Arterial Disease After Booster
Tuesday, April 30, 2024
British PM Rishi Sunak - WEF Front Man
Would-Be British PM Rishi Sunak – WEF Front Man
BY NATALIE WINTERSRAHEEM J. KASSAM
via The National Pulse
Former British finance minister Rishi Sunak – a frontrunner to become Britain’s next Prime Minister – has family ties to a technology partner of the World Economic Forum that has advocated for a Chinese Communist Party-style economy complete with trackable, digital identities and currency.
Sunak, who topped the second round of voting by Conservative Members of Parliament (MP) in the Tory leadership race on July 15th following Boris Johnson’s resignation, is widely considered the “neoliberal” or “globalist” candidate.
The father of Sunak’s wife Akshata Murthy is the founder of Infosys, an Indian information technology company that provides services to a host of Fortune 500 companies and banks. One of the company’s leading services is Finacle, a digital banking platform. Murthy remains a foreign citizen with “non dom” i.e. non UK tax-paying status despite her husband’s work as Britain’s most senior finance chief, and expectation of becoming Prime Minister.
Infosys is listed as an official partner of the World Economic Forum (WEF), which has been accused of seeking to develop the technological infrastructure to implement a global “social credit score” system.
Social credit scores have been used by authoritarian regimes to deny rights and restrict the movements of individuals who fail to comply with diktats. For the World Economic Forum, social credit priorities would likely focus on left-wing social issues like climate change, diversity, and equity.
Klaus Schwab’s Candidate.
Far from being a silent partner, InfoSys has earned praise from the WEF, being dubbed a “global leader in next-generation digital services and consulting.”
“With three decades of experience in managing the systems and workings of global enterprises, it steers clients through their digital journey by enabling them with an artificial intelligence-powered core that helps prioritize the execution of change…”
– WEF on the Sunak-linked InfoSys
Several Infosys executives have also contributed articles to the WEF website, including the company’s Global Head, President, and Chief Compliance Officer.
Infosys President Mohit Joshi has penned articles for the site in favor of digital banking, which provides the technological framework for the “social credit score” system the WEF has come under scrutiny for attempting to effectuate across the world.
Joshi echoes these sentiments in an article for the WEF from August 2020: “Why it’s time to take central banks’ digital currencies seriously.”
“What is clear is that the crisis of COVID-19 presents many challenges – but also a unique opportunity to rethink how money is managed and used in our society,” he asks.
“There also credible concerns that paper money can transmit the virus,” he claimed before asking:
“Who then can blame the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) when it announced in February that it would be destroying cash collected in high-risk environments, such as public transport, markets or in hospitals?”
“Digital currencies could remove the cumbersome operational and security apparatus which surround conventional forms of money transmission,” continues his article, before claiming “there are political and social benefits as well.”
China’s Candidate.
“The potential for China here is immense. If the e-RMB is adopted broadly as a system to streamline trade and reduce risk, China could become the world’s trade banker, as well as its factory. Yet the bigger goal for China is actually more local, and relates to financial inclusion. Digitising the RMB will grant access to financial services to hundreds of millions of citizens, including some of the most disadvantaged. This benefit is something that can be applied to any country across the world,” continues the article, which also revealed that Infosys is contributing to digitization efforts.
Another op-ed by Joshi – “Digital identity can help advance inclusive financial services” – advocates for granting every person a “unique digital identity” to conduct financial transactions. He points to the Chinese Communist Party as a successful example of this policy:
“The Chinese government in Zhejiang Province has developed an “enterprise digital code” for just this purpose, responding to small and mediums banks (SMBs) with easy-to-access financial resources. MYBank, a subsidiary of Ant Financial, the Chinese Big Tech firm, collaborates with the Chinese government through this scheme to provide cheap loans and other financial products to SMBs.”
He also calls for the creation of a “digital stability board” to regulate all payments.
“This “digital stability board” would give members the platform to share best practices and monitor risks in digital commerce and health care, for instance. With this board in place, data trusts could be built to manage individuals’ and SMBs’ data,” he explains.
Infosys is also a member of the WEF’s Partnering Against Corruption Initiative (PACI), which includes cross-industry representatives from the world’s largest corporations. The National Pulse recently exposed how the initiative, which purports to fight for transparency in business practices, is the former CEO of Reuters who now serves as a board member at COVID-19 vaccine maker Pfizer.
Its leaders are also involved with different WEF sub-groups, such as the Global Head of Sustainability and Design Consulting Services Corey Glickman, who is a member of the WEF Pioneer Cities working group.
Sunak himself has a history of being soft on China, telling the Telegraph that he wanted a “complete sea change” in relations with the Chinese Communist Party in favor of increased trade ties and economic collaboration. China, in turn, has endorsed Sunak’s candidacy.
Monday, April 29, 2024
After the Flood - The Genealogical History of England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and the Nordic Countries
https://www.creationism.org/books/CooperAfterFlood/index.htm
'When all men were of one language, some of them built a high tower, as if they would thereby ascend up to heaven; but the gods sent storms of wind and overthrew the tower, and gave everyone his peculiar language; and for this reason it was that the city was called Babylon....After this they were dispersed abroad, on account of their languages, and went out by colonies everywhere; and each colony took possession of that land which they lighted upon, and unto which God led them; so that the whole continent was filled with them, both the inland and maritime countries. There were some also who passed over the sea in ships, and inhabited the islands; and some of these nations do still retain the names which were given to them by their first founders; but some also have lost them...The Sybil (Josephus. Antiq. i. 5.)
Sunday, April 28, 2024
Saturday, April 27, 2024
The Conscious Resistance Network: September UN Summit Pact on Road to World Government
The Summit of the Future and the Pact for the Future Will Rapidly Expand the Technocratic Takeover
The United Nations will meet in September for the 79th session of the UN General Assembly, as well as the highly-anticipated “Summit of the Future” where nations will sign the so-called “Pact for the Future”. The Pact is expected to call for declaring a “planetary emergency”. What does this agreement and its policies mean for the future of individual and national sovereignty?
By the end of September, the United Nations member states may vote to radically alter the UN itself, what some are calling UN 2.0, and the very nature of how nation-states make decisions regarding the future of the planet. The UN will convene for the 79th session of the General Assembly in New York City starting on September 10th in New York City. The high-level general debate will begin on the 24th of September.
Although the UNGA is an annual meeting, this year’s gathering will be unique because of the addition of the Summit o the Future, a UN sponsored event taking place in NYC on the 22nd and 23rd of September. The summit has been in the making since at least 2022. It is the latest attempt by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to “rally the troops”, and garner more support for a rapid completion of the Agenda 2030 goals set by the UN in 2015.
In May 2023, Guterres revealed that efforts to complete Agenda 2030, and the corresponding Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), were failing. Guterrres warned that only 12 percent of the SDGs were on track to be completed. He said progress on 50 percent of the goals is “weak and insufficient”, while 30 percent of the SDGs have “stalled or gone into reverse”. He predicted that if the current trend holds only 30 percent of nations will accomplish SDG1, focused on poverty, by 2030.
Guterres called for “greater multilateral support for the UN development system and decisive action at the 2024 Summit of the Future”.
“I urge you to study the report and implement its proposals,” Guterres stated. “This will be a moment of truth, and of reckoning. It must also be a moment of hope – when we unite to turn the tide and kickstart a new drive for SDG achievement.”
Our Common Agenda: The Summit for the Future
In June 2020, as the United Nations marked the 75th Anniversary of the creation of the international body, member states released a declaration that included 12 overarching commitments relating to Agenda 2030 and a call for Secretary-General Guterrres to issue his own set of recommendations for achieving the goals. This declaration included statements like “We will leave no one behind” and “We are determined to implement the 2030 Agenda in full and on time. There is no alternative“.
In September 2021, the Secretary-General responded with his report, Our Common Agenda, which called for accelerating the implementation of the SDGs and the commitments contained in the UN75 Declaration. Our Common Agenda also called for a Summit of the Future to “forge a new global consensus on readying ourselves for a future that is rife with risks but also opportunities”. The UNGA agreed to hold the Summit on September 22nd and 23rd of this year.
The Common Agenda report called for a “renewal of trust and solidarity at all levels – between peoples, countries and generations”. The report also called for a “fundamental rethink” of our political, economic and social systems “so that they deliver more fairly and effectively for everyone”. Finally, the report recommended a “renewal of the multilateral system” and stated that the Summit of the Future would be the “defining moment” to set new agreements for these goals.
The UN website dedicated to The Common Agenda states, “Our Common Agenda is an agenda of action, designed to strengthen and accelerate multilateral agreements – particularly the 2030 Agenda – and make a tangible difference in people’s lives.”
Secretary-General Guterres’ Our Common Agenda report was the direct inspiration for the upcoming Summit for the Future. The Summit will continue the push for nations to “reaffirm existing commitments” to the SDGs and the UN Charter. Member states will be expected to build on the outcomes of the 2023 SDG Summit and “breathe new life into the multilateral system” to accomplish the Agenda 2030.
According to the Summit for the Future website, the summit is a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” to address gaps in global governance. “Multilateral governance, designed in simpler, slower times, is not adequate to today’s complex, interconnected, rapidly changing world,” the website states.
Additionally, a UN document on the Summit of the Future titled, What Would it Deliver?, discusses the concept of an updated UN, or “UN 2.0”, and what it would be mean for the future.
“’UN 2.0′ is about upgraded expertise in innovation, data, digital, foresight, and behavioural science to enhance UN System results, help build similar Member State expertise, and accelerate shared progress towards the SDGs.”
The document also calls for “A Global Financial System That Works For All”.
“A transformed international financial architecture is fit for purpose, more inclusive, just, representative, effective, and resilient, responsive to the world today rather than as it looked following the Second World War. This architecture invests up-front in SDGs, climate action, and future generations.”
These calls mirror similar ones made during the “Summit for a New Global Financing Pact” held in Paris, France in June 2023. The Summit, led by French President Emmanuel Macron, welcomed 50 heads of state, representatives of NGOs and civil society organizations to discuss the effort to reset the international financial system as part of the continued push towards the 2030 Agenda and Net Zero goals.
The French government stated that the objective of the gathering was to “build a new contract between [the global] North and South” which will better equip the nations to fight poverty and climate change. The summit was attended by US President Joe Biden, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. In addition to heads of state, the summit was organized with support from the Open Society Foundations, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation, among others.
One of the other stated goals of the 2023 summit was to transform the entire international financial system by adapting the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to modern challenges. These goals correspond with recent statements made by Guterres where he called for a “new Bretton Woods moment”, referencing the infamous 1944 international agreement that established the IMF, and adopted rules for governing monetary relations among independent states, including requiring each nation to guarantee convertibility of their currencies into U.S. dollars.
For those reading between the lines and seeing through the buzzwords, the language of these documents rings of globalist-speak intended to override or outlaw national and individual sovereignty in favor of world government. A new monetary system, a renewal of the multilateral system – all of this is designed to sell the public on the idea that the UN (or some new international body) is needed to take humanity safely into the future. In truth, we are likely to see major steps towards the creation of a one-world government at the Summit for the Future.
For example, the Summit of the Future website notes that it will conclude with a “Pact for the Future” which will be endorsed by heads of state at the Summit. The UN says the outcome of the Pact will be “a world – and an international system – that is better prepared to manage the challenges we face now”. The Pact for the Future is likely to be another piece of the shift towards a world governed by unelected internationalist politicians.
The Pact for the Future
The UN says the aim of the Summit for the Future is to “accelerate efforts to meet our existing international commitments” and “take concrete steps to respond to emerging challenges and opportunities”. With these goals in mind, the UN is planning to negotiate and endorse an “action-oriented outcome document” known as the Pact for the Future. The document is already being discussed at UN meetings, with final negotiations and signing of the agreement to take place in September at the Summit.
In January, Germany and Namibia, co-facilitators of the Summit, announced the release of the “zero draft” of the Pact for the Future. The proposals mostly repeat what is found in the UN 75th anniversary document, and the Our Common Agenda report. The document makes it clear that the member states “re-affirm the importance of the multilateral system” with the UN at the center. The zero-draft also reiterates the UN’s 75th anniversary declaration to “leave no one behind”.
“We will act with urgency to realize the vision of the 2030 Agenda, including through the agreements contained in this Pact, a surge in financing for the Sustainable Development Goals, and additional steps to ensure sustainable financing in line with our commitments under the Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development,” the draft of the Pact for the Future reads.
In terms of “reinvigorating the multilateral system”, the draft says the UN will “commit to a vision of a multilateral system” that is “inclusive to allow for a diverse range of actors beyond States”. This statement appears to be a reference to the belief that individual nation-states are no longer capable of tackling international crises, and, thus, the world must adapt to new forms of governance.
The zero-draft also mentions the need for an “Emergency Platform” that would be activated in the event of “such a shock that has an impact on multiple regions of the world” and, according to the UN, requires a “coherent, coordinated and multidimensional response”.
The draft also claims that any Emergency Platform would “not be a standing institution or body”. The UN also claims the “decision to convene an Emergency Platform” would “fully respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of States”.
The discussion of an emergency platform plays right into calls for the declaration of a planetary emergency.
The Planetary Emergency
Over the last couple years, the phrase “planetary emergency” has become increasingly used by the United Nations and aligned organizations to describe their belief that the planet is passing from various states of crisis to emergencies from which humanity might not return, unless drastic action is taken. We have even seen the release of opinion pieces calling for “a formal declaration of a ‘planetary emergency’ by the UN General Assembly at the Summit of the Future in September and the activation of an ’emergency platform’”.
The calls for declaration of an emergency have also reached the White House. Last week, Bloomberg reported the Biden administration is considering declaring a climate emergency.
“White House officials have renewed discussions about potentially declaring a national climate emergency, an unprecedented step that could unlock federal powers to stifle oil development,” Bloomberg wrote.
White House spokesperson Angelo Fernandez Hernandez told Bloomberg that Biden “has treated the climate crisis as an emergency since day one”.
As Bloomberg notes, if Biden does declare an emergency, he would not be the first US president to do so. In fact, past presidents have declared national emergencies for various reasons. However, calls for a so-called climate-emergency declaration are unprecedented.
In recent years, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has even used the phrase and warned that the world was approaching one or more “tipping points”, or emergencies, which must be addressed by the UN member states. In November 2020, he told the World Forum for Democracy, “Alongside the COVID-19 pandemic, we face a triple planetary emergency—a climate crisis, a nature crisis and a pollution crisis.”
“We also confront a planetary emergency – including accelerating climate change, growing pollution and collapsing biodiversity – threatening the environment on which everyone’s future depends. And we are witnessing an alarming spread of hatred and discrimination,” Guterres said in 2021.
The United Nations is not the only organization promoting the idea of declaring a planetary emergency. UN-affiliated organizations like the Climate Governance Commission (CGC) are also getting in on the fun.
In September 2023, during climate week and the UN SDG Summit, the CGC released a statement titled “Charting a Safe Path for a Workable Future“. It states:
“The world faces a deepening planetary emergency–and is on a reckless path toward catastrophic climate change–having already over-stepped six of nine scientifically-identified planetary boundaries. A continued failure to address the underlying causes of this emergency – such as fossil fuel-based economies, resource waste/ overconsumption, and the destruction of nature – will have further devastating effects for all of humanity, triggering potentially irreversible tipping points, with dangerous consequences for planetary stability, both social and ecological. A system-wide approach to solving the climate crisis is required now, ensuring reliable climate and planetary boundary governance for the Earth as a whole.“
The CGC claims it is focused on “developing, proposing, and building partnerships” which promote “feasible, high-impact global governance solutions for urgent and effective climate action to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C or less”. The CGC is itself a part of the Global Governance Forum.
The Climate Governance Commission was convened by Maja Groff, a member of the Global Governance Forum, with extensive connections to technocratic, including the Rockefeller Foundation, who have helped finance the work of the CGC. This makes perfect sense when you recall that in 2023 the Rockefeller Foundation made it clear that the climate agenda was their new focus.
The CGC September 2023 statement also continues the call for expanding concepts of global governance. “New perspectives on global governance – deploying new levels of collective wisdom and political courage – are required to tackle current existential planetary risks,“ it states.
The statement also includes the usual climate alarmism and doomsday predictions. The CGC says the world may have only six or seven years to change course to avoid disaster.
The Climate Governance Commission followed up this statement with their report, Governing Our Planetary Emergency. The report was released during an online event on November 28, 2023, just before the opening of the UN Climate Change Conference COP28. In this report, the CGC continues their recommendation for updating our ideas on governance.
“A basic premise of the Climate Governance Commission is that new perspectives on global governance— deploying new levels of collective wisdom and political courage—are required to tackle current existential planetary risks,” the report states. “Such efforts should complement and enhance ongoing intergovernmental negotiations. By prioritizing fundamental global collective action innovations, we can protect our common home for present and future generations in a just, equitable, and sustainable manner.“
It is this writer’s belief that the “new levels” of “political courage” needed to implement “new perspectives on global governance” are referring to the fact that empowering the UN (or another international body) will be extremely unpopular with the domestic populations of many of the UN member states, including the United States.
For more evidence that the CGC and some at the UN are interested in moving past national sovereignty, and towards a world governed by global organizations, I refer you to statements made by scientist Johan Rockström, a member of the CGC and advocate of the planetary emergency paradigm, during the November 2023 online event.
“The fact that we are in the anthropocene, actually puts into question the nation-state as the only unit of decision making to solve the problems we have facing us,” Rockström stated.
In the section labeled “Near-Term International Governance Innovations” the CGC again says the UN should declare a planetary emergency.
“We therefore urge the UN General Assembly, at the 2024 Summit of the Future, to declare a planetary emergency, recognizing that the triple planetary crisis poses a grave risk to global stability and security, among others, to be reinforced in similar statements by bodies and agencies of the UN system, regional bodies, and national and local governments.“
They also echo calls for the “Emergency Platform” referenced by the zero draft of the Pact of the Future. The report recommends convening a “Planetary Emergency Platform” to address the rapidly accelerating consequences of climate change.
“Such a defragmentation and acceleration Platform may be necessary to ensure the imperative 50% global emission reductions by 2030,” the CGC report states.
In a section titled “Addressing Individual Responsibility for Environmental Crimes: Including Ecocide as a Crime Under the International Criminal Court”, the document states that “individuals involved in policies and/or activities that cause severe damage to the environment need to be held accountable regardless of whether they undertake these actions as government officials, legislators, military leaders, CEOs of corporations, or in other roles”.
In a section titled “Next Generation Working Proposals” we also see a recommendation to “Establish An International Court for the Environment”.
Is it possible to see the world’s governments sign a document that empowers an international court to punish individuals who are deemed polluters or accused of damaging the environment?
Planetary Boundaries
“The current crossing of planetary boundaries has already caused intense suffering and heightened inequality,” the CGC’s September 2023 statement reads.
The Pact for the Future and the CGC’s report Governing Our Planetary Emergency are both built on the concept of planetary boundaries, first popularized by Johan Rockström, former director for the Stockholm Resilience Centre. He first developed the idea with a group of 28 internationally renowned scientists in 2009.
Rockström is an internationally recognized scientist on global sustainability issues and led the development of the Planetary Boundaries framework for human development. He is also a leading scientist on water resources, with more than 25 years experience in applied water research in tropical regions. Additionally, he is an agenda contributor to the World Economic Forum.
Rockström‘s concept presents a set of nine planetary boundaries within which humanity can continue to develop and thrive for generations to come. According to this theory, the Earth’s Planetary Boundaries indicate the “maximum human-induced disruption” each environmental area can sustain before the “Earth system becomes unstable, potentially leading to irreversible changes and cascading effects in multiple domains”.
Essentially, Rockström argues that these boundaries should be used as guides to design future governance models, as well as governmental regulation of corporations, industry, and human life in general. It is yet another technocratic program claiming that it can create a utopia by triggering an emergency platform once humanity crosses these alleged boundaries.
As with calls for a planetary emergency, in recent years support for the concept of planetary boundaries has grown among academia, science, and some politicians. Along with the growth of Rockstrom’s concept, we have also witnessed broad support for global governance.
In 2023, an international group of 22 “experts” from a range of fields emphasized the importance of establishing a “planetary commons” in an article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The group argued that this step is essential for strengthening global governance to “protect the functions of Earth’s biophysical systems in ways that ensure planetary resilience and justice for present and future generations”.
The article introduces the concept of “planetary commons” as a framework to align global law and governance with the science of the “Earth system”. The so-called experts write that there is “presently no effective governance system in place” to properly deal with the crises facing humanity. The paper laments that nations have developed their own policies for climate change which are “often misaligned with other nations and the global goal of a sustainable Earth”. The report ends by calling for the development of “collective global-scale solutions that transcend national boundaries”.
All Roads Lead to The Club of Rome and Eugenics
We can trace the call for a Planetary Emergency back to the infamous but obscure group, the Club of Rome. The CGC’s November 2023 report even notes that the belief in a “polycrisis”, or multiple, simultaneous crises, is “recognized in the work of the Club of Rome Planetary Emergency Project“. This reference to the Club of Rome reveals yet another reason the public ought to be concerned with the push for a planetary emergency and claims of crossing planetary boundaries
The Club of Rome has been calling for declaring a Planetary Emergency since at least 2019 with the publication of their “Planetary Emergency Plan”. The report would be updated in August 2020, after the beginning of COVID1984. The COR’s Emergency Plan is described as a “roadmap for governments and other stakeholders to to shift our societies and economies to bring back balance between people, planet and prosperity”.
As with the zero-draft of the Pact for the Future and the Climate Governance Commission’s 2023 report, the Club of Rome calls on nations to declare a Planetary Emergency and adopt a Planetary Emergency Plan. They say such a plan should be “founded on the urgent need to at least halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2030“.
These extreme calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon, have lead some researchers to conclude that the guiding philosophy of the Club of Rome is actually a belief in eugenics, masked by a faux environmental agenda. An understanding of the organization’s history may provide some clues.
The Club of Rome was founded in 1968 and played a major role in the development of the more well-known World Economic Forum (WEF). On the 50th anniversary of the WEF, the organization looked at their history, and noted that at the 1973 meeting, Aurelio Peccei, the Italian industrialist who co-founded the Club of Rome with Alexander King, presented a speech on his now-infamous book “The Limits to Growth”. Alexander King was also responsible for a follow-up report released in 1991 titled “The First Global Revolution”. This controversial report includes a section called “The Common Enemy of Humanity is Man”, which contains this often-quoted section:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
Some readers have interpreted this statement to mean that the Club of Rome was acknowledging that they would use the fear of pollution, global warming, water shortages, and famine to unite humanity behind the idea that humanity is the problem. The Club of Rome and their supporters claim this passage is taken out of context and simply represents their leadership recognizing geopolitical issues which would soon befall humanity.
Further evidence of the eugenics worldview can be found in the words of Dennis Meadows, a World Economic Forum member and co-architect of the 1972 “Limits to Growth” report. In a February 2022 interview, Meadows detailed his hopes for a “clean” purging of the global population to sustainable levels:
“I hope this occurs in a civilized approach. I imply in a non-public approach. A peaceable approach, however, peace does not imply everyone seems to be joyful. But it surely does imply that the street has been resolved by different means, not violence, which is what I imply. So there are 7 billion folks proper now; however, we’re going to have 1 billion folks. We now have to return down. I hope it occurs slowly and evenly.”
Eugenicists like Meadows and his buddies at the Club of Rome hide their anti-human ideology behind calls for population control. Their talk of “fighting climate change” by limiting human movement or controlling our diets and other personal habits often mask their true desire to reduce and control the human population.
It is imperative that people of the world open their eyes and ears to realize the true intentions of the Technocrats who want to rule our lives. As Swedish researcher Jacob Nordangård recently told me in a recent interview, the UN (and their partners in the WEF, Club of Rome, Global Governance Commission, etc.) are working on declaring a “planetary emergency” which will allow them to activate various agreements—the WHO Pandemic Agreement, the Financing Pact of the Future, and the Pact of the Future—and complete their plans for world government.
The only thing standing in the way of the complete takeover of a free humanity are the free hearts and minds of the world who are able to see the truth. We must resist and counter the UN Pact for the Future. We must put our energy into designing our own pacts for the future. Furthermore, we must reject the Sustainable Development Goals and embrace the Autonomous Development Goals. Finally, we must ignore “The Great Reset” and build “The People’s Reset”. Only once we put our energy into the creation of parallel systems will we see the creation of a truly free society that will last for the next seven generations and beyond.
