How are the UN Sustainability Goals Going? Goal 6 of 17.
Tim O’Connor – Center for the Preservation of Humanity
4/10/2022
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 6th SDG:
Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
In order to make something available to someone, there must be a provider which controls the good(s) or service in the first place. The United Nations is claiming that they own all water and, as such, have the ability to demand it’s management. The same applies to sanitation services. The UN has done an abysmal job of stewardship in the arena of water and water sanitation services.
The UN’s targets to ensure water and sanitation for all are:
“6.1 By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all
“6.2 By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations
“6.3 By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally
“6.4 By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity and substantially reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity
“6.5 By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate
“6.6 By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes
“6.a By 2030, expand international cooperation and capacity-building support to developing countries in water- and sanitation-related activities and programmes, including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse technologies
“6.b Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management”
I’m going to cover these one by one.
“6.1 By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all [.]”
There are five divisions of what access to safe water entails:
“Safely managed drinking water: ‘Safely managed drinking water’ is defined as an ‘Improved source located on premises, available when needed, and free from microbiological and priority chemical contamination.’
“‘Basic’ drinking water source: an ‘Improved source within 30 minutes round trip collection time.’
“‘Limited’ drinking water source: ‘Improved source over 30 minutes round trip collection time.’
“‘Unimproved’ drinking water source: ‘Unimproved source that does not protect against contamination.’
“‘No service’: access to surface water only.”
Access to safe drinking water is very important to human survival. In 2015, 70% of the people in the world had access to ‘safe’ drinking water which rose to 75% by 2020. At that rate of growth, in 2030 only 82% of the world will have access to ‘safe’ drinking water which would fall short of the UN’s goal by 18% or about 1.4 billion people.
I will stop putting the word safe in quotes now but I would like the reader to understand that even though certain sources of water are considered safe, some are actually toxic and require filtering to make them actually safe. See hydrofluorosilicic acid. Also, take note that agricultural runoff, nano-scale particles, and leaching in aging pipe systems is not really addressed in the assessments of ‘safe’ water. But I digress, the UN wants a dumbed-down population and, as such they love many of the Nazi ideologies (they owe the impetus to achieving existence to the Nazi’s actually), including the fluoride additives Hitler introduced into concentration camps.
Basically, I’m saying that water isn’t safe when it is ‘treated’ using fluoride, which was once used as rat poison and is linked to dental streaking, skeletal fluorosis, “thyroid malfunction, kidney disease, diabetes, cancers and neurological disorders.” I’m going down a rabbit hole here, so I will stop, but it behooves you, if you have not already done so, to research fluoridated water and draw your own conclusions and take appropriate precautions.
In general, water is most expensive in nations where safe water is least available. Water is generally most expensive in sub-Saharan Africa, several southern Asia nations and several South American countries, although the highest cost for water in the world according to the data is in Norway with its very high average income ($3.25 - $3.50 per 1.5 liters) with Venezuela in second place at over $2.50 per 1.5 liters with it’s low-average-income. Places like Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo are in a terrible position with extremely-low-average-incomes and relatively high (about $2.00 for 1.5 liters of water) water prices.
The UN has a collaborative effort with WHO called Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH). The main idea is to get clean water into homes, schools, hospitals, and in emergency situations to everyone affected. WASH seeks to make soap available to those who don’t use soap on a regular basis. It also has stop open deification practices (pooping in open water supplies, like a river or lake). Interestingly, WASH quickly devolves into disease monitoring and mitigation efforts (think COVID-19), reliance upon the Convention on the Rights of the Child (a truly disgusting document), and it’s biggest issue – sustainability – which they plan on focusing on getting the power to sanitize water through solar power.
If the UN really wanted to help, which they do not, they would encourage governments which have poor access to water and poor sanitation services and practices to create those systems and services. At the same time the United Nations would provide the materials to produce soap, teach heads of households how to make it on their own, teach that same person how to use it, and send them home with some. At the same time the United Nations would promote the construction of outhouses, for the time being, and if water systems are constructed, make the transition from the outhouse to the toilet much easier.
“6.2 By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations[.]”
In 2017 there were about 670 million people, about half of the 1.3 billion in 2000, who pooped in the environment (open defecation) instead of on a toilet (street gutters, bushes, etc...). There is a long way to go to ending open defecation which is most widely practiced in India, Nigeria, and Indonesia.
Forbes reported in 2020 that India launched a massive toilet building campaign, funded by the government, which created 110 million toilets to serve 600 million people. The article notes open defecation is most widely practiced in Chad, Benin, Ethiopia, Solomon Islands, Mauritania, Haiti, Timor-Leste, and Malawi.
It’s morbidly interesting to me that several cities in the United States, the most notable of which is San Francisco, CA, have de facto allowed people to crap all over their city streets. It’s illegal but it was not prosecuted because the city of San Francisco decided to steam-clean the streets so normal people would not see piles of human crap anymore and, more importantly, stop calling 911 about them. The problem was so bad that in 2017 applications were developed to track where the human poop is in the city so people could avoid those areas. Steam-cleaning the streets is way easier than addressing the issues causing the problem; unaffordable housing, mental health issues, lack of public restrooms, and a gigantic homeless population.
Women have a monthly unclean time (unless they are pregnant or have gone through menopause) known more commonly to the world as a menstruation period. Women’s use of toilets, in particular, is a topic covered specifically under this target. BMC Public Health conducted a review of 9 research papers on the topic and concluded that more research needs to be conducted, probably so they could get rewarded by international grant money to create a new, definitive, and completely biased project. For instance, BMC Public Health stated in their 2019 review there are 892 million or so (a number cherry-picked from a 2015 UNICEF document) open defecators in the world and 2.3 billion lack access to a flush or pit latrine. Because of the order in which these terms appear, BMC note the problems with girls and women who practice open defecation include, “human dignity, health and well-being.”
Women risk an increase in violence, including sexual violence, because of open defecation practices, limited access to public latrine facilities, and women and girls desire to only use public facilities at night due to their misinterpreted ‘dirtiness’ during their menstrual period and post birth periods. Women ARE dirty at these times, however; there are cleansing techniques in the Bible which restore their cleanliness. Men, too, are unclean in certain circumstances, and, likewise, the Bible (God’s Word) dictates the manner in which to again be clean. The main issue with the uncleanliness of women (and men for that matter) involves separation of the unclean from the community and a forbidding of sexual relations until cleanliness is restored.
Maybe, just maybe, in addition to the solutions I suggested in target 6.1, those countries which are experiencing high rates of violence against females (or high rates of violence, period), including sexual violence, due to any cause, including open defecation, start aggressively prosecuting the perpetrators.
“6.3 By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally[.]”
That’s a mouthful. The UN wants to reduce water pollution, dumping hazardous things into water, treat more wastewater, and increase water recycling. Let’s see….
UNEP (the environmental agents of the UN) states that pollutants in water stem from, “pathogens (largely from human and animal waste), organic matter (including plant nutrients from agricultural run-off such as nitrogen or phosphorus), chemical pollution and salinity (from irrigation, domestic wastewater and runoff of mines into rivers).” The UNEP continues. “[p]lastic pollution, and emerging pollutants such as pharmaceuticals, also increasingly put our world’s waterways at risk, but the extent and impacts of their presence in our freshwater is largely unknown.”
About half of the worlds wastewater is treated according to a Utrecht University and United Nations University report which is a huge increase from the 20% previously reported. Bodies of water which have good ambient qualities include those in Canada, Madagascar, Sudan, Brazil, France, and Ethiopia. Some of those without good ambient qualities include those bodies of water in United States, Mexico, South Africa, Nigeria, Argentina, and Germany.
Water, in some areas is a major commodity. Los Angeles county, for example does not have adequate water supplies to meet it’s citizen’s needs, much like many African countries. One solution to this is to reclaim wastewater which is a growing industry speeding the wastewater-to-potable-water conversion significantly. Instead of letting wastewater gradually lose the contaminates in it through various natural means, water reuse technologies can clean wastewater to various degrees to make it suitable for agricultural use, industrial use, and even potable uses. The United Nations estimates that 3.7 billion gallons of wastewater goes untreated daily in developing countries.
“6.4 By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity and substantially reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity[.]”
Here is a great example of why I cannot stand the United Nations: “There is not a global water shortage as such, but individual countries and regions need to urgently tackle the critical problems presented by water stress. Water has to be treated as a scarce resource, with a far stronger focus on managing demand. Integrated water resources management provides a broad framework for governments to align water use patterns with the needs and demands of different users, including the environment.”
This says there is no problem but the UN is telling us there are problems. Obviously deserts don’t have water and those living in or near them need water to survive. The world could provide water from water-rich areas to water-poor areas. The capitalist world could do this far cheaper than any hackneyed Communist transfer of resources. Water is scarce in some areas, meanwhile the world has plenty of water overall. But the UN wants to treat all areas as the problem areas and their solution is to tell people, businesses, farms, and industries to stop using water. And then the UN goes and throws in the environment as a water user. Being as though the UN is waging a war on all people, everywhere, all the time favoring, instead, the Gaia ideology, it makes sense for them to target water usage by human beings down to the individual level.
How this works in practice is evinced by wacko California. The demons calling themselves democrats in Sacramento (may God turn the entire city to salt, Amen) passed two bills in 2018 which sets the daily allowable indoor water usage amount at 55 gallons a day per individual starting this year, 2022. In 2030, the rate will decrease to 50 gallons a day. Individual indoor and outdoor water usage rates stood at 90 gallons a day in 2017 but the rates fluctuate depending upon the season. In March 2017, 65 gallons of water were used per day per individual while in July 2017, 120 gallons were used.
“We are experiencing climate change whiplash in real time with extreme swings between wet and dry conditions,” Department of Water Resources Director Karla Nemeth said in a statement. “That means adjusting quickly based on the data and the science.” California is not experiencing climate change, they are experiencing chemtrails, which is a completely different topic. What Nemeth is speaking to is that farms and individuals getting their water from State Water Allocations will only be getting 5% of their normal allocations due to a 3-year drought.
To put this into perspective, a load of laundry uses around 16.5 gallons of water. A 10-minute shower uses about 21 gallons of water. I’m going to estimate that, depending on which method is used, energy-star dishwashers, non energy-star dishwashers, and hand-washing is at about 10 gallons of water which could be as low as 2.7 gallons all the way up to 27 gallons of water. So far, if I, a single guy, did all three of these things in one day, I would use about 47.5 gallons of water. There is an EPA WaterSense initiative which limits faucets to 1.5 gallons a minute (or less). The standard is 2.2 gallons a minute. If I wash my hands six times in one day (for a total of 2 minutes, despite the COVID-Nazi’s who tell us to wash our hands about 60 times a day) and brush my teeth twice a day (for a total of 4 minutes and assume I’m leaving the water on the whole time) that’s another 1.65 gallons per minute for 6 minutes, or 9.9 gallons of water, putting me at a total of 57.4 gallons of water, and I’ve yet to use the toilet! A standard flush of a household toilet is 1.6 gallons of water, and those stupid low-flow toilets, under the WaterSense initiative, use 1.28 gallons per flush. If I use the toilet 6 times in a 24 hour period at an average of 1.44 gallons a flush (and I do flush every time I use it – I even put the seat down!) that is an additional 8.64 gallons of water. Imagine if I wanted to make a lasagna, or manicotti, boil potatoes, or make rice, pie crust, or kool-aid.
Being as though I only wash my clothes once a week and use the dishwasher about twice a week, I could split them up between days, freeing up 10 gallons two days a week and 16.5 gallons another day. The days I do neither of these things adds up to 48.16 gallons of water a day. I still have to eat, and I like to eat fresh food, which require water to wash and to prepare. If I wash my clothes, I will use about 64.66 gallons of water that day. If I wash my dishes I will use about 58.16 gallons of water that day. Even on the non-washing days, if I use the toilet an extra time, or three, that puts my individual water usage at 49.6 to 52.48 gallons of water a day on the days I don’t wash dishes or clothes.
What this relates to is that, if I lived under California’s insanity, I would have to make choices everyday. Will I eat healthy, or will I wash my clothes. Can I flush the toilet after I use it or should I abstain until tomorrow because I need to wash my dishes? I love in South Dakota, which is far away from California and Jerry Brown’s ‘laws’ but what happens when the US government itself signs onto something as asinine as this? What happens when the EPA is given the reigns to such quotas? Will they set water usage at a level in which humans can survive? And mind you, reader, at no time did I even bring up drinkable water which is 0.6875 gallons (11 cups) of water a day for women and a full gallon (16 cups) of water a day for men (weird that since gender is a social construct there is a difference in the amount of water a male and a female should imbibe).
“6.5 By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate[.]”
Have you watched the news in the last month? Did you hear that Russia invaded Ukraine after about 10 years of provocations from NATO, the EU, the US, and Ukraine? Oh, well, that’s a thing now, in case you were unaware. And how did that work out? Germany lost 70% of their energy resources because they came from Russia. Want to bet that if it was water instead of gas, that there would be a lot of really thirsty people.
Another aspect of this target I take issue with is the disregard of national borders. The United Nations’ disregard of national borders is a disregard for national sovereignty and self-determination. Using a necessity of life to erode and destroy borders, creating inter-dependencies which will, at some point, become a point of contention between the two nations, is not a good idea. As the Germans, and the Western world as a whole, is learning all over again – first through COVID-19 mitigation efforts and now the Russian/Ukrainian civil war and the sanctions against the perceived aggressor state – relying on global networks for the survival of a nation results in terrible things.
The Tigris and Euphrates rivers each start in south-west Turkey, proceed through Syria and Iraq, and empty into the Persian Gulf, in Iraq and Iran. None of these countries have a single dispute resolution system set up if a disagreement arises. And disputes have arisen. According to Save the Tigris, Turkey has been diverting water from the Tigris-Euphrates basin by constructing dams and building irrigation systems which has reduced the water levels of the Tigris-Euphrates basin by 40%. While there are some bipartisan agreements between several of the nations involved, there is a lack of comprehensive and collaborative efforts between the four countries. Iran and Iraq hate each other. None of the leaders in any of these countries are trustworthy. And serious dispute over water could result is a regional war quite easily.
The Mekong river basin starts in the Plateau of Tibet and goes through China, forms the border of Myanmar and Laos, forms part of the border between Laos and Thailand, passes through Cambodia, and empties into the Pacific Ocean in Vietnam. Two of these countries have no dispute resolution mechanisms in their arsenal, China and Myanmar. Even if all five of the smaller nations have grievances against China, China would overrun those military forces quickly. For instance, Vietnam, has suffered recurring droughts since China began massive hydroelectric dam projects and the other four nations have taken note as well. China’s solution to the accusations is to build-up water reuse facilities, desalinization, and dams in the other five nations reliant upon the basin’s water supplies. China has always seen itself as the center of the world and, as such, has demanded tributes from the vassal states near China, like Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia, and Thailand. China’s offer of assistance in the construction of infrastructure projects in these nations will come with strings – namely loans which will reconstitute their ancient tribute system.
Bolivia, Brazil, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela share the massive Amazon river basin in South America. Each of these nations have at least one, and likely multiple, bipartisan, and possibly multilateral dispute resolution mechanisms. Eight nations are party to the Amazon Cooperation Treaty. The six listed above, as well as Guyana and Suriname, constitute the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO) which serves to ensure a multitude of objectives including, freedom of navigation and coordinated health services, infrastructure, tourism, and research. Various plans have been developed, based on the treaty, including such topics as water usage, potable water, wastewater, and indigenous populations. Specifically, ACTO’s 2004-2012 Strategic Plan contained, “goals for each of the following sectors: water, forests/soils and protected natural areas, biological diversity, bio-technology and biotrade, territory ordering, human settlements and indigenous affairs, social infrastructure, health and education; and transportation, electric power and communication infrastructure.” That is a bit more expansive than water use and reclamation and sanitation so I think it justified to state the obvious; the UN has captured the Amazonian basin. Interestingly, ACTO nations have no dispute resolution mechanism within the treaty itself, despite their being some nations which have agreed to explicit dispute resolution on their own. “The Amazon Cooperation Treaty does not contain any specific provisions on dispute resolution. Instead, the Amazon Cooperation Treaty operates only by consensus for all significant decisions. The Treaty emphasizes the sovereignty of each country, noting that ‘the exclusive use and utilization of natural resources within their respective territories is a right inherent in the sovereignty of each state and that the exercise of this right shall not be subject to any restrictions other than those arising from International Law.’ Therefore, a Member State cannot be obligated to undertake any action that it did not approve.”
Reduced access to water could easily turn into armed conflict in many regions of the world with the aim of those conflicts to return normal flow rates of bodies of water to the water-deprived nation(s). Regional wars can bleed into other nations and proxy wars could be fought among the major powers, so there is always a danger of a regional war wrapping more and more nations up into it. But what would happen if something like ACTO fell apart and was thought to only be able to be solved by war. I don’t think this is likely in the ACTO nations, but it is possible if one nation perceives another of causing water shortages because of their own water-use designs. The result would likely be catastrophic. Gangs in Mexico, Guatemala, and Columbia would likely infringe into the areas. Massive infrastructure projects would be targeted and destroyed by the militarizes of the warring nations. All of the treaty signing nations would be affected, which could cause them to jump in on one side or another. In ACTO’s case that would constitute about all of northern South America.
I don’t have a problem with sharing. What I have a problem with is the dependence being created among nations which will inevitably have disputes. When the water starved countries have water problems, despite the actual cause of it, how easy will it be for one nation to point a finger at another and say you did this and go to war, depending upon the severity of the water crisis. The solution to water is to make sure your people are able to access it without dependence upon any other nation. In other words, sharing is fine until someone doesn’t want to participate, so these nations had better have a backup plan for just in case.
“6.6 By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes[.]”
There is a plan, usually called by its general term, ‘Wildlands’ which proposes to place massive swathes of the United States into zones in which humans are not permitted. Wildlands Network phrases their plan to do this as, “[w]e collaborate to identify the underlying issues facing keystone species, and provide resources that promote protection and repatriation to preserve biodiversity.” I am saying what Wildlands Network is saying but far plainer. The results will be just as one would expect, massive forest fires much like the record-setting fires which have ravished California in recent years, an increase in contact between the larger numbers of predatory animals in the wild and domesticated animals and human beings, and a moratorium of development projects which benefit human beings.
A very famous example of this type of human-abuse happened in 2005 when Hurricane Katrina caused a New Orleans dam to break which allowed the lake contained by the dam to flood it. The US Corps of Engineers were ready to change the flood mitigation efforts of Lake Pontchartrain but the plan was nixed. It was nixed, in part, because there was not an adequate list of the effects the project would have on some of the fish in the lake.
To track this goal the UN has put together a chart tracking water body extent (permanent and maybe permanent), percent of total land area. In 2015, that ratio stood at 2.1839622289582 and in 2018, the last recorded year, it stood at 2.1783345138204. The ratio decreased. Whatever the United Nations is trying to accomplish here seems to be having the opposite effect of their intentions.
“6.a By 2030, expand international cooperation and capacity-building support to developing countries in water- and sanitation-related activities and programmes, including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse technologies[.]”
I have to admit that I like it when the United Nations gives me reasons to call them Marxists and the indicator for this goal is a perfect example: “Amount of water- and sanitation-related official development assistance that is part of a government-coordinated spending plan.” The UN thinks these projects are only worth tracking if a government confiscated the money from its people in wealthier nations, the wealthy nation sent the loot to a foreign developing nation, and developing nation’s government entered into some kind of Marxist plan to construct and operate the project. Wonderful, the UN is tracking international projects which at best will be fascist and at worst Communist by design.
In 2020, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) gave $450 million to foreign countries to pay for WASH in 41 countries. USAID is entrenched in the battle against humanity (they send US tax dollars all over the earth to demand gender-equality, see SDG Goal 5) as well as the death cult called man-made climate change and the murderous mitigation actions being waged against God’s creations. For fiscal year 2022, the coup-master Biden and his criminal gang retards which persists in its demand to be called the US administration, gifted USAID with over $600 million in stolen tax loot to fight climate change which is but 2.1% of their $27.7 billion budget. Part of USAID’s task for fiscal year 2022 is, “elevating democracy, human rights, and governance at a time when it is profoundly needed, and broadening support for human rights and rule of law to address democratic backsliding;” which is code for destroying the ability to oppose the stupidity, arrogance, corruption, and criminality of this government, and many others.
“6.b Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management[.]”
This target is included so that retards in local leadership positions who think they know better than everyone else can do an end run around national sovereignty and invite the UN in their locality. The Metropolitan Council did it with Thrive 2040, Sioux Falls, SD did it with their sustainability plan, and thousands of other cities, counties, and states have also signed up for UN interference in their affairs by designing and implementing sustainability goals.
When the MET council, a non-governmental Minnesota council covering the seven most densely populated counties in and around Minneapolis - St. Paul which has continuously attempted to expand the area in which they rule as well as their mandate, opened their Thrive 2040 plan up to public comment in 2014 I showed up to the meeting. I had read Agenda 21, so when I read Thrive 2040 it was a giant case of plagiarism on the MET Council’s part. I spoke against it, as did another man. The rest of the room was populated by massive development companies, city representatives, and social organizations looking to be the boots on the ground to effect all of the deterioration and suffering the plan would cause. All 17 of the disgusting people serving on the MET council stared at me for 2 minutes and 45 seconds wished I would stop spewing venom at them but only three of these treacherous council members understood what I was saying and smiled at me as I said it – the rest of them scowled. And they tried to cut my time short. Besides the other man who spoke against the idea, the rest of the speakers lauded this illegitimate board with praises. When the MET Council posted the public comments results on their website, they mentioned there was no dissent.
All the MET Council does is to subvert any democratic ideal, being as though all of the members are appointed, yet they control the water, sewer, garbage, land use, and transportation issues in the seven counties they dictate to. They are even gloating about their ability to test the crap in their wastewater plants to detect COVID-19 so the lunatic governor, Tim Walz, can implement a new round of mandates, including lock downs. The people serving on the MET Council are complete scum.
In Sioux Falls, SD the purveyors of the sustainability plan and the brand new draft are the city officials themselves. At least Sioux Falls’ residents can elect these creeps out – the only problem is that the other creeps running are even worse. But the effect is the same.
Yet, it’s only a matter of time before places like Sioux Falls (the push for which will be led by some freak-show like CARE-sponsored Taneeza Isalm) end up creating a regional body similar to Minnesota’s MET Council. The proposal will reach far into the countryside by including Moody, Lake, McCook, Turner, and Lincoln counties in South Dakota, Rock and Pipestone counties in MN, and Lyon and Sioux counties in Iowa, with the seat residing in Minnehaha county in South Dakota. It’s the UN plan. The state of South Dakota does not have a political system which will sufficiently endorse UN designs, but cities like Sioux Falls will endorse their designs – and then the goal will be to create regional bodies with the intent of expanding and even being swallowed by larger neighbors. The largest city, by far, in all of South Dakota is Sioux Falls. 184 miles to the south of Sioux Falls is Omaha, Nebraska with a population of 486,000. Going West, Boise, Idaho, 1290 miles away, with a population of about 231,000, is the next city larger than Sioux Falls. The Minnesota city of Minneapolis, with about 430,000 people within its city limits is the biggest city to the east – 237 miles away. To the north, the closest place bigger than Sioux Falls is Winnipeg, Manitoba in Canada, 461 miles away, with 767,000 people. Any regional body set up in Sioux Falls, SD would have an immense potential for territorial expansion.
The fruition of this target will allow a fulfillment of Revelation 13:1; “and I saw a beast come up out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads. On its horns were ten royal crowns and on its heads blasphemous names.” Revelation 17: 7-14 reads:
“7 Then the angel said to me, ‘Why are you astounded? I will tell you the hidden meaning of the woman and of the beast with seven heads and ten horns that was carrying her. The beast you saw once was, now is not, and will come up from the Abyss; but it is on its way to destruction. The people living on earth whose names have not been written in the Book of Life since the founding of the world will be astounded to see the beast that once was, now is not, but is to appear. 9 This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven hills on which the woman is sitting; also they are seven kings - 10five have fallen, one is living now and the other is yet to come; and when he does come, he must remain only a little while. 11 The beast which once was and now is not is an eighth king; it comes from the seven and is on its way to destruction. 12 The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet begun to rule, but they receive power as kings for one hour, along with the beast. 13 They have one mind, and they hand over their power and authority to the beast. 14 They will go to war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will defeat them, because he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are called, chosen and faithful will overcome along with him.’”
The United Nations is not oblivious to these passages. Their progressive friends, entrenched in humanism, atheism, and satanism, just like the UN itself is, are not oblivious to these passages. As a matter of fact, many of these individuals and groups seek to hasten the rise of Satan – wrongly thinking they will be victorious in the battle of Armageddon.
Summary
Water is only behind air in it’s importance to human survival. Without air, humans die in several minutes. Without water, humans will die in several days…. The UN is running a demonic sham and calling it good and using a necessity of life to achieve it. It’s designed to kill as many people as needed and it’s designed to get every human on earth to accept it so that their death will be their fault for accepting it. If, or more aptly when, the UN, or any UN-like body, is able to control the waters of the world they will control the hydration needs of all of humanity. If one will not submit to the UN’s decrees then one will be forbidden to have a drink of water. Through water, the UN has created goals which will enable a real-life Hunger Games.
Open a Bible and read it. May God Bless You.
All quotes were found on 3/22/2022 at https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal6 unless otherwise documented.