Last edited: February 29, 2024
The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. Power is what all messiahs really seek: not the chance to serve.
—Minority Report: H.L. Mencken’s Notebooks (1956)
Continuing with the subject of AGENDA 21 and Biotechnology
It should be shocking for those who think incorrectly that the United Nations, Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 are about putting nature first!
Now we will focus on Chapter 16 of Agenda 21 which is dedicated to Biotechnology.
“Agenda 21 – Chapter 16
ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND MANAGEMENT OF BIOTECHNOLOGY”
You can clearly see how the United Nations sees biotechnology as more of a SOLUTION rather than a problem. Many of us would be surprised at the nerve of this institution dressing itself up as “green” and yet fully intending to tamper with the fundamental components of nature.
This is just the reality of the corporate power elite we’re dealing with. It’s fully consistent with the many decades of atomic and nuclear experimentation based in the United States. The United Nations is based in the United States. I have no doubt that both entities–with similar names– were created for the same purpose of fully dominating the planet.
16.1. Biotechnology is the integration of the new techniques emerging from modern biotechnology with the well-established approaches of traditional biotechnology. Biotechnology, an emerging knowledge-intensive field, is a set of enabling techniques for bringing about specific man-made changes in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), or genetic material, in plants, animals and microbial systems, leading to useful products and technologies. By itself, biotechnology cannot resolve all the fundamental problems of environment and development, so expectations need to be tempered by realism. Nevertheless, it promises to make a significant contribution in enabling the development of, for example, better health care, enhanced food security through sustainable agricultural practices, improved supplies of potable water, more efficient industrial development processes for transforming raw materials, support for sustainable methods of afforestation and reforestation, and detoxification of hazardous wastes. Biotechnology also offers new opportunities for global partnerships, especially between the countries rich in biological resources (which include genetic resources) but lacking the expertise and investments needed to apply such resources through biotechnology and the countries that have developed the technological expertise to transform biological resources so that they serve the needs of sustainable development. 1/ Biotechnology can assist in the conservation of those resources through, for example, ex situ techniques. The programme areas set out below seek to foster internationally agreed principles to be applied to ensure the environmentally sound management of biotechnology, to engender public trust and confidence, to promote the development of sustainable applications of biotechnology and to establish appropriate enabling mechanisms, especially within developing countries, through the following activities:
a. Increasing the availability of food, feed and renewable raw materials;
b. Improving human health;
c. Enhancing protection of the environment;
d. Enhancing safety and developing international mechanisms for cooperation;
e. Establishing enabling mechanisms for the development and the environmentally sound application of biotechnology.
It makes sense that they would present biotechnology in a biased way as having all these supposed benefits, because there is very good reason to believe, based on the writings of UNESCO founder Julian Huxley, that the real purpose of science and the United Nations itself, is to take control over “evolution.”
See the following quotations from Julian S. Huxley, Man Stands Alone, “Eugenics and Society” 1941, pp. 38, 40, 60, 69, 71, 78:
The difficulty of finding an objective criterion of truth in social science cuts deeper. But it is based upon an intellectualist philosophy which hankers after abstract truth. It largely disappears if we take the more robust view that science is control as well as knowledge, and that these two aspects cannot be separated. . . .Thus in social science, experiment is not the remote preliminary to action that it is in natural science, but is itself partly action—both pure and applied science simultaneously. . . .
. . . The purpose of eugenics is on the one hand to study the presence of different inherited types and traits in a population, and the fact that these can be increased or diminished in the course of generations as the result of selection, unconscious or deliberate, natural or artificial, and on the other, eventually to use the results of this study for control. . . .
. . . Science is simultaneously both theory and practice, both knowledge and control. . . . I would say that we cannot succeed in achieving anything in the nature of adequate positive eugenics unless we attempt the control of the social environment simultaneously with the control of the human germ-plasm . . .
. . . The experiment is both an attempt to gain knowledge and an effort to realize a wish, a desired control. . . .
. . . We must attempt to control the change of social environment and at the same time to control the change of human germ-plasm, . . . it is the results which interest us . . .
This consequence is the opportunity of eugenics. But the opportunity cannot yet be grasped. It is first necessary to overcome the bitter opposition to it on dogmatic theological and moral grounds, and the widespread popular shrinking from it, based on vague but powerful feelings, on the ground that it is unnatural.
We need a new attitude to these problems, an attitude which for want of another term we may still call religious. We need to replace the present attitude fostered by established religions by a new but equally potent attitude.
. . . we need to substitute social salvation for individual salvation, . . . we need to substitute the real possibility of evolutionary progress for other-worldly phantasies. . .
How effective has the “environmentalist” movement been in stopping genetic modification? Have they taken any interest in it? Who controls the environmentalists?
Let’s single out one point, 16.3.b:
To reduce the need for volume increases of food, feed and raw materials by improving the nutritional value (composition) of the source crops, animals and micro-organisms, and to reduce post-harvest losses of plant and animal products;
This illustrates one of the, in effect, PROMISES, of biotechnology or genetic modification?
Can we confirm that there has been ANY improvement in the “nutritional value” of organisms? Is the general public aware of any? And has there really been a reduction in “post-harvest losses”? Have these promises borne out?
Look at 16.3.c:
To increase the use of integrated pest, disease and crop management techniques to eliminate overdependence on agrochemicals, thereby encouraging environmentally sustainable agricultural practices;
Would we not find, if we looked into this, that a main purpose of genetic modification was to allow for an increase in the use of agrochemicals, which would contradict this other implied PROMISE?
Vaccines (discussed earlier in this series) is mentioned in 16.5.g, for example:
g. Develop improved diagnostic techniques and vaccines for the prevention and spread of diseases and for rapid assessment of toxins or infectious organisms in products for human use or livestock feed;
This goal could be considered another promise or claim about the effectiveness of vaccines to be developed. Notice that the ones referred to are not developed when this statement is made, so it’s not even talking about a proven reality. It is another implied promise for the future (from 1992).
16.5.k is one point that mentions “genetically modified plants”:
Promote the integration of appropriate and traditional biotechnologies for the purposes of cultivating genetically modified plants, rearing healthy animals and protecting forest genetic resources;
Notice also the phrase “protecting forest genetic resources.” What does that mean? It doesn’t sound like there is an intent to leave them to the indigenous humans who have natural rights to those resources! It doesn’t sound like there is an intent to not use those resources! Somehow “protecting” seems to guarantee an intent to claim and snatch up those resources! That’s how it reads to me.
Notice the emphasis on **access** and **rights** –in other words, finding ways to access biological material that belongs to local farmers for example:
16.7. Governments at the appropriate level, with the support of relevant international and regional organizations, should promote the following activities in conformity with international agreements or arrangements on biological diversity, as appropriate:
a. Cooperation on issues related to conservation of, access to and exchange of germ plasm; rights associated with intellectual property and informal innovations, including farmers’ and breeders’ rights; access to the benefits of biotechnology; and bio-safety;
So is that the purpose of governments nowadays? To turn over “germ plasm” to international corporations, i.e. the United Nations system? Isn’t that what globalism or global domination or empire is all about really?
Promotion of collaborative research programmes, especially in developing countries, to support activities outlined in this programme area, with particular reference to cooperation with local and indigenous people and their communities in the conservation of biological diversity and sustainable use of biological resources, as well as the fostering of traditional methods and knowledge of such groups in connection with these activities;
And I would think that collaboration means sharing information with international corporations and their scientists, doesn’t it? Doesn’t this section imply that the traditional local knowledge is shared? Is that necessarily a good thing? Who elected them? Empire is empire.
Good things might result and benefit local people in some ways, yes, but what do they (and we) lose?
To be continued