence on their incomparable resources of nourishment and strength will, in the next century, become crucial for human survival, and that their exploitation should be so regulated as to serve the interests of the entire globe, and of future generations.
WE AFFIRM that the pollution flows with the waters and flies with the winds, that it recognizes no boundary lines and penetrates all defenses, that it works irreparable damage alike to Nature, and to Mankind – threatening with extinction the life of the seas, the flora and fauna of the earth, the health of the people in cities and the countryside alike – and that it can be adequately controlled only through international cooperation.
WE AFFIRM that the exploration and utilization of outer space is a matter equally important to all the nations of the globe and that no nation can be permitted to exploit or develop the potentialities of the planetary system exclusively for its own benefit.
WE AFFIRM that the economy of all nations is a seamless web, and that no one nation can any longer effectively maintain its processes of production and monetary systems without recognizing the necessity for collaborative regulation by international authorities.
WE AFFIRM that in a civilized society, the institutions of science and the arts are never at war and call upon all nations to exempt these institutions from the claims of chauvinistic nationalism and to foster that great community of learning and creativity whose benign function is to advance civilization and the health and happiness of mankind.
WE AFFIRM that a world without law is a world without order, and we call upon all nations to strengthen and to sustain the United Nations and its specialized agencies, and other institutions of world order, and to broaden the jurisdiction of the World Court, that these may preside over a reign of law that will not only end wars but end as well that mindless violence which terrorizes our society even in times of peace.
We can no longer afford to make little plans, allow ourselves to be the captives of events and forces over which we have no control, consult our fears rather than our hopes. We call upon the American people, on the threshold of the third century of their national existence, to display once again that boldness, enterprise, magnanimity and vision which enabled the founders of our republic to bring forth a new nation and inaugurate a new era in human history. The fate of humanity hangs in the balance.
Throughout the globe, hearts and hopes wait upon us. We summon all Mankind to unite to meet the great challenge.
—Henry Steele Commager
WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL OF PHILADELPHIA 1975
October 24, 1975
And on that day on January 30, 1976 in the place of our nation's founding, 31 members of the US Senate (24 Democrats and 7 Republicans) and 98 members of the House of Representatives (88 Democrats and 10 Republicans) for a total of 129 members of our federal government signed this Declaration of Interdependence.
In addition to this, 35 heads of state and former heads of state signed, which included members from the United Nations, Fidelity Bank, university professors, non-government organizations (NGOs), and the US Secretary of Transportation William T. Coleman. The 10 board members from the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia also signed. Finally, 14 organizations became partners in this declaration including the Council on Foreign Relations, the American Bar Association, Members of Congress for Peace Through Law, the US Council of the International Chamber of Commerce, and the Girl Scouts.
It was also signed by several United Nations agencies which included:
Food And Agriculture Organization
Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization
International Atomic Energy Agency
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development—World Bank
International Civil Aviation Organization
International Court of Justice—World Court
International Development Association
International Finance Corporation
International Labor Organization
International Monetary Fund
International Telecommunications Union
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
United Nation‘s Children Fund
Universal Postal Union
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
At the bottom of the Commager's Declaration of Interdependence, it says this:
The Interdependence Assemblies, their concluding consultation, and Convocation will provide the initial 1976 program agenda for the Bicentennial era paralleling the thirteen years matching the period between 1776 and final adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1789.
The World Affairs Council of Philadelphia will expand its already well-established school program, and work to ensure that Declaration and its precepts will be included in the curricula and the texts of our schools. Starting with the schools of our region as a base, the prospects for national involvement are realistic and are being actively pursued. The National Education Association, Overseas Development Council, and Foreign Policy Association are assisting in this effort.
I have a question. What was written in 1989 — 13 years after 1976?
Could it have been the United Nations General Assembly resolution 44/228 of December 22, 1989 which was adopted after the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development?
What a lot of people don't realize is that the US Constitution was ratified 2 years after it was adopted. This was done when Rhode Island, the last of the original 13 colonies joined the United States.
On May 29, 1790, Rhode Island voted by two votes to ratify the document, and the last of the original 13 colonies joined the United States.
And just as they promised, paralleling the US Constitution and its adoption, a Constitution came from this Declaration of Interdependence 13 years later and was ratified 2 years after that. Only, it wasn't called a Constitution. The final title for this document was called Agenda 21.
Agenda 21
PREAMBLE
Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfillment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can - in a global partnership for sustainable development.
This global partnership must build on the premises of General Assembly resolution 44/228 of 22 December 1989, which was adopted when the nations of the world called for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, and on the acceptance of the need to take a balanced and integrated approach to environment and development questions.
Agenda 21 addresses the pressing problems of today and also aims at preparing the world for the challenges of the next century. It reflects a global consensus and political commitment at the highest level on development and environment cooperation. Its successful implementation is first and foremost the responsibility of Governments. National strategies, plans, policies and processes are crucial in achieving this. International cooperation should support and supplement such national efforts. In this context, the United Nations system has a key role to play. Other international, regional and sub-regional organizations are also called upon to contribute to this effort. The broadest public participation and the active involvement of the non-governmental organizations and other groups should also be encouraged.
The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development. Financial resources are also required for strengthening the capacity of international institutions for the implementation of Agenda 21. An indicative order-of-magnitude assessment of costs is included in each of the program areas. This assessment will need to be examined and refined by the relevant implementing agencies and organizations.
In the implementation of the relevant program areas identified in Agenda 21, special attention should be given to the particular circumstances facing the economies in transition. It must also be recognized that these countries are facing unprecedented challenges in transforming their economies, in some cases in the midst of considerable social and political tension.
The program areas that constitute Agenda 21 are described in terms of the basis for action, objectives, activities and means of implementation. Agenda 21 is a dynamic program. It will be carried out by the various actors according to the different situations, capacities and priorities of countries and regions in full respect of all the principles contained in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. It could evolve over time in the light of changing needs and circumstances. This process marks the beginning of a new global partnership for sustainable development.
The United Nations kept its word about mirroring history. Only this time it wasn't for the birth of a new nation full of promise, hope, and possibilities. Two hundred years later, they signed the document that would bring forth the birth of a New World Order.
We Walk In The Footsteps of the Past
I am going to divert for a moment. You see, this wasn't the only parallel we see taking place during this time period. What we are witnessing today isn't the first time this has happened. Just like the signing of the Declaration of Independence being recreated in order to birth a New World Order, we too are repeating history.
The President at that time was one Gerald Ford. He became Vice President of the United States after the previous one, Spiro Agnew, resigned from office and became president after President Richard Nixon resigned due to the Watergate Scandal.
GOREY: Did Nixon authorize the Watergate bugging?
NEAL: No. The tapes show some surprise on Nixon's part when he was told of the break-in. For instance, on the June 23, 1972 tape [Nixon asked Haldeman: "Who was the asshole that did it? Was it Liddy?"].
Q. Was Watergate something the Nixon men drifted into?
A. No. Watergate doesn't stand in isolation. There were a lot of other things going on of the same nature such as the Huston plan [to use break-ins, wiretaps and other illegal means to spy within the U.S.] and the Ellsberg breakin. Remember this: we had to show relevancy for every taped conversation that we obtained by subpoena. Were we so good that we got everything there was? Watergate goes back to the nature of the big man.
Q. You mean Nixon?
A. Yes, but more than Nixon too. It's the drift over the years to an all-powerful presidency. The tremendous power that has been marshaled in the White House pervades all who work there, resulting in an inability to put things in perspective. I think one of Haldeman's lines on the tape explains it better than anything. He was talking with Nixon when things were coming apart, and he said: "It was done for a higher good."
Q. Then this powerful presidency causes men to think whatever they do is justified?
A. In this case, it resulted in a willingness to use unacceptable means. There were constant reactions and overreactions.
Q. What do you think of the men you have brought to trial and the ones who have pleaded guilty?
A. These are not evil men. There was no one man in control. There was no czar. But men who become convinced their cause is just resort to means to attain it that they otherwise would not consider. For example, I can't conceive of any Government, any presidential Administration, letting a man like Liddy run around loose.
Internet Archive: Time: The Nation: It Goes Back to the Big Man
"There was no one man in control. There was no czar." Could there have been a group of men behind the scenes?
"It was done for a higher good." Whose higher good would that be?
"Did Nixon authorize the Watergate bugging? No. The tapes show some surprise on Nixon's part..." Was Nixon set up? Was he needed to be removed so that someone else could take his place? Someone who had just replaced the previous Vice President?
One thing to note, no one really knows why the wiretapping took place to begin with. There was never any explanation given for the need to do it or the purpose behind it. What were they looking for?
Richard Nixon started his political career as a Congressman on the House Un-American Activities Committee.
On the morning of August 3, 1948, the House Un-American Activities Committee's chief investigator, Robert Sterling, took [Whittaker] Chambers to a closed hearing room to being the interrogation. First question: Had Chambers been "aware at any time when you were a member of the Communist Party of a so-called espionage ring that was being set up or functioning in Washington?"
"No, I was not," Chambers replied.
That was a bald-faced lie. But when the committee convened in public that morning, before a crowd of reporters and photographers in the Ways and Means Committee hearing room, the biggest public arena on Capitol Hill, Chambers changed his story. He said he had belonged to "an underground organization of the United States Communist Party" from 1932 to 1938. He named eight members of the ring. The most recognizable name by far was Alger Hiss.
"The purpose of this group at that time was not primarily espionage," Chambers said. "Its original purpose was the Communist infiltration of the American government. But espionage was certainly one of its eventual objectives." This was a crucial point. Infiltration and invisible political influence were immoral, but arguably not illegal. Espionage was treason, traditionally punishable by death.
The distinction was not lost on the cleverest member of the [House Un-American Activities Committee], Congressmen Richard Nixon asked Chambers the most pointed question that day. He knew the right questions to ask because he knew the answers in advance. He had been studying the FBI's files for five months, courtesy of J. Edgar Hoover, Nixon launched his political career in hot pursuit of [Alger] Hiss and the secret Communists of the New Deal.
Truman derided Red-hunters like Nixon and he denounced the pursuit of [Alger] Hiss. But he never once criticized Hoover in public. He would not have dared.
Richard Nixon started out his political career hunting down the very communists who created and wrote the United Nations Charter. He later was forced to resign because of the Watergate Scandal, which he seemingly had no knowledge of its existence until he was accused. President Nixon's reputation was in tatters due to the media. And the man who was president during the signing of the Declaration of Interdependence in 1976, the very man who gave the cabinet position of Secretary of Transportation to William T. Coleman whose signature appears on that document, took his place.
These are not the only parallels that took place at that time.
President Gerald Ford's nominated Nelson Rockefeller, John D. Rockefeller's son, to the position of Vice President of the United States.
This land where the United Nations Headquarters now sits in New York was originally owned by a prominent real estate developer named William "Bill" Zeckendorf. As the story goes, Nelson Rockefeller, on behalf of the United Nations, went to Zeckendorf with an offer to buy the property, Zeckendorf agreed, and Nelson's father John D Rockefeller Jr., donated the money to the United Nations in order to finance the purchase of the land. While this story is usually presented as just another selfless act of charity by the Rockefellers, there is some evidence to suggest that there were ulterior benefits associated with his donation.
Connecting the Agenda: Connecting the Rockefellers to the United Nations
Henry Kissinger, who was appointed as Secretary of State under President Nixon, retained his position. Prior to this he was the National Security Advisor.
In 1974 while he was the National Security Advisor under President Nixon, Kissinger authored the famed National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200), or simply the Kissinger Report. In it he states:
Policies to reduce fertility will have their main effects on total numbers only after several decades. However, if future numbers are to be kept within reasonable bounds, it is urgent that measures to reduce fertility be started and made effective in the 1970's and 1980's. Moreover, programs started now to reduce birth rates will have short run advantages for developing countries in lowered demands on food, health and educational and other services and in enlarged capacity to contribute to productive investments, thus accelerating development.
Under the Kissinger Report's policy recommendations, it says:
Coordination among the bilateral donors and multilateral organizations is vital to any effort to moderate population growth. Each kind of effort will be needed for worldwide results.
While specific goals in this area are difficult to state, our aim should be for the world to achieve a replacement level of fertility, (a two- child family on the average), by about the year 2000. This will require the present 2 percent growth rate to decline to 1.7 percent within a decade and to 1.1 percent by 2000 compared to the U.N medium projection, this goal would result in 500 million fewer people in 2000 and about 3 billion fewer in 2050. Attainment of this goal will require greatly intensified population programs. A basis for developing national population growth control targets to achieve this world target is contained in the World Population Plan of Action.
The World Population Plan of Action is not self-enforcing and will require vigorous efforts by interested countries, U.N. agencies and other international bodies to make it effective. U.S. leadership is essential.
If you are wondering what the World Population Plan of Action is, it was developed by the United Nations in August 1974 at the United Nations World Population Conference.
The World Population Plan of Action and the resolutions adopted by consensus by 137 nations at the August 1974 U.N. World Population Conference, though not ideal, provide an excellent framework for developing a worldwide system of population/ family planning programs. We should use them to generate U.N. agency and national leadership for an all-out effort to lower growth rates. Constructive action by the U.S. will further our objectives.
If you are wondering who was the American Ambassador to the United Nations at this time, it was George H. W. Bush.
Also in 1974, there was a horrible recession going on in the country. In response to this, a campaign was launched. People were asked to wear "WIN" buttons. WIN stood for Whip Inflation Now. Americans were asked to voluntarily reduce spending and consumption. The reality was that this was nothing more than a publicity stunt, a public relations gimmick, meant to fool Americans into thinking action was being taken when the reality was that none of the measures being taken would actually reduce inflation.
Doesn't Agenda 21 call for the world to reduce their spending and consumption?
During Ford's presidency in 1976, there was a swine flu outbreak at Fort Dix. From its onset, it was called a pandemic. However, this pandemic only resulted in a total of 13 men being hospitalized and one death. The Centers for Disease Control, along with the United Nation's World Health Organization, immediately called for the mass vaccination of the American people.
Here are the excerpts from a timeline of events:
February 20, 1976 – BoB hosts open workshop in Bethesda, Maryland, with representatives from the Armed Forces Epidemiological Board (AFEB), NTAID, CDC, the press, the scientific community, and all four vaccine manufacturing companies; conferees discuss preparations for a swine flu immunization campaign; second meeting held in the afternoon to discuss surveillance plans
March 13, 1976 – Sencer finishes action-memorandum which he had prepared in the previous two days; memo calls for mass immunization campaign aimed at vaccinating all Americans, and recommends that Administration ask Congress for $134 million appropriation; proposes plan with Federal Government buying and testing the vaccine and setting dosage levels, the states distributing the vaccine, and public health agencies and private physicians administering it
March 22, 1976 – President meets with Mathews, Cooper and Dickson from HEW, Lynn and O'Neill from OMB, and Cavanaugh, James Cannon, Richard Cheney, and Spencer Johnson from the White House to discuss swine virus finding; mass vaccination program is recommended to the President, but he postpones decision until he meets with leading scientists; schedules meeting for Wednesday, the 24th
March 24, 1976 – President meets at White House with "blue-ribbon" panel of experts, including Dr. Jonas Salk, Dr. Albert Sabin, Dr. Fred Davenport, Kilbourne, Dr. Reuel Stallones, Sencer, and Meyer; following meeting, President goes before television cameras to announce that he is recommending a mass vaccination program for all Americans and urges that Congress immediately pass a special $135 million appropriation; afterwards, Mathews and Cooper conduct press conference
March 25, 1976 – BoB hosts open workshop in Bethesda; conferees include HEW officials, scientists from CDC, NIAID, Department of Defense (DoD), and Veterans Administration (VA), university investigators, and drug company representatives, among others; group reviews developments relevant to program; vaccine trials discussed
April 8, 1976 – An unidentified senior official of the Federal Insurance Company (Chubb Corporation) advises corporate headquarters of Merck, the parent company of Merck, Sharp & Dohme (one of the vaccine manufacturers), that effective July 1 it will exclude from Merck's product liability coverage all indemnity and defense costs associated with claims arising out of the swine flu program
April 12, 1976 – T. Lawrence Jones, president of the American Insurance Association (casualty insurers), meets with Lynn of OMB; at end of session, Jones mentions that the insurance industry will not insure the manufacturers for swine vaccine unless the Government extends further liability protection
April 15, 1976 – NIAID hosts workshop in Bethesda to discuss plans for flu vaccine trials
May 1, 1976 – other manufacturers of swine flu vaccine (Merrell, Parke-Davis, Wyeth) receive notice from casualty insurers about cancellation of liability coverage for swine vaccine
May 5, 1976 – at a meeting between OGC negotiators and attorneys for the drug companies, Stanley Temko, counsel to Merck, urges Administration to press for legislation which would indemnify the manufacturers for all costs not directly tied to their own negligence in production
June 14, 1976 – Parke-Davis executive writes to Cooper, warns that his company may lose insurance coverage on July 1 if not fully relieved of liability for vaccine damage; states unwillingness of Parke-Davis to self-insure
June 16, 1976 – CBS Evening News reports the manufacturers have given the Government notice that they will no longer be insured for production of swine vaccine as of July 1, and that the insurers are reluctant to extend such coverage because "they fear the costs involved in defending against claims resulting from unforeseen side effects"
July 12, 1976 – after three years of proceedings the FDA Administrator dismisses Dr. J. Anthony Morris, a researcher in BoB, charging insubordination and incompetent performance; Morris goes public, charging he is being punished for findings that cast doubt on safety of influenza vaccines and immunization
July 15, 1976 – CDC issues Revised Guidelines on Informed Consent, as well as Information Forms for monovalent and bivalent vaccine
July 20, 1976 – CDC sends letter to state health departments urging continuation of plans to vaccinate entire population; letter contains ACIP's recommendations on dosages for the 18-to-24 age group
September 2, 1976 – BoB approves first batches of vaccine for release
September 29, 1976 – CDC announces that immunization program will officially begin with vaccinations at the state fair in Indianapolis, Indiana
October 1, 1976 – first swine flu shots given
October 11, 1976 – three elderly Pittsburgh people die shortly after receiving inoculation at same clinic
October 12, 1976 – at a news conference in Atlanta, Sencer says CDC has sent epidemiologists to investigate, but that thus far there is no evidence to suggest the deaths were caused by vaccine
October 13, 1976 – body count begins; Millar issues press release saying that 14 persons in 9 states reportedly died after receiving shot; says numbers are well within range of the expected for first two weeks of the program and that no evidence has been found linking any of the deaths with vaccine
October 14, 1976 – 33 persons now reported as having died following vaccination
October 14, 1976 – President and family receive shots before television cameras
October 14, 1976 – on his network radio broadcast, Walter Cronkite chides news media for coverage of Pittsburgh deaths
November 12, 1976 – Millar writes to states, informing them of invigorated "Awareness" campaign
November 12, 1976 – case of Guillain-Barré syndrome in Minnesota vaccine
November 24, 1976 – Denton Peterson, Immunization Program Representative in the Minnesota Department of Health, calls CDC to discuss case of Guillain-Barré syndrome in vaccine
December 2, 1976 – Minnesota reports three additional cases of Guillain-Barré at same time as Alabama reports three cases; CDC begins investigation
December 9, 1976 – Lyle Conrad, assistant director of the Immunization Division at CDC, announces that measles cases are up 64 nationwide from last year; blames the swine flu program, which he claims has diverted resources from more needy programs
December 11, 1976 – investigation of Guillain-Barré is extended to eleven states
December 13, 1976 – Sencer makes a conference call to outside experts; reports preliminary data on the association of Guillain-Barré with the vaccine, and seeks their opinions; consensus is that program should not be halted
December 14, 1976 – CDC issues press release on Guillain-Barré; says that 54 cases in 10 states have thus far been reported, and of the 54, 30 received shot anywhere from one to thirty days before onset of symptoms
National Library of Medicine: The Swine Flu Affair: Decision-Making on a Slippery Disease
You should read the entire timeline for yourself. However, the deaths from the vaccines outweighed that of the illness. The result lifelong vaccine injuries far exceeded the number of people who became ill with the swine flu. The Centers for Disease Control refused to halt the vaccine programs despite these reports. Doctors were ostracized for speaking out about the vaccine. Insurance companies refused to insure the products. Is any of this starting to sound all too familiar?
Ultimately, 25% of the American population took the vaccine in 1976. Was this a test run for Covid-19?
Agenda 21: The Agenda For The 21st Century
Rumble: Agenda 21 United Nations New World Order (Video)
An excerpt from the video's description:
Agenda 21 was decades in the making. The “21” in the name refers to the 21st Century. For the first time Introduced at the 1992 UN “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, President George H. Bush and leaders from 177 other nations, signed on to this “non-binding” UN action plan that was supposedly designed to assist governments at the local, national and international level the implementation of so-called “sustainable development.”
Rio+20 happened in 2012 at the United Nations Conference On Sustainable Development the attending members reaffirmed their commitment to Agenda 21 in their outcome document called “The Future We Want”. 180 nation leaders participated.
At the Sustainable Development Summit in 2015, Agenda 2030 was introduced. Agenda 2030, also known as the Sustainable Development Goals, was a set of goals decided upon at the UN Sustainable Development Summit in 2015.
Agenda 21 was introduced to the U.S. legislation in 1993 when President Clinton quietly established the President’s Council On Sustainable Development (PCSD). The PCSD codified Agenda 21 into U.S. policy through a program called Sustainable America. Today, nearly all federal programs dealing with land management, education, environment and much more are linked to Agenda 21 through Sustainable America. Let me say this again. Today, nearly all federal programs dealing with land management, education, environment and much more are linked to Agenda 21 through Sustainable America.
I would read the rest of the video's description and watch the video itself. There is a lot of good information in it.
It is a lot harder to build people up than it is to destroy and subjugate them.
To be continued in Part 3...
Questions we should be asking ourselves.
Is our US Constitution still in affect? What moves were taken to protect it?
Who controls the United States military? How many wars has the UN sent US soldiers to fight in? Is the US funding Ukraine because of the UN?
Is there a way, an action plan that could be implemented, to take our country back? (Hint: Yes. Yes, there is.)
Sources and Further Reading:
United Nations System (Organizational Chart)
The PrussiaGate Substack
Just incredible, the information you have dug up and put together! Especially the UN and its role and how its all tied together. Just wow!!