Let it flow let yourself go, slow and low… this is the tempo …..
Let it flow let yourself go, slow and low… this is the tempo …..
The United Nations (United of nothing) released Agenda 2030, or what it’s calling a “new universal agenda” for humanity.
Many are calling this the first public declaration of the long feared “New World Order” or the beginnings of a totalitarian one world government.
Whether or not one believes in the so-called conspiracy theory of the New World Order, the phrase “new universal agenda” and the phrase “New World Order” share the same linguistic meaning. The question is then, are they one in the same?
Originally a plan called Agenda 21 was released by the UN with a primary focus solely on environmental issues.
That plan has now morphed into Agenda 2030 and is being labeled “Agenda 21 on steroids.” This new agenda now addresses virtually all areas of human activity and is truly a blueprint for global governance.
At first glance, this agenda appears to be combating every serious problem on the global stage. Yet when one delves deeper into the logistics of the plan, it becomes clear that the act of suggesting what should be done, and having a solution to a problem, are two very different things.
To throw up a lofty goal such as, “End poverty in all its forms,” is substantially different from having an actual solution to poverty itself.
The agenda does list sub goals within the plan, yet these as well are objective goals that would have already been achieved if simply agreeing on them would have solved the problem; such as Goal 1A: “Ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources.”
This is incredibly vague and is something that no one will disagree on, which is the point. Yet again, actually making this happen is the same problem as before and places the agenda directly back in square one.
It is as if to suggest that until now, no one has officially decided to “end poverty,” and now that a global agenda has been declared, the poverty-ending “plan” will be shared with all in need.
This raises the obvious question: What happens to the countries that decide not to participate? Will their country be exempt from the universal poverty-ending plan?
As far as the media is concerned, these topics are not very important.
It is quite odd that a plan of such relevance, such magnitude, is being completely disregarded by the mainstream media. The entire planet is going to be committing to work toward seventeen mutual goals and there has been a complete media blackout in the United States.
Most Americans are unaware of this worldwide agenda, and that in itself should be alarming. A lack of reporting on a specific topic by the corporate media is the modern tell-tale sign of a topic this is actually news-worthy.
When there is a media black-out on a story or event, it is most likely a subject worth paying attention to.
To collectively combat these major issues (from a citizen level) as a world-wide entity, is a step in the right direction.
However, these bullet point goals and their ambiguous means in which to reach the end result, have endless openings to be abused by the very same officials in which abuse every opportunity that is presented to them.
This country’s history is riddled with political deception and manipulation of the public, and this worldwide plan has vast opportunity for the corrupt to follow suit.
Below is a comprehensive list of Agenda 2030’s goals and how these goals will be approached from the corrupt level of the United States political system; which in turn will dictate the development of the new universal order.
“The UN document promises that this plan will ‘transform our world for the better by 2030,’ and yet very few Americans have even heard of the 2030 Agenda at this point.
“Instead, most of us seem to be totally obsessed with the latest celebrity gossip or the latest nasty insults that our puppet politicians have been throwing around at one another.
“It absolutely amazes me that more people cannot understand that Agenda 2030 is a really, really big deal. When will people finally start waking up?” – Zero Hedge
Agenda 2030 Decrypted
Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
Translation: UN propaganda, brainwashing through compulsory education from cradle to grave
Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
Translation: Population control through forced “Family Planning”
Goal 7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
Translation: Smart grid with smart meters on everything, peak pricing
Goal 8: Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all
Translation: TPP, free trade zones that favor megacorporate interests
Goal 9: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation
Translation: Toll roads, push public transit, remove free travel, environmental restrictions
Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries
Translation: Even more regional government bureaucracy
Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
Translation: Big brother big data surveillance state
Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
Translation: Forced austerity
Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*
Translation: Cap and Trade, carbon taxes/credits, footprint taxes
Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
Translation: Environmental restrictions, control all oceans including mineral rights from ocean floors
Goal 15: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
Translation: More environmental restrictions, more controlling resources and mineral rights
Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
Translation: UN “peacekeeping” missions (ex 1, ex 2), the International Court of (blind) Justice, force people together via fake refugee crises and then mediate with more “UN peacekeeping” when tension breaks out to gain more control over a region, remove 2nd Amendment in USA
Goal 17: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development
Translation: Remove national sovereignty worldwide, promote globalism under the “authority” and bloated, Orwellian bureaucracy of the UN
Over a single April day in 1986, a little-known place called Chernobyl became infamous. Twenty-five years later, a similar fate befell Japan’s Fukushima Prefecture. In the end, the Fukushima disaster was better contained than Chernobyl, but if an emergency hits another nuclear power facility, it may well do so in an unanticipated way. Are nations adequately prepared for an unpredictable “next one?” Below, authors from Austria, Cameroon, and India assess improvements over the last 30 years in preparedness for a nuclear power disaster—and debate how preparedness should be further improved.
April 26 marks the 30th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, and those old enough to remember the event can recall the explosion, the evacuation, and the dread. But they rarely remember an immense milestone in the response to the disaster: the completion in November 1986 of a concrete encasement of Chernobyl’s reactor number four. Workers drawn from all across the Soviet Union built this “sarcophagus” under extreme radiological conditions, on the ruins of the destroyed reactor. They used unimaginable amounts of concrete—and a great deal of imagination. This concrete mausoleum has held up, with some assistance, for 30 years now. (A larger containment structure that will fit over the existing sarcophagus is now being built.)
Over the years, as the ranks of those who responded to Chernobyl have thinned, new generations of nuclear professionals have been trained to prevent another disaster. Their training has emphasized “safety culture.” This, along with “inherently safe designs,” was going to guarantee an accident-free nuclear future. For a while, it seemed as if the world was on the verge of forgetting forever what responding to a nuclear emergency really required. Then, in March 2011, multiple reactors at one of the world’s largest nuclear power plants melted down as a consequence of a massive earthquake, a tsunami, and a sustained power outage.
As a student of the Soviet nuclear power program and the Chernobyl disaster, it was painful for me to watch the blame game that played out immediately after Fukushima. Almost to the letter, the Chernobyl “script” was followed. First, the plant’s operators were blamed. Then the reactor design was at fault. Finally, it was the turn of the national nuclear regulatory structure. “Culture,” of course, received a great deal of blame as well.
But while Chernobyl could ultimately be dismissed as a Soviet-made disaster that “could never happen here”—wherever “here” happened to be—Fukushima has not allowed such steadfast denial. Indeed, Fukushima has proved the death knell for a nuclear safety philosophy that focused exclusively on preventing accidents. Disaster preparedness and response were given scant attention in the years between Chernobyl and Fukushima, but now they have been added to the vocabulary of the world’s nuclear industries. Curiously, however, this shift is only partial. Disaster prevention retains the greatest emphasis; preparedness is sometimes treated adequately; but resources (and imagination) devoted to actual response strategies remain limited.
The “lessons learned” from Fukushima—and new reports on these lessons continue to be published—focus predominantly on technical and legal fixes, organizational reform, and liability concerns. In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission responded to Fukushima by overhauling its rules and guidelines for accident prevention, preparedness, and response. The US nuclear industry, meanwhile, implemented “FLEX,” a program designed to provide nuclear reactors in distress with hardware such as extra pumps and generators, both on site and stored at regional centers. In Europe, power reactors were subjected to “stress tests” after Fukushima, and these tests sparked conversation among nations hosting nuclear power reactors about harmonizing, if only loosely, national regulations concerning natural (and other) hazards to nuclear power plants.
Steps such as these go in the right direction. But emphasizing prevention and preparedness over response ignores a simple fact: Nuclear disasters tend to exceed people’s worst expectations. There is a good reason that the nuclear industry refers to disasters as “beyond design-basis accidents“—only a limited number of scenarios can be anticipated and prepared for. Disasters, therefore, require the development of creative, skill-based, and team-based response strategies (along with strenuous efforts to avoid disasters entirely).
Training for emergency responders in general tends to emphasize flexibility and imagination, with a premium placed on performing quick assessments and triage in unprecedented situations. But in nuclear emergency response training, the situation is different. The nuclear industry seems deeply troubled by using human imagination to address situations that go “beyond the checklist.” In Europe and the United States, at least—I can’t speak for the entire world—the nuclear industry seems hung up on the idea of control. There is a plan for every conceivable situation. Should plans fail, there are more plans. Staff are trained to follow procedures and execute instructions. If they don’t, that’s always bad.
1891 Patent for rainmaking by releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, long before Vincent Schaefer and Project Cirrus (1946) from GE.