Vi har lært i skolen at UN og EU kom til verden på baggrund af en ide om at et fælles politisk, økonomisk og handelsemæssigt samarbejde ville kunne forhindre fremtidig krige mellem nationerne på det Europæiske kontinent i at opstå. Dette er en fordrejning af sandheden. Det er sandt i den forstand at det var det som de “europæiske fædre” fortalte os som deres motiv. Men der er langt mere til historien end dette.
Historen viser at lang tid før første verdenskrig der var ambitioner blandt verdens rigeste og mest ambitiøse statsmænd og finansfystrer om HEMMELIGT at gå sammen i en gruppe (Round Table) med det fortsæt at konspirere at skabe en verdensregering. Her blev 1. og 2. verdenskrig blot fantastiske katalysatorer som satte ekstra skub i processen fremad mod deres mål. Kort tid efter anden verdenskrigs afslutning var både FN og begyndelsen til et Euroæisk Fællesskab etableret. Men hvad så? Det var stadig uendeligt langt fra hvad disse globalister havde i tankerne. Men nogenlunde samme tid kom en ny belejelig fjende ind i billedet. En fjende som truede hele den vestlige verden: Kommunismen med Sovjetunionen som den stærkste militære trussel. Den kolde krig var i gang. En stadig tikkende bombe som hele tiden truede med at sprænge. Denne permanente trussel blev en utrolig vigtig brik i globalisternes fremadskridende process mod deres mål: En verdens regering. Uden denne konstante ulmende trussel var hverken borgere eller politikere særligt opsat på at tage yderligere skridt frem mod at tildele FN og Det Europæiske Fællesskab politisk og økonomisk magt og indflydelse i nationernes måde at organisere sig på. Men på grund af truslen fra kommunismen, syntes det at være en tvingende nødvendighed at “den frie verden” gik endnu tættere ind i et samarbejde for at sikre sig mod en kommunistisk verdensovertagelse. Det er sådan historikerne fremlægger sagen. Men også her er der noget vigtigt som mangler. Noget som går at årsag og virkning vendes 180 grader. For sagen er den at truslen fra kommunismen var en fabrikeret, ikke eksisterende trussel. Sovjetunionen var et totalt “uland” sammenlignet med vesten. Det var en allieret under andern verdenskrig, men alt det teknoologi var blevet dem givet fra vesten – både civil og mulitær industriel udvikling var 100% igangsat, financieret og styret fra vesten. Og sådan var situationen fortsat i det kommunistiske regime under Stalin efter anden verdenskrig. Der var ingen inovation. Al inovation opstår i frihed, men det russiske folk var reduceret til et passivt slavefolk under et grusomt regimes undertrykkende jerngreb og inteligenciaen var enten blevet henrettet som “fejnder af staten” eller de var for længst flygtet til vesten. Alt var status quo som i ethvert andet feudalt samfund gennem tiderne. Men USA og Europæiske virksomheder rykkede ind i det enorme land – med kommunisternes velsignelse – og etablerede en blomstrende industri og et militært magtapperat. Både Trotsky, Lenin og Stalin bød dem velkommen med fordelagtige koncessioner (dvs stærkt fordelagtige handelseaftaler mellem private, vestlige virksomeder formet med en udpræget kapitalistisk ideologi og den kommunistiske stat). Det var virksomheder som General Electric Ford Motor Company og mange andre. Disse industrigiganter var ingen torn i øjet på de kommunsistiske ledere.
Selv teknologien til udviklingen af atomare sprænghoveder under atom-oprustningen i 1980´erne kom fra USA. Ikke fordi russerne havde stjålet teknologien og arbejdstegningerne, men fordi USA havde foræret dem skibslaster fulde af maskiner til fremstilling af for eksempel præcisions-kuglelejer i miniaturestørrelse.
Fælles samarbejde over grænserne var vel egentligt ikke noget nyt. Det var ideen bag, der var ny: Samarbejde for at forhindre krig. Normalt er det den anden vej rundt, man tænker: Når der er fred opstår der et naturligt flow af samarbejde og handel på tværs af grænserne. Men nu lancerede man altså en filosofi om at samarbejde ville skabe og bevare fred.
Dere beviser ikke at bærekraftsmålene er skadelige og farlige.
What kind of proof would you accept? If we for a moment exchange UN Agenda 2030. with Evolution. If I write a folder about Creationism, then most Evolutionists will say that it is based on completely unscientific claims. And that is even if I build my arguments with references to the most esteemed creationist scientists like Michael Behe etc. I would never be able to come up with an argument that evolutionists would admit as a proof. Never. And there is a good reason for that: Both the theory of evolution and of creation are interpretations of objects like fossils and other remains from en event nobody has ever seen. Both parties are only interpreters of events they have never seen. None of them can produce proof. And here is the thing: Even scientists never talk about scientific proofs. They talk about evidence.
Take a look at this statement from the German-Canadian psychologist Dr. Julia Shaw:
Well, let me tell you a secret about science; scientists don’t prove anything. What we do is collect evidence that supports or does not support our predictions. Sometimes we do things over and over again, in meaningfully different ways, and we get the same results, and then we call these findings facts. And, when we have lots and lots of replications and variations that all say the same thing, then we talk about theories or laws. Like evolution. Or gravity. But at no point have we proved anything.Dr. Julia Shaw: I’m a Scientist, and I Don’t Believe in Facts.
Two important things here. Shaw is expressing an opinion that is general accepted in the scientific community that there exists no proofs even in science. There only exists evidence. You can read a good article about this right here
Now, let’s go back to the UN Agenda 2030. It is true that I have a conspiratorial view on history. Where can I begin? Is there anywhere I can look and say: Here are facts? Well, we are told that the majority of climate scientists say that Climate Change is caused by manmade CO2. Is that a fact? No. Some will argue that the idea about manmade climate change is nothing else than a political tool to make political and economic changes. This is what is argued for in the BBC documentary from 2006:
But both you and I have another source we rely on for knowing what is happening in the world. The Bible. We believe that this book contains the truth about our existence. And we believe that there are hidden spiritual forces at work “behind the scenes” so to speak, which are both evil and good. And we believe that both of these forces work through human agents and human organizations. And we believe that the evilest and at the same time brilliant organization that Satan has established on earth to deceive the world is the Catholic Church. It is the masterpiece of Satanic innovation. And we believe it. We don’t know it. We cant prove it. But what can we do to substantiate this claim? We can refer to biblical evidence and then point historical evidence that we believe confirms it. No proofs at all!
So based on that, this is what I can do in my attempt to convince you that the Climate Change is a Satanic enterprice.
First: The Catholic Church is, as I presume we both believe, the Antichrist power revealed to us in several places in the Bible. I don’t have to establish the biblical foundations for that belief, because we both have – and again this is what I presume – in-depth knowledge about it. Can we agree so far?
Second: We are told that in the time of the end (after 1798) the catholic church should gradually rise and come alive after its wound. And then is should give all its power to the United States, and the United States should use this power to
If you answer my email, it would be of great help to my understanding if you let me know what you think about my way of reasoning from point 1-6. If there are points you don’t agree on then let me know, because this is the biblical basis on which I build my claims about Agenda 2030.
Now I have established my biblical arguments for why we should be very suspicious about everything that the catholic church is doing in regards to political, economic and religious aspects that have potential geopolitical consequences. Why? Because we believe that everything this institution does is directly inspired by satanic evil agents who are working for the destruction of biblical Christianity and the extermination of true Christians and seeks to establish a global theocratic government (a terrifying regime). Do we agree on that?
Even when the pope says things that we all can agree upon as self-evident good we believe – because of the prophecies about the Catholic Church – that behind his seemingly humanistic approach to world affairs there is a completely different agenda behind. For example the Pope says that he wants to eradicate poverty in the world. I guess everyone would agree that it is a good idea…unless it leads to something we couldn’t predict. I mean, when Lenin and Hitler promised better times and prosperity for all of the people just went along with their ideas and politics then everything would be so good. If an organization that had a long historical record and at the same time was prophecied in the Bible to be a beneficial goodly agent on earthy we would believe what it said. But the record of the Catholic Church is a history of death and suppression and its bad reputation in history (seen from the eyes of protestants at least) is, to say the least, heavily documented. So why defend anything this organization does?
Let’s take a look at the Agenda 2030. At first glance, it sounds good. 17 goals to save humanity and possibly all life and the planet from extinction. One goal is for example: SIKRE ALLE LIGE ADGANG TIL KVALITETSUDDANNELSE OG FREMME ALLES MULIGHEDER FOR LIVSLANG LÆRING
We, as protestants can ask: What kind of education? In the American colonies in the 1600s the school children was educated in many things and also in the foundation for the protestant interpretation of the Bible. Here is a front cover on one of the first-grade reading books:
Will this kind of education for children be welcomeed and appreciated in the coming ‘global education system’ in which the pope is campaigning to be implemented into all nations by the aid of the Agenda 2030 plan? Or what about the right to proclaim the Three Angels Messages? You see when the pope works for the “benefits of humanity” you have to take into consideration what God has told us who this man really is: The Man of Sin. Nothing good can come from him. There will be strings attached which we can never detect unless we have the Bible as our guide. Historical facts and revelations alone will never be enough to expose the evil deeds of this Antichrist power.
When this is said let me try to present why I believe that the Agenda 2030 plan is a secret plan to control the whole world, but seen exclusively from a historical perspective. So lets for a moment forget what the Bible has forewarned us about and only look at what we can dig up historically and in contemporary news.
And EVEN if the pope is very sincere and actually really wants to save the world, and sincerely believes in the 17 UN goals, then we believe that through the popes, and through the Cathlic Chuch, satan is behind and tries to move every step in world affairs to further his plans. So the pope is not excused EVEN if he believes the Agenda 2030 can help millions, because his Chuch has taken the place of God, and the popes are per biblical difinition “Antichrist” – an enemy of truth and of God. So the question is now: Is the pope innocent if he sinceraly believes that Agenda 2030 is good?
good things. We should keep a watchful eye on the Beast from the Bottomless pit, so to speak, because we are told in the Bible that it works by deceit.
being very suspicious when I see that the pope is in the forefron of
Revelation 13 tells us that the Catholic Church
The Catholic Church is heavily involved in Agenda 2030. Should that alarm us in any way?
wake our skepticism to the project? Is it strange if that fact creates a gut-feeling that we should be on guard and look deeper into what is going on?
which the Bible tells us THE most corrupt and sinister organization that has ever existed in history, and which we believe from prophecy, will create a universal theocracy by the assistance from the United States
than newspapers that we believe is reliable
If you watch this short interview with former CIA chief John Stockwell
We must admit that we have bo proof. We have evidence. You see history it is always a matter of interpretation of events. We will never have proof in any hisotircal matters. There are facts like the second world war really happend. But we will never know – as a solid, scientific proff – why it happend and how it was fought. Some is fact but most of history is interpretation of events. The same is the case with the controcersy between evolutionists and creationists. None of them have proof. When a creationist is asked to give proof for his “crazy, unsupported, unscientific theory” he cant. He looks at evidence and he interprets them. But that is not proof and therefor the evolutionist can continue until Jesus returns to redicule and mock him whith words like: “you have no proof”.
When it come to the “crazy conspiracy theories about how the Catholic Church has a plan to use Agenda 2030 to fullfill prophecy of a global union between all nation under the rule of the United States which has got all it power from the Catholic Churh, we are in the same situation as before. We can prove it. But we have evidence. The rest is belief. But we have one more thing: We know for sure (if you believe in it( that tha Bible has foretold a coming world order where the situation we propse is materializing. So how will it be brought aboout, this situation? By deception, the Bible says.
How can we prove that the United Nations Agenda 2030 is not a plan to save a suffering planet from poverty, starvation, etc, but a satanic plan to overrule all nation’s sovereignty and control the world?
Let me give it a try. I will begin with an introduction to this complicated subject. In order to understand what the true purpose of the UN Agenda 2030 is, you cant find out by looking only at it 17 expressed goals because they all sound wonderful.
You have to go back in history to discover three important things that will reveal what is all about:
The history of deliberately destroying democracies in the third world and creating pro-American dictatorships for the use as slave-like production-platforms of cheap goods for the Western market.
The history of fabricated, global enemies for the use of fearmongering as a method to bring all the nations into an agreement that a global power must take over the responsibility for “saving the planet” instead of sovereign nations.
The history of controlling the narrative of our worldview by controlling the flow of edited news, the media and also the education system.
Understand the ideas in the minds of the men who were the strongest influencers in the creation of the UN. They were working on a plan to create a global power and the road to realizing this plan went through instigating massive, global strife.
How the economic movement was used during the 1950s to infiltrate the protestant churches in the United States with a new gospel “the Social Gospel” to convince the nationalistic orientated protestant American people that the “KIngdom of God on Earth” could only materialize itself if a world government (United Nations) ruled in favor of national governments.
The story about John Foster Dulles who worked in three lines at the same time: 1) The creation of United Nations by infiltration of the American protestant Churches with a new “Social Gospel” for building the “Kingdom of God on Earth” (the United Nations), 2) Overthrowing democracies all over the world by the lie of a communist threat to the “free world”, 3) The Creation of EU by the help from CIAs secret front organizations, infiltration of countless cultural and academic organisations and bribery and media control.
These stories show that American and European people was betrayed and that the organisation they betrayed us to accept was the very thing that should be used to further their evil means of controlling the whole world.
So before you can see that the Agenda 2030 is just the crowning of a very long and hard work, you have to know the beginnings and the outspoken, expressed motives. You see there was not so much anxiety back in the 1920s an still not in the 1950s when som of the most powerfull people in industry and finance and diplotats in infueltial think tanks wrote about world government. At that time it was an “interesting intellectual philosophy”. Nobody in the public paid much attention, because it was extremely far from a practical possibility. And right after the war the people of the Western nations were very nationalistic minded. That is a very instinctice and natural reaction when your nation is exposed to a threat from outside enemies: You comer closer together even tighter than before. So this national tendencies had to be counteracted. And what was the remedy for that? An introduction of new philosophy massively communicated by the CIA controlled media combined with manipulation and…
The new philosophy was to create a never-ending global threat. A threat that always lured in the background ready to suddenly wake up as a monster to invade and destroy you and your family and your dear country. So what was that enormous enemy? Communism! So now, instead of closing around one’s own nation the idea was that all the Allied nations should comer CLOSER together. The idea was rational, logic and very reasonable. BUT: The threat was completely fabricated. Communism was a none existant threat. It was a lie.
The people and organsations behind the new philosophy of uniting the nations and behind the fabricated global threat had completely different motives than the public was told. The fake communist threat became their “springboard” to destroy countless nations and bring them under US control.
But then the world gradually changed. Both because of the technological development and war. Now the world was brought far nearer to acknowledge that maybe it was not such a bad idea after all. Maybe it was not only a fancy idea in the minds of the men, but it might actually be a good idea and even possible to bring about now. How did this change come about?
In Europe people were not either exited about the idea of a United States of Europe as the globalist dared to call it at that time. But they were massaged and manipulated forward by deceitful diplomatic work and Intelligence.
and look at the process that brought our world into a situation where most nations on the plant live in tremendous suffering and poverty. And then you have to look at how these nations were actually deliberately brought into that situation by people and organizations which corporated very close with the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, and other organizations which have a built-in philanthropic part of their global mission.
First of all: it is a difficult task to do because we will never be able to catch the criminal in the act so everyone can see it. The reason for that is that the criminal is not a group who by illegal means tries to overthrow a lawful government. In this situation, is IS the lawfull governments that work through its lawful international organizations to deceive the people of the nations. So it is not a conspiracy in its common sense. Normally we define a conspiracy as “a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful”, and “an agreement to say nothing about an issue that should be generally known”.