Agenda 21 is Build Back Better is Agenda 30 and it means euthanizing the olds which is one reason the Scorpion Owners threw a pandemic and murdered the elderly with shots and hospital protocols

Entry level Red Pilling for Normies: "Reducing the number of people that are 'dependency burdens'"

File this away before we launch this massive post.

This is from Tape 2 of 4.

Day Tapes: 1, 2, 3, 4.

FALSIFIED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

    Somewhere in this connection, then, was the statement admitting that some scientific research data could be - and indeed has been - falsified in order to bring about desired results. And here was said, "People don't ask the right questions. Some people are too trusting."

Now this was an interesting statement because the speaker and the audience all being doctors of medicine and supposedly very objectively, dispassionately scientific and science being the be all and end-all ... well to falsify scientific research data in that setting is like blasphemy in the church ... you just don't do that.

Anyhow, out of all of this was to come the New International Governing Body, probably to come through the U.N . and with a World Court, but not necessarily through those structures. It could be brought about in other ways. Acceptance of the U.N . at that time was seen as not being as wide as was hoped. Efforts would continue to give the United Nations increasing importance. People would be more and more used to the idea of relinquishing some national sovereignty.

1969

---

1992

Agenda 21 is a voluntary action plan developed by the United Nations (UN) and national governments to address environmental issues and promote sustainable development: 

• Goals

  Agenda 21 aims to combat poverty and pollution, conserve natural resources, and develop sustainably. It also seeks to prepare the world for future challenges. 

• Adoption

  The plan was adopted by more than 178 governments at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 

• Implementation

  The plan is to be implemented globally, nationally, and locally by governments, UN System organizations, and Major Groups. 

• Follow-up

  The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was established in 1992 to monitor and report on the implementation of the plan. 

• Review

  The United Nations General Assembly held a special session in 1997 to review the progress of the Earth Summit. 

• Reaffirmation

  The World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 reaffirmed the plan. 

---

Agenda 21, aka The Great Reset, aka Build Back Better, aka Agenda 30.

(2:02 video) of world leaders parroting “Build Back Better”.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is a 15-year plan adopted by the United Nations in 2015 to achieve a more sustainable world: 

• Goals

  The 2030 Agenda's 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a blueprint for ending poverty, protecting the planet, and tackling inequality. The SDGs include goals for ending hunger, providing quality education, achieving gender equality, and addressing climate change. 

• Principles

  The 2030 Agenda is based on the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and international human rights treaties. It emphasizes the responsibility of all states to respect, protect, and promote human rights. 

• Vision

  The 2030 Agenda envisions a world where everyone has access to quality education and health care, and where the needs of the most vulnerable are met. 

• Timeline

  The 2030 Agenda is a roadmap to a better world by 2030. 

“to promote human rights”.

Okay. Here is a (9:54 video) that gives you a glimpse into the Real Reasons behind the Ostensible Reasons.

Science would be falsified, said Richard Day.

To achieve the goals of a One World Government needed to SAVE THE PLANET.

Many of the Hired Guns probably do believe in their mission.

Because…

KNOW HOW PEOPLE RESPOND - MAKING THEM DO WHAT YOU WANT

    Somewhere in the presentation he made two statements that I want to insert at this time. I don't remember just where they were made, but they're valid in terms of the general overall view.

One statement: "People can carry in their minds and act upon two contradictory ideas at one time, provided that these two contradictory ideas are kept far enough apart."

And the other statement is, "You can know pretty well how rational people are going to respond to certain circumstances or to certain information that they encounter. So, to determine the response you want you need only control the kind of data or information that they're presented or the kinds of circumstance that they're in; and being rational people they'll do what you want them to do. They may not fully understand what they're doing or why."

---

The following is top shelf persuasion and if they had not thrown a fake pandemic and murdered millions of Useless Eaters with “emergency medical countermeasures” pushed out by the United States Defense Dept. maybe I could believe that the Owners of the World really do wish to save us.

---

Agenda 21

This analysis if Agenda 21 was written eleven years ago.

http://www.connectingtheagenda.com/2013/11/a-critical-analysis-of-agenda-21-united.html

Here is a link to the Agenda 21 pdf:

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf

"Reducing the number of people that are 'dependency burdens', or unable to sustain themselves, and no longer useful to society, such as babies, and the elderly, seems to be the targeted groups marked"

 ☝️overlays thematically with the Day Tapes 👇

EUTHANASIA AND THE "DEMISE PILL"

 Everybody has a right to live only so long. The old are no longer useful. They become a burden. You should be ready to accept death. Most people are. An arbitrary age limit could be established. After all, you have a right to only so many steak dinners, so many orgasms, and so many good pleasures in life. And after you have had enough of them and you're no longer productive, working, and contributing, then you should be ready to step aside for the next generation.

---

Earth's Carrying Capacity

By using the phrase "Earth's carrying capacity", in Chapter Four, Section Eleven, the planners reveal their belief that there is a certain number of humans that this Earth can sustain, and express how they want to change society to be more in "harmony" with this arbitrary number they they have come up with, but do not actually reveal, in this particular document.

The Agenda also proclaims that there is a specific number of people, that can live on a specific size of land, to be in accordance with sustainable development.  This theory is referred to as having a "sustainable man/land ratio", in the Agenda. (Ch. 14, Sec. 3)  Specific numbers, in regards to what a proper man to land ratio would entail, are not mentioned in Agenda 21.

All of Chapter Five, "Demographic Dynamics and Sustainability", is about how the large number of humans, or "the growth of world population", is effecting the planet, and what they think needs to be done about it.  The planners want governments to include an agenda for human population control in all policies related to sustainable development, or a "full integration of population concerns into national planning, policy and decision-making processes" (Ch 5, Sec. 17):

"The human dimensions are key elements to consider in this intricate set of relationships and they should be adequately taken into consideration in comprehensive policies for sustainable development...Population policy should also recognize the role played by human beings in environmental and development concerns" (Ch. 5, Sec. 3)

If people could just pick up and leave the areas that are being effected by Agenda 21, it would hinder the ultimate plan, because of this, the United Nations sees the control of human movement, as an essential part of carrying out Agenda 21.  The document urges countries to consider "population policies and programmes" (Ch. 5, Sec. 17) which should "address the consequences of population growth built into population momentum."  The United Nations feels that population momentum, or people having the ability to move, is hurting the earth, therefore they feel the need to create regulations to control this.

Again, ☝️overlays precisely with the Day Tapes 👇

    This also had connection with something we'll get to later about overall restrictions on travel. Not everybody should be free to travel the way they do now in the United States. People don't have a need to travel that way. It's a privilege! It was kind of the high-handed the way it was put.

Again, much more in the way of psychological services would be made available to help those who got hooked on drugs and alcohol. The idea being, that in order to promote this - drug and alcohol abuse to screen out some of the unfit - people who are otherwise are pretty good also would also be subject to getting hooked. And if they were really worth their salt they would have enough sense to seek psychological counseling and to benefit from it. So this was presented as sort of a redeeming value on the part of the planners. It was as if he were saying, "you think we're bad in promoting these evil things - but look how nice we are - we're also providing a way out!"

I highly advocate for you to take a few hours and read through and listen to the Day Tapes as all the agendas are presented without the PR sheen.

And it is extremely, extremely sinister.

And I am 100% certain that a cull was performed with a falsified science “pandemic” and as a result, millions but especially the “dependent” elderly and disabled were murdered and fertility was trashed.

Former George H.W. Bush staffer Catherine Austin Fitts seems to specifically understand that this agenda was long-planned.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford public health economics expert, pushed the shots very hard for the elderly.

---

Transportation

Agenda 21 wants to make us "less dependent on the Earth's finite resources".  They will do this not by persuading us to buy hybrid vehicles, use less heat, or to walk more, but to increase the cost of energy, through fines and regulations, which will force us to change our lifestyles.

The planners believe that cars are hurting the Earth, and want to use propaganda techniques, similar to the ones previously discussed in the "Changed Lifestyles" section, to sell you on the idea that driving is bad, and taking public transportation is good:

"Raise public awareness of the environmental impacts of transport and travel behaviour through mass media campaigns and support for non-governmental and community initiatives promoting the use of non-motorized transport, shared driving and improved traffic safety measures;" (Ch. 7, Sec. 54-b)

Agenda 21 encourages countries to change laws, and regulations, in zoning, and development, to encourage public transportation use, thus discouraging private vehicle use.  Walking, and bicycling will also be encouraged, through zoning, and development, changes, by the addition of special lanes on roadways.  The Agenda uses pleasant sounding language to tell us how they would like to get us out of our vehicles, and into public transportation.  Here are a few examples, all from Chapter 7, Section 52:

• "Integrate land-use and transportation planning to encourage development patterns that reduce transport demand;"

• "Adopt urban-transport programmes favouring high-occupancy public transport"

• "Encourage non-motorized modes of transport by providing safe cycleways and footways in urban and suburban centres in countries, as appropriate; "

All of this sounds nice, but you have to think about it logically.  What will make someone give up the convenience of using their own vehicle, and use public transportation?  This decision will surely entail a sacrifice of some sort.  If taking a bus was better than taking a car, there would be much more people on the bus, and a lot less people in their cars, on the road, than there are now.  Giving up your personal vehicle, and relying on public transportation, requires much inconvenience, and not many people are willing to make that sacrifice.  This is why the Agenda plans to use laws, and regulations, that will force you out of your vehicle.

When the cost of owning a vehicle is too high, you are forced to use public transportation, which will limit you in your options of work, thus lowering your standard of living.  This is just one example, of many that can be provided, of how regulations, and laws, that result from Agenda 21, will impact your everyday life.

Human Settlements

Any movement of population that takes place will be highly controlled, and directed, by government regulations.  These so-called population policies, and programs, encouraged by the United Nations, will be used "to bring about demographic transition" (Ch. 5, Sec. 16), as it is referred to in Agenda 21, to reflect more of what the planners have envisioned.

The agenda plans to "expand areas under forest and tree cover," (Ch. 11, Sec. 12-a) by forcing people out of their quiet rural homes, and into crowded cities:

"As appropriate, they should also concentrate on activities aimed at facilitating the transition from rural to urban lifestyles and settlement patterns" (Ch. 7, Sec. 19)

1. This is 15-minute cities. Potentially Trump’s “Freedom Cities”, and

2. The Day Tapes agendas were the precursor yet again 👇

SHIFTING POPULATIONS AND ECONOMIES -- TEARING THE SOCIAL ROOTS

    And along this line there were talks about people losing their jobs as a result of industry and opportunities for retraining, and particularly population shifts would be brought about.

This is sort of an aside. I think I'll explore the aside before I forget it -population shifts were to be brought about so that people would be tending to move into the Sun Belt. They would be sort of people without roots in their new locations, and traditions are easier to change in a place where there are a lot of transplanted people, as compared to trying to change traditions in a place where people grew up and had an extended family, where they had roots.

Things like new medical care systems, if you pick up from a Northeast industrial city and you transplant yourself to the South Sunbelt or Southwest, you'll be more accepting of whatever kind of, for example, controlled medical care you find there than you would accept a change in the medical care system where you had roots and the support of your family.

Also in this vein it was mentioned (he used the plural personal pronoun we) we take control first of the port cities - New York, San Francisco, Seattle - the idea being that this is a piece of strategy, the idea being that if you control the port cities with your philosophy and your way of life, the heartland in between has to yield.

I can't elaborate more on that but it is interesting. If you look around the most liberal areas of the country and progressively so are the sea coast cities. The heartland, the Midwest, does seem to have maintained its conservatism. But as you take away industry and jobs and relocate people then this is a strategy to break down conservatism.

When you take away industry and people are unemployed and poor they will accept whatever change seems, to offer them survival, and their morals and their commitment to things will all give way to survival. That's not my philosophy, that's the speaker's philosophy.

Just a teaser for the eleven people who have the curiosity to dig this far.

I have been reviewing the events of 2015-2016 and the rollout presentations of the manufactured misery that is designed to implore the winners of the race to accept that poor people are suffering and cannot be allowed to keep living like this.

☝️Channel launched in May, 2016.

And I believe that this is why you got the JD Vance book Hillbilly Elegy, encouraged and then funded by Billionaire Data Mining Peter Thiel, and the subsequent movie based on the book, and why Vice Presidential candidate JD Vance was anointed into your Brain Vector to potentially run the Quickening, 2.

Anyway, more to come on this.

Massive post that I cannot seem to edit down into coherence.

There are more than a couple big time thematic YouTube channels that emerged in the 2016-era as the planned pandemic loomed. The pieces were being put in place.

---

I believe that this is an attempt to make the case for the agendas of poverty and population reduction and I also believe that the problems were largely created to put people into poverty.

The moving of industry out of the United States was a staple plan in the Day Tapes.

Thus if people are suffering, they should not be having more children and thus for the greater good, putting them down may be the nicest thing to do and to do so slowly and humanely with cancer shots and then come back later and say whoops…Dolts Botching Shit.

This kinder softer eugenics and euthanasia 2 3 mindset continues on right on through to today’s Laser Pointer Entertainment.

---

Back to the Agenda 21 analysis.

This forced change will be brought about by causing an increase in the cost of water, sanitation, and other essentials, to higher income neighborhoods, thus making it too expensive to live in these areas:

"Reducing subsidies on, and recovering the full costs of, environmental and other services of high standard (e.g. water supply, sanitation, waste collection, roads, telecommunications) provided to higher income neighbourhoods;"  (Ch. 7, Sec. 16-ci) 

People will be forced into, what the Agenda refers to as, "human settlement" areas, which will help transition these populations to new living areas, where your "resource needs, waste production, and ecosystem health" will be controlled by government:

"In formulating human settlements policies, account should be taken of resource needs, waste production and ecosystem health." (Ch. 5, Sec. 29)

The eventual goal of this forced population movement into human settlement areas is to get rid of private property, and have all land accessible, and owned, collectively, by the community:

"ensure access to land to all households and, where appropriate, the encouragement of communally and collectively owned and managed land."  (Ch. 7, Sec. 28)

👇

---

Dependency Burdens

Even with a successful human settlement policy for the world, there would still be too many people on Earth for the United Nations to control, or to live under "sustainable development", therefore Agenda 21 finds it necessary to reduce the world's population.  Reducing the number of people that are  "dependency burdens", or unable to sustain themselves, and no longer useful to society, such as babies, and the elderly, seems to be the targeted groups marked for culling, by the planners.

"An assessment should be made of the implications of the age structure of the population on resource demand and dependency burdens, ranging from educational expenses for the young to health care and support for the elderly, and on household income generation. " (Ch. 5, Sec. 22)

One way that Agenda 21 looks to push their program for de-population, is under the guise of "women's rights":

"Population policies and programmes should be considered, with full recognition of women's rights." [emphasis added] (Ch. 5, Sec. 17)

Convincing women to have less children, or hopefully no children at all, is part of the grand plan of Agenda 21.   Having all nations recognize a woman's right to birth control, including abortion, is a main goal of Agenda 21, in terms of population control, though not explicitly stated in that manner.  The terms "birth control", and "abortion", are not actually used, however these concepts are alluded to by recommendations that "reproductive health programmes and services, should...enable women and men to fulfil their personal aspirations in terms of family size", (Ch. 5, Sec. 16) as well as other recommendations that:

• "ensure that women and men have the same right to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children" (Ch. 3, Sec. 8-j)

• "population/environment programmes must enable women to mobilize themselves to alleviate their burden." [emphasis added] (Ch. 5, Sec. 48)

The planners state that many women "lack the means of...responsibly controlling their reproductive life" (Ch. 6, Sec. 21), and want to provide, for women who may not be "responsible" with the number of children they have, options to "alleviate their burden".

As previously stated, the elderly are considered "dependency burdens", for the "resource demand" they require, due to their need for "health care and support", according to Chapter 5, Section 22.  Keeping the elderly alive requires resources, that the planners feel could be used for better purposes.  The only thing that gets in the way of just letting the elderly die, and saving these resources, is the family members, who love their relative, and want everything to be done to keep them alive.  This is why Agenda 21 purposes "institutional changes" that would strip the family from having the right to decide on their elderly relative's fate:

"Proposals should be developed for local, national and international population/environment programmes in line with specific needs for achieving sustainability. Where appropriate, institutional changes must be implemented so that old-age security does not entirely depend on input from family members." [emphasis added]  (Ch. 5, Sec. 56)

Controlling Disease

It will not only be the young, the elderly, and women, that will have the the United Nations involved with their health care, but Agenda 21 has a goal to achieve "Health For All" (Ch. 6, Sec 8).  This is another pleasant sounding term, that is never really defined, but is alluded to in Chapter 6, Section 3, as the idea that the United Nations wants everyone to have:

"a safe water supply...sanitation...a safe food supply...proper nutrition...promotion of immunization and provision of essential drugs...responsible planning of family size" 

Keep in mind that this is a group of un-elected politicians, at a global level, who think they know what the "responsible" number of people is, that you should have in your family.

Vaccinations, though held as controversial by many, will play a major role in this plan for "Health For All", as Agenda 21 looks to "implement to the fullest extent possible the use of vaccines in the prevention of disease. " (Ch 6., Sec. 12-l)  The Agenda also looks to "develop and make widely available new and improved vaccines", including "intensifying efforts directed at the vaccines needed to combat common diseases of children."

Cholera is a disease that the United Nations singles out under their "control of communicable diseases" section. (Ch. 6, Sec. 10)  Ironically, the United Nations is accused of actually bringing cholera to Haiti, effecting many Haitians, and is currently, at the time of this report being published, involved in a lawsuit, as a result of that incident.

The planners have an interesting way of expressing their belief that your opinion may be heard on matters, such as biotechnology application, but not necessary.  Agenda 21 is being implemented with your tax money, and you don't get to vote on it, however, to make you feel good, the planners will allow you to go to their controlled, scripted meetings, where you are able to make an "informed comment."

"National mechanisms to allow for informed comment by the public with regard to biotechnology research and application should be part of the process."  (Ch. 16, Sec. 37)

Data Collection 

The mass collection of data is an integral part of Agenda 21.  The planners want to collect data on EVERY RESOURCE in the world, including water, land, forests, soil, energy, food, even humans, and much more.  The reader will find that nearly every chapter of Agenda 21 has a section in it, that has something to do with data collection, such as Chapter 14 "Promoting Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development", which has a goal to "process, store and analyse animal genetic data at the global level." (Ch. 14, Sec. 68-b)

Day Tapes:

TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS AND IMPLANTED I.D.

    Travel, instead of being easy for old folks, travel then would become very restricted. People would need permission to travel and they would need a good reason to travel. If you didn't have a good reason for your travel you would not be allowed to travel, and everyone would need ID. This would at first be an ID card you would carry on your person and you must show when you are asked for it.

It was already planned that later on some sort of device would be developed to be implanted under the skin that would be coded specifically to identify the individual. This would eliminate the possibility of false ID and also eliminate the possibility of people saying "Well, I lost my ID." The difficulty about these skin implant that ID was stated to be getting material that would stay in or under the skin without causing foreign body reaction whereby the body would reject it or cause infection, and that this would have to be material on which information could be recorded and retrieved by some sort of scanner while it was not rejected by the body.

Silicon was mentioned. Silicon at that time was thought to be well tolerated. It was used to augment breasts. Women who felt their breasts were too small would get silicon implants, and I guess that still goes on. At any rate silicon was seen at that time as the promising material to do both: to be retained in the body without rejection and to be able to retain information retrievable by electronic means.

Surveillance

There was more discussion of personal surveillance. One more thing was said, "You'll be watching television and somebody will be watching you at the same time at a central monitoring station." Television sets would have a device to enable this. The T.V. set would not have to be on in order for this to be operative. Also, the television set can be used to monitor what you are watching. People can tell what you're watching on TV and how you're reacting to what you're watching. And you would not know that you were being watched while you were watching your television.

---

There was some discussion of audio monitors, too, just in case the authorities wanted to hear what was going on in rooms other than where the television monitor was, and in regard to this the statement was made, "Any wire that went into your house, for example your telephone wire, could be used this way.

I remember this in particular because it was fairly near the end of the presentation and as we were leaving the meeting place I said something to one of my colleagues about going home and pulling all of the wires out of my house.. except I knew I couldn't get by without the telephone. And the colleague I spoke to just seemed numb. To this day I don't think he even remembers what we talked about or what we hear that time, cause I've asked him. But at that time he seemed stunned.

HOME OWNERSHIP A THING OF THE PAST

    Privately owned housing would become a thing of the past. The cost of housing and financing housing would gradually be made so high that most people couldn't afford it. People who already owned their houses would be allowed to keep them but as years go by it would be more and more difficult for young people to buy a house. Young people would more and more become renters, particularly in apartments or condominiums.

---

Thanks for reading and hanging out.

The Agendas did not change.

The Ostensible Reasons will be seductively placed upon you by very Clever People.

These people will be one degree of separation from the Owners.

Some believe in their mission, of that I am now sure.

Some just want to rule the world.

---

https://ko-fi.com/sagehanaproductions64182

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/sagehanaJ