True Discernment

To what extent a patented synthetic life form places a lien on an individual who may wittingly or unwittingly consume it.  Well, if you have any doubts about the ultimate answer to that question and the lengths that those in power intend to go, check out the following article.

As the article notes, the “plan” was outlined in a United Nations-sponsored conference known as the Brundtland Commission, which was later published by Oxford University Press, under the title Our Common Future.

The article is well worth reading in its entirety, especially for its focus on the hypocrisy of global and corporate elites when they express concern for “the environment” and it lays bare Satan’s attempt to try and co-opt and take over ownership of the Human Race and the rest of God’s creation. We all know where that leads but we also know the destruction that will be wrought in this attempt!

From the article:

“In other words, to establish ownership over “biodiversity” it was only necessary to establish a patent lien on a species by the biotechnological or genetic manipulation of that species. The implication of this statement is that every species on the planet will have to be so modified in order to establish that lien. The process can be made much simpler by the introduction of genetic technologies capable of traveling from one species to another and executing biotechnological programming. Think of it as the next step in the Mon(ster)santo strategy of suing farmers whose property is discovered to have GMO plants growing on it, whether known to the farmer or not. Unlike the Mon(ster)santo strategy, it is no longer necessary to send out actual human spies, one can simply engineer the tracking of the modifications by including the tracking in the modification.  Think Baal Gates here.”

—————————————————————————————————————————–

In 1992, the original UN Convention on Biological Diversity was conducted in parallel with the Agenda 21 Conference under the name of the UN Conference on Economic Development (UNCED). Both were held in Rio de Janiero, Brazil, and were sponsored by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Agenda 21 was called “the agenda for the 21^st century” and was centered around Sustainable Development, a resource-based economic system closely resembling historic Technocracy.[1]

According to the International Institute for Sustainable Development:

Sustainable development has been defined in many ways, but the most frequently quoted definition is from Our Common Future, also known as the Brundtland Report:

“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”[2]

The book, Our Common Future, was published in 1987 and became the blueprint for the Rio conference just 5 years later. The author and head of the UN study known as the Brundtland Commission, was chaired by Trilateral Commission member Gro Harlem Brundtland. She was the Prime Minister of Norway and previously, the Minister of the Environment. It is no surprise that a Trilateral Commission member created this policy that has literally turned the world upside down. In fact, it was the Trilateral Commission in 1973 who originally declared that their members would create its self-declared “New International Economic Order”. (see Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II, Wood & Sutton)

The Rio conference proposed the question, what can be done to save the world from excessive development that causes pollution, global warming, loss of rain forests, etc. The answer was that more development was needed and by the same actors that were previously wrecking habitats and plundering nations. In other words, more development was needed to erase the effects of previous development. Brundtland convinced the UN that this somehow made sense, and it was subsequently adopted as “the agenda for the 21^st century” in 1992.

Others saw through the smoke and mirrors. Two environmental researchers and authors noted in their book, The Earth Brokers: “free trade and its promoters came to be seen as the solution to the global ecological crisis.”[3] They could not have been more blunt:

“We argue that UNCED has boosted precisely the type of industrial development that is destructive for the environment, the planet, and its inhabitants. We see how, as a result of UNCED, the rich will get richer, the poor poorer, while more and more of the planet is destroyed in the process.”[4]

In 2021, this result could not be more clearly seen: the rich are off the charts, the poor are in the gutters and the planet and its economic systems are in tatters.

How did we get here? Here is the first hint when they concluded:

“Neither Brundtland, nor the secretariat, nor the governments drafted plan to examine the pitfalls of free trade and industrial development. Instead, they wrote up a convention on how to ‘develop’ the use of biodiversity through patents and biotechnology.”[5]

For all else that UNCED purported to be, its true mission was capturing and using biodiversity for the sake of the biotechnology industry.

This fact has been largely overlooked until the Great (pandemic) Panic of 2020, when it became apparent that the global takeover was being orchestrated by elements of that very same biotechnology industry.

Agenda for the 21^st century, indeed.

What Biodiversity really means

Once I learned what to look for, I saw it everywhere. Let’s start with Our Common Future (Brundtland, 1987):

“The diversity of species is necessary for the normal functioning of ecosystems and the biosphere as a whole. The genetic material in wild species contributes billions of dollars yearly to the world economy in the form of improved crop species, new drugs and medicines, and raw materials for industry.”[6]

The specific development of biodiversity is seen in Chapter 6, Species and Ecosystems: Resources for Development:

“Species and their genetic materials promise to play an expanding role in development, and a powerful economic rationale is emerging to bolster the ethical, aesthetic, and scientific case for preserving them. The genetic variability and germplasm material of species make contributions to agriculture, medicine, and industry worth many billions of dollars per year… If nations can ensure the survival of species, the world can look forward to new and improved foods, new drugs and medicines, and new raw materials for industry.”[7]

Further on, Brundtland states:

“Vast stocks of biological diversity are in danger of disappearing just as science is leaning how to exploit genetic variability through the advances of genetic engineering… It would be grim irony indeed if just as new genetic engineering techniques begin to let us peer into life’s diversity and use genes more efficiently to better human conditions, we looked and found this treasure sadly depleted.”[8]

Conclusion #1: The word “biodiversity” is explained to mean “genetic resources”. Genes are something to be exploited and used more efficiently than they are used in their natural state.

Turning back to The Earth Brokers, the authors’ observations provide an eye-witness account of what they actually saw at the UNCED and Biodiversity Convention summit:

“The convention implicitly equates the diversity of life – animals and plants – to the diversity of genetic codes, for which read genetic resources. By doing so, diversity becomes something that modern science can manipulate. Finally, the convention promotes biotechnology as being ‘essential for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.”[9]

If there is any doubt as to what the goal is, they conclude with this mind-blowing statement:

“The main stake raised by the Biodiversity Convention is the issue of ownership and control over biological diversity… the major concern was protecting the pharmaceutical and emerging biotechnology industries.”[10]

To reinforce the thought, the authors bluntly stated,

“they wrote up a convention on how to ‘develop’ the use of biodiversity through patents and biotechnology.”[11]

Note carefully that ownership and control over genes was not a side issue or a minor stake:It was the MAIN STAKE!

Conclusion #2: Genetic resources means genetic material is to be owned, exploited and controlled through genetic engineering performed by the Biotech industry.

Conclusion #3: UNCED and Agenda 21 was largely a smokescreen to obscure the reality of Conclusion #2.

Read the full article here.