How are the UN Sustainability Goals Going? Goal 15 of 17.

Tim O’Connor – Center for the Preservation of Humanity

5/22/2022

The seventeen United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are the goals of the Great Reset. The SDGs were adopted in 2015 by United Nations’ Department of Economic and Social Affairs. The cover for the SDGs were that they would provide relief for disabled peoples by 2030 according to Agenda 2030. To fully understand Agenda 2030, a review of Agenda 21 should be undertaken, which I will not do here. In this article I will focus on the 15th SDG:

Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss


After covering the spectacle of the seas, where no humans actually live but the UN and many governments, in conjunction with NGO’s, have curtailed human activities, we will turn to United Nations efforts to do the same with land. The result is the same – gigadeath (a term I learned from Steve Quayle). Goal 15 contains 12 targets:

15.1 By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements

15.2 By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally

15.3 By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world

15.4 By 2030, ensure the conservation of mountain ecosystems, including their biodiversity, in order to enhance their capacity to provide benefits that are essential for sustainable development

15.5 Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species

15.6 Promote fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and promote appropriate access to such resources, as internationally agreed

15.7 Take urgent action to end poaching and trafficking of protected species of flora and fauna and address both demand and supply of illegal wildlife products

15.8 By 2020, introduce measures to prevent the introduction and significantly reduce the impact of invasive alien species on land and water ecosystems and control or eradicate the priority species

15.9 By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts

15.a Mobilize and significantly increase financial resources from all sources to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity and ecosystems

15.b Mobilize significant resources from all sources and at all levels to finance sustainable forest management and provide adequate incentives to developing countries to advance such management, including for conservation and reforestation

15.c Enhance global support for efforts to combat poaching and trafficking of protected species, including by increasing the capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities”

I’m going to cover these one by one.

15.1 By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements[.]”

The first indicator for target 1 is a measure of the area of forests in the world. The charting starts at 1990 and runs to 2020, although the range can be expanded to 1000. In 1990, 32.5% of the earth was forested and in 2020 the are was 31.2%. Since 2014 (the closest year available to the SDG implementation date of 2015) the world went from 31.4% of the land covered by forest to 31.2% of the land covered in forest. Whatever the UN is trying to do here is having the opposite effect.

Part of that reason is so that the UN can demand more money for efforts to increase forest areas. Forests are able to support life, but not civilization as we understand it. Green things create oxygen from CO2 in a process called photosynthesis. We need forests to create oxygen so oxygen-dependent organisms can survive.

The way the UN has defined forests; however, is problematic:

“Forest area is land under natural or planted stands of trees of at least 5 meters in situ, whether productive or not, and excludes tree stands in agricultural production systems (for example, in fruit plantations and agroforestry systems) and trees in urban parks and gardens.”

Is the 5 meters referring to height or is it referring to width? I’m going to assume height (5 meters is 16.4042 feet). Any agricultural holdings are immediately thrown out of the statistics, despite there being many square miles of what should qualify as a forest standing within agricultural lands. There are many trees within city parks and gardens which meet the 5 foot criteria as well. The result of the definition is what we see in the UN graph.

If a section of a forest is taken down for production into wood products like lumber, mulch, paper, or anything else, then trees are usually ordered by law to be replanted in that area. The newly planted trees are obviously not going to be 17 feet tall. The ‘old growth’ trees – those which have been there for 100 years, which are being used for production purposes, are well over this height. And that is another issue I have with the way the UN reports upon forestry in this indicator. The fastest growing trees grow at about 5 feet a year – about 3 years to reach a UN defined forest height.

The second indicator is a collection of 3 graphs which show the way which biodiversity sites are protected around the world. Worldwide, 14.57% of the land is a declared protected per the first graph (total percentage of land in the nation or geographical area under UN-approved methods of protection). New Caledonia, Venezuela, and Slovenia all have over 50% of their land in protected status.

The percentage of identified biological diversity sites which are protected on land, worldwide, between 2015 to 2021 went from 42.13% to 43.99%, respectively. Several nations or areas have 100% of all of their biological diversity sites protected – The Cocos Islands, Heard Island and McDonald Islands, and Equatorial Guinea. Europe has the most nations with 80% or more UN-approved protection measures of their identified biodiversity sites, followed by Africa, and South America.

Freshwater biodiversity sites are represented in the third chart. Comoros, Mayotte (go do a search on this especially goofy French ‘state’ located of the eastern coast of Africa), and Seychelles all have 100% of their identified freshwater resources protected by UN-approved methods.

All of these graphs indicate the UN’s desire to determine, in conjunction with the International Criminal Court (ICC), the ability of human beings to use land as they see fit. If Seychelles wanted to build a dam, good luck, the UN-approved protection measures will prevent that one. If a protected site is found to contain a trillion cubic meters of easy to extract natural gas or oil that resource is going to stay in the ground. The UN will demand that the wildlife be undisturbed. The ICC will rule in favor of the UN’s desires. The media will, in lockstep, demonize the entity (whether a government, elements within that government, multinational corporation, small business, or individual) attempting to extract any resource from a protected site. The UN would like nothing more than to protect every square millimeter of earth through this target in order to restrict all human activity in favor of the flora and fauna upon the earth. The effort represents the UN’s deeply held Gaia-theory beliefs.

15.2 By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally.”

Five graphs represent this target – annual change in forest area (to 2020), above-ground biomass in forests per hectare (tonnes of forest to hectares [forest density], to 2020), how much forest is in a UN-approved protected area (in 2020), the percentage of forests with long-term management plans (in 2020), and forest areas certified by an independently certified verification scheme (as of 2021).

The changes in forest area worldwide between 2010 and 2020 went from -0.13% to -0.12%. The deforestation rate went down over this period of time by a small amount (0.01%). Nations like Burundi and Malta increased their forested areas by 3.73% and 2.77%, respectively, but both of these nations recorded 0% changes in 2010. Guernsey (an island protectorate of the UK located just off the coast of France in the English Channel), reported a -6.21% decrease in forests. Guernsey went from reporting 6.21% gains in forested area in 2010 to 0% in 2020, thus the decrease. Egypt, the second biggest ‘loser’ in forested areas, went from a 1.04% gain in 2010 to a -3.71% loss in 2020. Nicaragua had a -2.51% in 2010 and only a -2.04% in 2020, so the graph represents the nation as a net gainer (+0.47%; 19% overall). I bring that up because it is important to understand the way the statistics are reported by the UN – Nicaragua was still losing over 2% of it’s forested area in 2020.

Forest density grew from 117.72 tonnes per hectare in 2015 to 118.28 in 2020. The UN default measurement; however, starts at 2010 which shows even more forest density increase because in 2000 it was measure as 115.88 tonnes by hectare. There must be something about the air making this biomass denser in forests. Maybe it’s increased CO2 as measured on the side of a volcano which is making the earth greener and more lush?

The proportion of forests which are located within a legally protected areas in the world was 14.12% in 2000, 17.48% in 2015, and 17.81% in 2020. Before the SDG’s (2000-2015), the rate actually rose 3.36 percentage points (24% overall) while after the SDG’s were implemented (2015-2020) it increased by 0.33 percentage points (2%). According to this data, several things could have happened. Nations could have legally adopted UN-approved measures to protect additional lands at a higher rate from 2000 to 2015 than they did between 2015 to 2020. Or, perhaps, the areas needing ‘UN-approved’ protection which lacked that protection expanded between 2015 and 2020. Maybe nations are just saying no to SDG 15, target 2 and deciding to exercise their sovereign control over their own resources. Any way this slow-down is viewed it represents the UN losing ground over control of the forests of the earth, which is a good thing.

The fourth graph shows long term management plans which operate in various nations. 14 nations in 2020 had 100% of their forests planned for long-term management. 15 nations were listed as having 100% of their forests managed for the long-term and in 2015, and in 2000 there were 3. The UN is moving towards their goal of UN-approved forests being managed for the long term. For the UN, this movement is too slow. They will demand new monies from developed nations and demand that cutting or burning any section of forest needs to be immediately and absolutely ceased immediately.

The last graph deals with forests which have been independently certified. The UN has mobilized hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals to track the growth or reduction in the area of forests. Basically the governments of nations invite any one of a number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) into the forests of their nation to verify the forest’s size, density, biological diversity, etc…. These NGOs are highly manipulated by the likes of global institutions like the UN and the individuals working for them are usually not aligned with a nation’s sovereign rights – seeing themselves as someone acting locally but thinking globally, or, in other words, global citizens. At times these very same NGOs are getting their funding from the UN itself. As far as the graph goes, it shows that worldwide, an additional 65.44 million hectares (over 252,000 square miles) of forest were added to outside parties’ verification schemes between 2015 and 2021.

15.3 By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world[.]”

The claims made by eco-terrorists like the UN Environmental Programme, livescience.com, nationalgeographic.com, and the World Health Organization. There are many more psychotic eco-terrorists and they all have something in common: the need to blame human activity for most or all desertification.

The chart to indicate this goal measures any degraded land. It only has measurements for the year 2015; however. The countries with the most area of degraded land compared to total are of their country were Tajikistan with 97%, Belize with 81%, and South Africa with 78%. Another six nations had over 50% of their land considered degraded. This indicator is not able to be tracked by the UN-provided tools as it only holds data for 2015. The articles mentioned above state that all around the world, deserts are growing, indicating the UN is not living up to this target.

The end goal of this target can be found in a document titled Land Restoration for Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals written by the UNEP in 2019. Keeping in line with every thing the UN does and how they go about it, this document lays out controlling human activity above all else, predatory lending practices which are dependent upon a willingness on the loan-receiver to obey UN-decrees, and to disallow land usage in areas which are too costly to restore.

The UN is using land degradation to demand that degradation no longer occurs. In order to achieve this, the UN will establish multiple multi-year plans each with their own targets and their own goals for each region they are concerned about. If these plans are accepted by the locality responsible for the administration of that land, the UN will continuously and relentlessly demand that human activity be reduced or completely eliminated on these ‘degraded’ lands.

15.4 By 2030, ensure the conservation of mountain ecosystems, including their biodiversity, in order to enhance their capacity to provide benefits that are essential for sustainable development[.]”

If flat land is in danger of falling to the whims of the UN, mountains are even more at risk to be given over to the UN. Mountain areas, like everywhere else on earth, has its own set of biological diversity attributes and the UN is determined to protect the biodiversity from human interference. There is a list of mountains which have been identified by the UN as key biological diversity sites and need protected. Between 2015 and 2021 the United States increased protected mountain areas from 31.64% to 31.94%. During the same time period, China increased protected mountains from 11.03% to 11.85%; 5 nations had no change and remained at 100%; while the UAE had the highest change 0% to 87.17%. Worldwide, the percentage grew from 38.43% to 40.49%.

While I spent a good deal of time searching for, and not finding, a map of the mountains designated as Key Biological Areas (KBA’s) I did find the way that this target ends up working out. On March 31, 2021, in Colorado:

“The U.S. District Court of Colorado has ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service violated the law by funding a Colorado Parks and Wildlife plan to kill hundreds of mountain lions and dozens of black bears without properly analyzing the risks to those animals’ populations and the rest of the environment.”

This article goes on to explain that mountain lions and bears are important to the environment. It continues on to nonsensically claim that reducing predators will not increase the numbers of the things they eat, in this case mule deer. The law the judge ruled upon as being violated is the Environmental Protection Act which has provisions which legally bind federal agencies to complete their own environmental impact statements prior to doing anything else, regardless of whether or not the State of Colorado’s Parks and Wildlife completed one. The two areas in which these neo-Nazi, UN-loving, Gaia-beliving troglodytes targeted to cease the CO Park and Wildlife plan were in the Piceance Basin and the Upper Arkansas River in Colorado runs through a large portion of Colorado including the towns of Leadville, Granite, Buena Vista, Salinas, Texas Creek, Canon City, Lincoln Park, Florence, Pueblo, Avondale, Fowler, Manzanola, Rocky Ford, La Junta, Las Animas, Lamar, Granada, and Holly.

The ruling directly affects well over 102,000 Colorado residents in the Piceance Basin including the towns and cities of Grand Junction, Delta, Montrose, Gunnison, and Rifle and many other smaller population centers, despite the plan having been completed to thin the populations of bears and mountain lions. To the east and northeast of the Piceance Basin lies the Upper Arkansas River Basin, where the Colorado plan to thin the populations of bears and mountain lions was actually stopped. The main cities directly affected by this ruling are Leadville, Granite, Buena Vista, and Salinas, a population of 11,239.

Any Colorado resident living in any of the areas directly or indirectly affected by this should probably make sure they are armed with at least a 30.06 with adequate ammunition to take down a bear or mountain lion. Should either of those creatures show up in a backyard to eat a pet or child, an ounce of prevention will save a lifetime of agony, especially in the case of a child.

In 2020, the UN did a survey of the green cover of mountainsides around the world. The graph tracking this outright states that any increase in green areas of mountains could be because of conservation efforts or because of disappearing glacial mass atop mountains (which, according to the UN, is completely attributable to climate change, which also according to the UN, is entirely man-made). Not included in this graph is the mountain’s elevation, the temperate zones those elevations pass through, nor the glacial mass of those mountains in previous times.

For instance, Doyle’s Delight is the highest point in Belize (100% green coverage of mountains) at 3,688 feet. Other nations with 100% green coverage include Brunei (with a highest point of 6,070 ft), Trinidad and Tobago (3,080 feet), Senegal (2,126 ft), Paraguay (2,762 ft), Grenada (2,760 ft), Sao Tome and Principe (6,640 ft), and Seychelles (2,696 ft). Multiple other nations are in the 99% bracket and most of them have at least one peak over with an altitude greater than the timberline.

This indicator is basically a backdoor entry for the UN to step in and demand that all human activity cease to preserve mountain glaciers because there is too much greening on the tops of the mountains. Greening is good unless the UN can exploit it somehow. Greening on mountains can be because of glacial loss but it can also be caused by increasing CO2 levels which cause more green things to grow bigger and in more areas. Either way, the UN will exploit mountain greening to wrest as much money and control of human activities as they can muster.

15.5 Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species[.]”

The UN has a chart for this which measures red list species. The closer to 1.0 the less species which are on the red list and the closer to 0.0 the closer all species are to extinction. Globally, from 2015 to 2022 the metric went from 0.75 to 0.72, indicating that whatever the UN is doing is not working for them to achieve their goal. In 2020, the metric stood at 0.73, slightly better than it the year 2022.

Despite the fact that the efforts of the United Nations’ and their friends to protect species being a failure as far as their approach to it, they will double down. The UN has never stopped pushing to re-wild the nations of the world and they won’t. The UN continuously looks for new species to place on the red list because each time one of those species is placed there, the UN, or a UN-friendly government will start doing all kinds of bizarre and evil things to human beings to protect the environment.

And the UN will not stop at protecting endangered species. This target includes language which allows them to target ANY activity performed by humans they deem harmful to any natural habitat or species. Since they have determined CO2 and H2O are pollutants, the UN wouldn’t have a problem with helping to exterminate 90% of the planet. Until they get to their goal of 500 million people left on earth there are some things which everyday people do which the UN wishes to curtail – eating, drinking water, using gasoline engines, and weeding out overgrown forests, suffice for examples.

In order to effect the global austerity measures they want everyone on earth on some form of government assistance, notably UBI and rent subsidies. Welfare breeds dependence, and that dependence comes with the giver having control over the actions of the receiver. At the end of the day, it is this control over mankind which the UN is seeking, whether you die because of non-compliance to UN edicts or live in slavery to the UN and their minions is irrelevant to the UN.

15.6 Promote fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and promote appropriate access to such resources, as internationally agreed[.]”

There are three graphs used to indicate this target. The first graph shows the number of countries in world which have adopted legislative measures which were then reported to the Access and Benefit-Sharing Clearing-House. The US, China, Russia, nor Australia were party to the Access and Benefit-Sharing Clearing-House in 2021; however, India was. In total there are 68 nations, predominantly in Europe and Africa, which have signed onto this.

The Access and Benefit-Sharing Clearing-House comes from the Access and Benefit-Sharing Clearing-House Protocol which, itself, is found within the Nagoya Protocol. It lays out the need for the sharing of genetic information as well as the idea of informed consent; however, not individual informed consent. The authors of the Nagoya Protocol seem to have forgotten that human beings themselves are comprised of genetic material. Thus, nowhere in this document is the idea of individual informed-consent mentioned. The informed consent the Nagoya Protocol references is the consent given to the party receiving the genetic information by the party giving the genetic information. Although no specific types of genetic materials are covered under the protocol itself, anthrax, Ebola, smallpox, human stem cells, and every other form of life, including some non-life forms such as prions, all constitute genetic material.

Does anyone remember 23andMe? How about Ancestry? I remember them. Who took a Covid test? Your genetics have already been sold to foreign nations. I hope that makes you angry. The Chinese Super Soldier program is moving steadily ahead because of your genetic contribution. Of course, with your genetic material, individual-specific bioweapons can be developed. A better understanding of an individual genotype gives a better understanding of how to target specific genes within sertain races of people. That, too, allows for the development of biological weapons against specific genotypes. Put two and two together while you can.

The second graph shows which nations are party to the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. The US, Russia, Australia, and India are all parties to this treaty while China is not. In 2012 there were 126 parties to this treaty and in 2022 there are 148.

The treaty establishes two objectives. Each objective invites the UN into nations to help foul the food crops in those nations. The objectives read:

“The objectives of this Treaty are the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of their use, in harmony with the Convention on Biological Diversity, for sustainable agriculture and food security.

“These objectives will be attained by closely linking this Treaty to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and to the Convention on Biological Diversity.”

While the treaty has a section giving farmer’s rights involving participation of decisions made at the national level, the ability to retain their traditional knowledge, and to “equitably participate in sharing benefits arising from the utilization of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture,” the treaty obliterates those rights, declaring:

“In their relationships with other States, the Contracting Parties recognize the sovereign rights of States over their own plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, including that the authority to determine access to those resources rests with national governments and is subject to national legislation.

“In the exercise of their sovereign rights, the Contracting Parties agree to establish a multilateral system, which is efficient, effective, and transparent, both to facilitate access to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, and to share, in a fair and equitable way, the benefits arising from the utilization of these resources, on a complementary and mutually reinforcing basis.”

Individual farmers don’t have the rights under this treaty, the government has ALL of the rights under this treaty. Woe to the farmer who wishes not to share. The government will be knocking on their door demanding to know the information they seek about the way that farmer has produced food. Not giving that information up would seem to be a breach of international law. It is highly unlikely that many individual farmers know of this treaty, and if they do, they have the wherewithal to absolutely refuse to comply with it or their national government’s demands in order to comply with it.

The third graph is a display of the nations which are party to the Nagoya Protocol. The United States, Russia, and Australia are not parties; however China and India are as of 2021. There were 132 parties to the Nagoya protocol in 2021.

The UN has no business intervening in any way, shape, or form in the food production of any nation. Today, as I write this, half of the world is in food riots as their food costs have exorbitantly risen. Nigeria, Pakistan, Egypt, Sri Lanka, India, Colombia, Philippines, Turkey, Russia, Peru, Argentina, Mexico, Indonesia, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Brazil, and Chile are all spots ripe for food riots. The people of Sri Lanka and Peru are currently rioting because of food costs and shortages. Iran, having announced price increases for basic foods, also announced they will be “the first country to roll out a food rationing scheme based on new biometric IDs. Where vaccine passports failed, food passports will now be eagerly accepted by hungry people who can’t afford rapidly inflating food prices.”

The people of Iran are rioting over food, as are the people of Iraq. And, as discontent grows and more and more food riots affect more and more places, the blithering idiots in the governments, central banks, international institutions and the media will continue to blame Russia, and Russia only. Millions of chickens and turkeys are being culled because of ‘bird flu’ – not Russia. The baby formula issue in the US is largely being caused by completely psychopathic blood-drinking-Satanists at the FDA refusing manufacturers to reopen after having voluntarily and temporarily halting production due to safety concerns, whether those safety concerns have been remedied or not.

The UN is completely to blame for this. Their stupid ideas of, and meddling in, global food production and their version of sustainability have driven the world to rioting over the cost and availability of food. Again, their end plan is control – go read that quote about Iran again. The UN wants control over every single human mind or they want to exterminate you. If they have to starve the people of the earth they will. They will also divert the blame to any convenient source they can to keep the blame away from themselves. And the mass-media will oblige in the UN’s desire to mask the true culprits of such man-made calamities, as the UN is highly implicated in mass-starvation, mass-genocide, crimes against humanity, and human-trafficking schemes. This is a war between good versus evil. The time to pick a side is just about over. Either the reader will recognize the evil intent of the UN and it’s potential seat of power for the Anti-Christ, or the reader will not and be condemned by God, the Creator of the Universe for eternity. The choice was easy for me, and I pray for your soul to go to the Father of Jesus.

15.7 Take urgent action to end poaching and trafficking of protected species of flora and fauna and address both demand and supply of illegal wildlife products[.]”

The UN has developed no way to track this. The big one that pops into people’s minds is turning elephant tusks into usable ivory. I’m 100% positive the practice still continues; however, the poachers life is on the line while they attempt to conduct their activity. But that does not seem to have had the effect which was intended. Poachers are still killing elephants for their tusks according to National Geographic.

Obviously, there is a desire to possess rare and hard to get items. That is burnt into the human psyche. The UN wants to destroy that. I’d personally love to possess a Gutenberg Bible, a rare and hard to get item. A Honus Wagner error baseball card, a huge diamond, the skull of a giant with two rows of teeth, or a Magic the Gathering Black Lotus card, a Spanish Doubloon, or even a Tengen version of Tetris all represent rare items. I’ve written about my dream car – a 454 Chevy Chevelle painted black with silver racing stripes – another rarity. All of these items would cost an impressive sum of money to acquire and all represent status. The status achieved by obtaining such an item feeds into the ego of the individual possessing the item. It also feeds into the perception of the individual by others. The UN seeks to erase this in all of it’s forms, and it cannot – at least not as humanity currently exists. This is why men obtain ivory, and it is also why the UN is onboard with transhumanism.

The UN has defined this much more broadly than elephant tusks. The UN wrote this to include thousands of species they, and others, have deemed necessary to place on their red list and, thus, protect those species. I wrote about my desire to eat an Orange Roughy again. If there was someone selling that tasty fish out of the back of their car I just might go for it. Of course, that would be a black market sale and illegal according to multiple domestic laws and international treaties. Would selling that one Orange Roughy to me be worth it to the trafficker? Would ivory be worth it to the poacher, trafficker, and vendor? Diamonds, hashish, opium, cocaine, hashish, opium, and cocaine analogues, weapons, small arms, and many other items are illegally produced, smuggled, transported, and sold to end users outside of the types of enforcement actions endorsed by the UN.

It is beyond me why the UN would think that people should be concerned about flora and fauna being illegally trafficked when that same corrupt international organization allows for tens of millions of human beings to be trafficked and actually helps promote that human trafficking. Shutting human trafficking down would infringe on the rights of the traffickers and the rights of the ‘immigrants’ and ‘refugees’ arriving in foreign destinations. The mass-migration of cultures coming into Western nations are not compatible with the cultures of those Western nations. And the UN, indeed, most of the world, will call me a racist for even mentioning this, and they can all go straight to Hell for that act.

Okay, maybe I got a bit off target here. My points are still salient. There is still Elephant poaching going on. According to thespruce.com the three most poached plants in the US are the Saguaro Cactus (because of it’s slow growth), the Dudleya Farinosa (people can make big bucks off of these), and the Venus Flytrap (no reason for poaching is given). It is interesting to note that, according to this article, a man with hundreds of poached (meaning without license) Venus Flytraps, which is a felony, was given “a couple of months in jail” and ordered to replant all of the illegally gained plants. The entire reason the Venus Flytrap is valuable at all is because of the sanctions against it, which proves that the UN goal is not only not going to work, but will actually increase the desirability of the organism.

If anyone wants to convince anyone else of something, first they have to identify the problem. After the problem is identified, they have to suggest a solution. Without changing the hearts and/or the minds of those being suggest a solution, the problem will not be resolved. This is the basic tenet of psychological warfare, which the UN, the WHO, the Bilderberg Group, the WEF, and even the IMF participates in. Problem, reaction, solution – over and over and over again. It’s the incremental development of bigger and bigger problems which result in the slavery of everyone the UN and their friends allow to continue living – the rest will be murdered.

15.8 By 2020, introduce measures to prevent the introduction and significantly reduce the impact of invasive alien species on land and water ecosystems and control or eradicate the priority species[.]”

There are two graphs associated with this target. The first tracks monetary allocation from national governments to combat invasive alien species. By 2020, about 70 nations had decided to combat invasive alien species with national monies. The US, Russia, Australia, and India are all part of this endeavor.

The second graph measures, “Aichi Target 9: By 2020, invasive alien species and pathways are identified and prioritized, priority species are controlled or eradicated and measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent their introduction and establishment.” Almost the entire globe is onboard with this target.

The Aichi Biodiversity Targets stem from the Convention on Biological Diversity. There are 20 targets broken down into five categories. The first category is an effort to get biodiversity framed in the way the UN wants it framed which makes manipulating the masses into compliance easier. The second section focuses on the specific areas the UN wants to protect (the whole planet) and suggests that human activities be curtailed to achieve those targets. The third strategic goal of Aichi entails placing huge areas of land and water under protected statuses, maintaining biological diversity, and reversing the near extinction status of low-population species. Strategic goal D ends a lot of development and usages for certain economic purposes and by certain groups (notably men). The last goal of Aichi is about getting as many people involved as possible, as long as the involved party has the exact same intentions as the UN does – this especially includes banks and financial institutions which will bankroll the activities of those in the protected areas.

All this target really serves to do is to increase the regulatory burdens, and associated fees, of anyone trying to take a boat into a body of water, or to burn firewood, or to take plants across borders. The first time I drove across the California state line was well over 20 years ago and I was very confused as to why I had to pull over at a checkpoint to have authorities search my car for any plants which were themselves invasive or may possibly be carrying invasive species harmful to other plants within them. And here I was thinking that I had the right to travel freely through the 50 united states of America and that the 4th Amendment applied to all of those states. I guess not, not even then. How broken is this place?

15.9 By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts[.]”

The SDG’s again call for the implementation of Aichi Biodiversity Targets, specifically in this case, Goal 2, which reads, “By 2020, at the latest, biodiversity values have been integrated into national and local development and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and are being incorporated into national accounting, as appropriate, and reporting systems.” The UN graph tracking this shows seven different categories into which a nation can be in. The categories are no data, no national target exists for Aichi Goal 2, national target exists; but moving away from it, but no progress, insufficient progress, on track to achieve, and on track to exceed.

There is no table for this goal; however, according to the map, slightly less than half of all nations were making no progress or insufficient progress towards implementing Aichi Goal 2 as of 2021. Russia and Australia did not even bother to set a national goal, along with slight less than about a fourth of the nations on earth. The United States reported no data as did several other nations. China and India were on track to achieve the realization of Goal 2 in 2021, which is a little bit suspect because the deadline was 2020. Venezuela and Somalia were the two nations on track to exceed Goal 2, while Paupa New Guinea was the sole nation moving away from the target.

Instead of building something for economic gain, manufacturing, commerce or residential use, agricultural use, biodiversity needs to be addressed first. Under Aichi Goal 2, biodiversity also needs to be considered along with plans to reduce poverty (which is dependent on access to capital and/or resources by those in poverty). It also needs to be addressed when developing economic, social, or city planning. Large scale infrastructure projects are great targets for the adherents of this form of eco-terrorism who are, unfortunately, often times able to stop projects before they can even begin. Building a pond on a farm; however, could also be subjected to such measures. A farmer putting in a fence could even be an issue for these types of eco-terrorists.

The most concerning portion of this Aichi goal lies in the idea of developing a national accounting method to incorporate biodiversity. It is like an underhanded slap in the groin while a bat, called man-made climate change, is swinging down on our heads. One of the ‘genius’ ideas to mitigate ‘man-made’ climate change is carbon markets. Likewise, an accounting system which develops a way to account for biodiversity could, and will, be used as a biodiversity market with no offsets to act as buffers. The UN will have to police it through their proxies, who will end up being as effective as their Peacekeepers which keep no peace, prolong wars, and actually have been found to have committed wide-scale rape, human trafficking, and arms trafficking offenses as well as breeding corruption within their own ranks as well as within the host countries in which they serve. The Biokeepers will be no different, save for the fact that the lure of corruption will become commonplace.

15.a Mobilize and significantly increase financial resources from all sources to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity and ecosystems[.]”

There are two graphs the UN uses to see how well they are doing with this target. The first graph shows economic assistance given to nations for biodiversity projects from 2002 through 2018. The totals are in the billions of dollars per year. In 2015, Ukraine, all by itself, laundered $1.01 billion through its nation for such projects. Colombia snagged $541.2 million that year. Between 2015 and 2018, China, the world’s second-largest economy, got $518.36 million. Actually, between 2002 and 2018, China received $4,365,240,000. That’s $4.365 billion over 17 periods, averaging $256.8 million a year.

China receiving welfare for anything, especially on the scale the UN is indicating, is sickening. China routinely violates human rights with impunity, routinely flaunts international law in favor of their own imperialist goals, and is a Communist dictatorship. Giving China global welfare is repugnant because by doing so, the UN is displaying its acceptance of the way China operates, despite any rhetoric which they use when they, on occasion, try to stop the Chinese government from committing atrocities.

The donors between 2002 and 2018 are the feature of the second graph. The US gave a tad under 4 billion dollars between 2015 and 2018. Over the same period, France gave $7.87 billion, Germany gave $6.02 billion, and Japan donated almost $3.36 billion. Those 4 countries, France, Germany, the US, and Japan, total over $20 billion in donations to biodiversity projects between 2015 to 2018.

This is what global welfare looks like. All it is in reality is theft of the tax dollars of the developed nations being transferred to the developing and least developed nations. I’m glad the United States was not 1st over this time span but I am still absolutely disgusted that we are 3rd, only because the nations of France and Germany are even more insane than the United States. Billions of dollars with even a possibility of a single one of them ending up in Iran, China, North Korea, or Ukraine is absolutely disgusting to me. We have our own problems in the US which continue to be underfunded and, often, go unaddressed. The same is true in France, Germany, and Japan.

On the USAID website the global biodiversity projects they have helped fund include Advancing Gender in the Environment, Wildlife Tracking Response Assessment and Priority Setting, and Combating Wildlife Trafficking Case Study Compilation. Hey, US citizen, pay attention here – this is where some of the taxes you pay to the creeps in Washington DC are going! There is another one here too, called TASKUP.

While USAID does not directly fund TASKUP (there are other organs within the US government which fund these types of efforts), they are still attempting to engage scientists, researchers, and college students. And that, itself, requires some type of USAID expenditure. USAID puts their TASKUP program like this:

“Tapping Academic Skills for Knowledge Underpinning Policy (TASKUP) is an opportunity to engage diverse academic communities--particularly graduate students--in research topics relevant to biodiversity conservation and international development. TASKUP shares emerging thematic questions that, if answered, could help fill knowledge gaps and assist USAID’s biodiversity programming. The first theme that TASKUP delves into is One Health and the critical role of healthy ecosystems.”

Young adults, usually about 25 years old, indoctrinated in UN theology since the beginning of their education, having gone through four years of Communist indoctrination, and having gone through several years of putting their indoctrination into practice while receiving even more UN propaganda are being recruited, in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, to figure out how to make One Health ideas work for the benefit of the psychopaths at the UN and their friends.

What is One Health you may ask? If you do not know, you will figure it out rather quickly when one of these freaks shows up and demands you accept your murder. It basically states that humanity is a parasite upon the earth. Kill the parasites and the earth will heal itself. One Health is the UN’s way, as well as others ways, to state and effect their Gaia theories without alarming the public as to what Gaia theory actually is. I just informed the reader about the main tenet of Gaia theory – in the end it justifies the extermination of massive amounts of the human population in favor of the earth, the wildlife on it, and the atmosphere around it. According to Gaia theory, humans are a parasite on earth that does not belong here in the numbers in which we ARE here. In a sick way, Gaia theory understands God’s creation while rejecting God’s greatest creation upon this earth – human beings. USAID is helping to recruit people into UN projects which rest upon Gaia theory, under the guise of a One Health model.

Just to exemplify how the UN and their friends go about failures to meet goals, in February of 2021, 33 days after Goal 2 of the Aichi Biodiversity Target was not met (along with the other goals), mongbay.com published an article titled New approaches needed to protect biodiversity as Aichi Targets go unmet. The causes of the failure to reach the Aichi Goals, according to the article were, “an overall lack of investments, resources, knowledge, and accountability toward biodiversity conservation.”

To achieve the Aichi Targets, the mongbay.com article floats the idea that the Convention on Biological Diversity (where Aichi come from) be stripped of its provisions to protect sovereign nations of their sovereign rights over their biological resources in order to make the Convention on Biological Diversity legally binding. They continue on:

“The paper points to several ways in which the Paris Agreement could be used as a guidepost for the Aichi targets. In her statement to the WEF, von der Leyen also called for ‘a Paris-style agreement for biodiversity.’ The issue with this, Ash [U.N. Environment Programme’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre] says, is that under the Paris Agreement it is much easier to measure countries’ relative contributions to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions, whereas the discussion under the biodiversity convention about the relative contribution of different parties to achieving that end goal is more difficult. For instance, it may matter more for global biodiversity what happens in a biodiversity hotspot than in an already heavily developed country.”

The UN will double down on their Aichi Biological Targets. Despite their planned implementation by 2020, and the abject failure of that global goal, the UN will redesign the original plan, give the new plan a new name (a different city name), come up with a slightly modified version which demands even more from developed nations to give, primarily, to ‘developing’ nations and least-developed nations to enhance those nations’ biological diversity programs. The Paris Climate Accord demanded a trillion dollars a year from the United States – who knows what amount is enough for the US to pay to other nations for the preservation of biological diversity according to these ‘people’.

15.b Mobilize significant resources from all sources and at all levels to finance sustainable forest management and provide adequate incentives to developing countries to advance such management, including for conservation and reforestation[.]”

The graphs used to track this are the same graphs used in target 15.a. In the United States, the USDA received $8.15 billion in 2020, $8.308 billion in 2021, was appropriated $11.472 billion in 2022, and requested $10.89 billion for 2023 for forestry management. Nearly 81% of these funds are listed as discretionary. I mention this because their agency-wide mission statement reads, “The USDA Forest Service’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.” The mission statement might as well have been written by the UN. In the same document, which serves to justify the Forestry Service’s budget, the term ‘carbon’ occurs 93 times, ‘climate change’ appears 66 times, ‘sustainable’ 42 times, ‘carbon sequestration’ 12 times, ‘sustainability’ is in the document 9 times, and they manage to mention the ‘United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’ once as well.

Where is the USDA and Joe Biden’s administration? They are in the United Nation’s pocket. Neither one gives two craps about the Constitution, they want to play by UN rules, to the detriment of every citizen of the United States.

15.c Enhance global support for efforts to combat poaching and trafficking of protected species, including by increasing the capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities[.]”

The UN with their billions of dollars have not figured out how to track this target. Enhancing support entails at least two things – increasing enforcement actions and greater funding to expand those enforcement actions. All this will do is get law enforcement to harass even more people.

The UN’s desire of increasing the sustainable livelihoods of those engaged in poaching animals is nonsense. Poachers are going to poach whether they are locals, from nearby nations, or the rich going on safari to trophy hunt. Individual nations need to take actions against actual poachers and shut them down. The UN should have absolutely nothing to do with animal poaching.

Summary

The UN fails to mention their actual desination in their statement of this goal. The actual goal, even more so than with goal 14 (about ocean conservation), is to control the activities of humans on land. What the UN is seeking to do with this goal is to absolutely curtail, criminalize, and surveil human activity upon land in order to ‘save’ the earth. How heroic (or demonic) of the UN to pick up this mantle.

The targets in this goal have failed or are failing. Undeterred by their failures, the UN will only double down on the targets. The UN is going to even more persistently demand that all of their targets be adhered to and they will increasingly turn towards legally binding treaties in order to achieve their intentions. It will not matter if forests are actually shrinking, deserts are actually growing, or if animals are being poached at a higher rate – the UN will claim they are. The UN will demand adherence to the idea that man is causing all of these issues and that man’s activities upon the earth be altered to ‘fix’ the earth. And the UN will demand billions, if not trillions, of dollars to mitigate man’s actions which have afflicted their Gaia.

Genesis 1:26-31 says:

“26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, in the likeness of ourselves; and let them rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air, the animals, and over all the earth, and over every crawling creature that crawls on the earth.”

“27 So God created humankind in his own image; in the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.

“28 God blessed them: God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air and every living creature that crawls on the earth.” 

“29 Then God said, “Here! Throughout the whole earth I am giving you as food every seed-bearing plant and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. 

“30 And to every wild animal, bird in the air and creature crawling on the earth, in which there is a living soul, I am giving as food every kind of green plant.” And that is how it was. 

“31 God saw everything that he had made, and indeed it was very good. So there was evening, and there was morning, a sixth day.”

The UN is trying to replace God’s desire with their own. Their replacement is Gaia theory, as I have stated multiple times. Science Direct (note the idea of science informing this religion) explains Gaia theory as:

“The Gaia hypothesis supposes Earth to be a planet-scale-integrated entity composed of the nonliving parts of the planet plus its ecological systems – in essence, a superorganism. The entity is viewed as a self-regulatory system in which ecological and biological processes control the values of the many physical parameters of the Earth within certain bounds that are conducive to the continuance of life. The idea has been controversial from its inception in the late 1960s and the first formal statements issued in the early 1970s by its originator J. E. Lovelock and his long-time collaborator L. Margulis. The concept, still controversial, has been attacked as being unscientific and untestable and as being unacceptably teleological. Alternatively, it has been lauded as a new insight into the behavior of large-scale complex systems. A model known as Daisyworld has been developed to illustrate that Gaia can operate in a nonteleological framework. A variety of biogeochemical phenomena have been proposed as suitable tests for Gaian mechanisms. Future investigations of the intrinsic behaviors of complex systems may shed further light on whether the Gaian notions can be applied in nature to the ecological and physical systems of the Earth.”

Appearing in Ethics of Science and Environmental Politics Volume 14: 7-10, 2014, Daniel Pauly wrote of the issue as to what humans are upon earth. His summary reads:

“The question is, therefore, whether it will be possible to turn us humans into benign parasites on the surface of the earth, whose various evolved ecosystems would retain their ability to function, or rather, whether we will continue to be part of the earth’s ecosystem in the same way that a malignant tumor is — never for a long time — part of a person’s body: All bets are off.”

According to Pauly, humans are, at best, a ‘benign parasite’ upon the earth and at worst a cancer which will kill the host. This sums up Gaia theory quite well – humanity is an unwanted and uninvited guest upon the earth – itself a closed biological system. Parasites which infect a host are to be killed as they inevitably weaken or kill a host. Cancer is targeted to be eliminated from the host as well. So, does it really matter if humans are considered a parasite or a cancer upon the earth? Both are suitable to be exterminated from the host in order to preserve the host. And that is exactly the way that the Gaia theory adherents at the UN, NGO’s, and within national governments see all of us. The bottom line is that these groups wish to purge the disease (humanity in general, 7.5 billion of us) from the host (earth).

Environment and Ecology has an article titled Gaia Worship – The New Pagan Religion, which I have included in it’s entirety. The author, Jennifer Rast writes:

“Anyone who has studied the global environmental movement has no doubt heard the term "Gaia".  Gaia is a revival of Paganism that rejects Christianity, considers Christianity its biggest enemy, and views the Christian faith as its only obstacle to a global religion centered on Gaia worship and the uniting of all life forms around the goddess of "Mother Earth".  A cunning mixture of science, paganism, eastern mysticism, and feminism have made this pagan cult a growing threat to the Christian Church.  Gaia worship is at the very heart of today's environmental policy.  The Endangered Species Act, The United Nation's Biodiversity Treaty and the Presidents Council on Sustainable Development are all offspring of the Gaia hypothesis of saving "Mother Earth".  This religious movement, with cult-like qualities, is being promoted by leading figures and organizations such as former Vice President Albert Gore, broadcaster Ted Turner, and the United Nations and it's various NGO's.  Al Gore's book "Earth in the Balance" is just one of many books that unabashedly proclaims the deity of Earth and blames the falling away from this Pagan God on the environmentally unfriendly followers of Jesus Christ.  The United Nations has been extremely successful in infusing the "Green Religion" into an international governmental body that has an increasing affect and control over all of our lives. 

“So, what is this new cult of Gaia?  It is basically a rehashed, modernized version of the paganism condemned by God in the Bible.  Science, evolution theory, and a space age mentality have given it a new face, and made it sound more credible to a modern world, but it is the same paganism in all of its evils.  There have been other religious movements that have presented similar revelations about the deity of a living earth, but Gaia has succeeded in uniting the environmental movement, the new age movement, Eastern religions, and even the leaders of many Christian denominations behind a bastardized version of paganism where the others weren't able to. 

“The Gaia hypothesis can be credited to James Lovelock.  Lovelock worked for NASA during the 1960's as a consultant to the "life on Mars" Viking spacecraft project.  Lovelock's theory claims that the earth's "biota", tightly coupled with its environment, act as a single, self regulating living system in such a way as to maintain the conditions that are suitable for life.  This living system, he believed, was the result of a meta-life form that occupied our planet billions of years ago and began a process of transforming this planet into its own substance.  All of the lifeforms on this planet, according to Lovelock, are a part of Gaia - a part of one spirit goddess that sustains life on earth.  Since this transformation into a living system, he theorizes, the interventions of Gaia have brought about the evolving diversity of living creatures on planet Earth.  From Lovelock's perspective in space he saw not a planet, but a self-evolving and self-regulating living system.  His theory presents earth not as the rock that it is, but as a living being.  He named this being Gaia, after the Greek goddess that was once believed to have drawn the living world forth from Chaos. 

“The idea of Earth as a living, divine spirit is not a new one.  Plato said "We shall affirm that the cosmos, more than anything else, resembles most closely that living Creature of which all other living creatures, severally or genetically, are portion; a living creature which is fairest of all and in ways most perfect."  As today's version of paganism, Gaia is eagerly accepted by the new age movement and fits neatly into eastern mysticism, but science was needed to gather in the evolutionists and science-minded humanists.  For these people, Gaia was made palatable by Lovelock's Daisyworld model, a mathematical and scientific theory designed to refute the criticisms of Darwin's groupies.  Just as evolution eliminates the need for a divine creator, the Daisyworld model provided a theory of evolving life on earth that incorporates natural selection with a world that is interconnected.  It eliminates a personal yet separate God, and makes humans a part of the divine spirit that is Gaia.

“More appealing to the New Agers and the interfaith movement is the mystical side of Gaia.  They can easily relate to the belief that humans can have mystical experiences or a spiritual relationship with Gaia.  A connectedness to nature and the belief that humans are a part of this collective consciousness called Gaia appeals to them.  Gaia teaches that an "Earth spirit", goddess, or planetary brain must be protected.  It is this belief that fuels the environmental movement, sustainable development, and a global push for the return of industrialized nations to a more primitive way of life.  Just as with the evolutionists, the humanists, and the other pagan religions of the world, Gaia has named Christianity as the obstacle to human evolution and our spiritual destiny.  A document mandated by the U.N.-sponsored Convention on Biological Diversity, the Global Biodiversity Assessment, explicitly refers to Christianity as a faith that has set humans apart from nature and stripped nature of its sacred qualities.  The document states:

“Conversion to Christianity has therefore meant an abandonment of an affinity with the natural world for many forest dwellers, peasants, fishers all over the world ...The northeastern hilly states of India bordering China and Myanmar supported small scale, largely autonomous shifting cultivator societies until the 1950's.  These people followed their own religious traditions that included setting apart between 10% and 30% of the landscape as sacred groves and ponds.1 

“While condemning Christianity as the root of all ecological evil, the document goes on to praise Buddhism and Hinduism as they "did not depart as drastically from the perspective of humans as members of a community of beings including other living and non-living elements".  Non-Christian religions are definitely favored by the global government as good stewards of Mother Earth.

“Members of this "Green Religion" will all agree that the Earth is in a crisis state and this ecological emergency is the result of Christian traditions.  They believe that the Judeo Christian belief that God assigned man to rule over the earth has caused us to exploit and abuse it.  Monotheism, they assert, has separated humans from their ancient connection to the earth, and to reverse this trend governments, the media, our education system, artists, and other areas of influence must revive earth-centered myth and reconnect us to Earth's spirit.  Al Gore, in his book Earth in the Balance, expounds on this view:

“‘The richness and diversity of our religious tradition throughout history is a spiritual resource long ignored by people of faith, who are often afraid to open their minds to teachings first offered outside their own systems of belief.  But the emergence of a civilization in which knowledge moves freely and almost instantaneously through the world has spurred a renewed investigation of the wisdom distilled by all faiths.  This panreligious perspective may prove especially important where our global civilization's responsibility for the earth is concerned.’ (pp. 258-259)

“Gore praises the Eastern religions and new age spiritualism, while blaming Christianity for the elimination of the ancient goddess religion, and calls for a new spiritual relationship between man and earth.

“‘The spiritual sense of our place in nature predates Native American cultures; increasingly it can be traced to the origins of human civilization. A growing number of anthropologists and archaeomythologists, such as Marija Gimbutas and Riane Esler argue that the prevailing ideology of belief in prehistoric Europe and much of the world was based on the worship of a single earth goddess, who was assumed to be the fount of all life and who radiated harmony among all living things. Much of the evidence for the existence of this primitive religion comes from the many thousands of artifacts uncovered in ceremonial sites. These sites are so widespread that they seem to confirm the notion that a goddess religion was ubiquitous through much of the world until the antecedents of today's religions, most of which still have a distinctly masculine orientation...swept out of India and the Near East, almost obliterating belief in the goddess. The last vestige of organized goddess worship was eliminated by Christianity as late as the fifteenth century in Lithuania.’

If Gore had read the Bible he would know exactly why Christians will not open their mind to these other beliefs as he suggests.  The Bible very clearly warns us not to.

“‘So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.  See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.  For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.’  Colossians 2:6-10

Gore also might want to read Romans 1:18 - 25

“‘The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.  For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.  For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.  Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.  They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the creator - who is forever praised. Amen.’

“When men began to worship the creation instead of the Creator, the wrath of God was revealed.  As societies begin again to turn from the truth of the creation and worship nature, "Mother Earth", or any other deceiving spirit, the evil and deception in their new religion will be made evident by God's response. 

“Romans 1:26 - 32

“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.  Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.  In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.  Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.  Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.  They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity.  They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice.  They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.  Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. 

“Our societies today are becoming a picture of this wickedness, evil, greed and depravity.  As the Christian church is brought into the fold by organizations such as the National Council of Churches and the National Religious Partnership for the Environment, we can be sure the results will be a further decline into immorality and chaos.  There is a drive by these organizations and others to meld Earth worship with Christianity in the name of tolerance, biodiversity, sustainability, and the preservation of Mother Earth.  It is a battle for Christianity and an attack on biblical truth.  When this pagan agenda reaches your church or your community, how will you respond?  Will you speak up for the truth of God or will you exchanged the glory of the immortal God for a global compromise that is leading countless people into spiritual darkness?  As followers of Jesus Christ we know the truth and must boldly proclaim it.   The opposition is fierce and to those who don't know the joy of a relationship with God, it is an appealing proposition.  It is accepting of everything, intolerant of nothing, it deifies the environmentalist, worships the feminist, eliminates all responsibility for sin, and frees you to embrace your sinful nature.  The truth of the Bible must first be taught in our churches, and then shared with the world.  As churches begin to fall away from the faith and corrupt the Word of God, it is left to Bible-believing Christians to stand up for the truth, contend for our faith, and offer to the world an alternative to God's wrath.  If we are ashamed of our faith, if we compromise our beliefs, and if we hide in our churches and ignore what is going on outside of them, we are aiding in our own destruction and countless souls will be lost because of our complacency, selfishness, and inaction.

“‘For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of god, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.  For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline.  So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner.  But join with me in suffering for the gospel, but the power of god, who has saved us and called us to a holy life - not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace.’   II Timothy 1:6-8” 

Jennifer Rast is completely correct and accurate here. While Al Gore and his shenanigans may not be known, and Enron and Gore’s involvement in it may be a mystery to most of you – Brad Pitt and John Kerry are very visibly running around on their private jets demanding we adhere to the exact same thing Gore was demanding we adhere to. That ‘thing’ to adhere to is Gaia theory. Behind all the bought and paid for ‘science’, and pseudo-science, and grants, and global welfare schemes is the idea of Gaia theory. And Gaia theory will end up getting all of us murdered by demons dressed up in human clothes.

Open a Bible and read it. May God Bless You.

All quotes were found at https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal15 unless otherwise documented.

Previous
Previous

How are the UN Sustainability Goals Going? Goal 16 of 17.

Next
Next

How are the UN Sustainability Goals Going? Goal 14 of 17.