All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 4, 2023 - Stew Peters Show
01:08:55
Uncensored: UN 30 By 30, UNDRIP - How They Will Steal Your Land & Force You Into Smart Cities
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
We'll be right back.
We'll be right back.
Good evening, everyone, and welcome to Uncensored.
I'm your host, Maria Z, coming to you with yet another exclusive report exposing the ways in which the globalists plan to seize your assets, your land, and everything you have and push you into smart cities where everything that you do will be under the thumb of AI 24 hours a day, seven days a week, including your movement, your thoughts, and where the streetlights can kill you.
If you've been watching me for a while, you'd know that I don't dabble too much in local politics and there's a reason for this because for the most part it's a smokescreen for who is really in charge.
You'd also know that I've spent an extensive amount of time reporting on the United Nations because every single problem that you see, every single agenda that is destroying the world and your life can be traced back to them and the Satanists in charge who are practicing an ancient Babylonian mysticism religion from which the one world religion will come from and be enforced on every single person in the world.
More on that in weeks to come.
But if you're in my telegram, you would have seen that the Australian Associated Press, who appears to have engaged in a regular, false, malicious and defamatory campaign against me, wrote another hit piece about me recently.
And it was related to my exposure of the UN-endorsed 8 March Principles report, which calls for decriminalising sex with minors.
The UN were apparently so displeased about me being exposed in their endorsement of decriminalizing sex with minors that the official spokesperson for Anthony Gutierrez responded to this report about me.
We're playing with the big boys now, ladies and gentlemen.
They did quote me in this report, and I want to bring that up.
In the video archived here, Ms.
Z reads from the report and says, The UN is trying to normalize this to get us to the point where these old, creepy, transgender, Baphomet-loving old men can have sex with your children legally.
I fully stand by that statement.
And was quite happy to see that they included that quote, by the way.
Thanks, guys.
I meant what I said.
But I want to take you through today the UN 30x30 agenda, the ways in which they are weaponising the Indigenous people all over the world, what they really mean when they say Indigenous, and how they plan to steal the land forever from everyone and push you into these smart cities.
And I wanted to start with a very, very powerful video from Greg Rees, where he traces back some of the roots of this, which, of course, go back to the Rockefellers and go back to the criminals in charge.
And he talks about UN 3030, but he talks about the goal for 2050 and much more.
It's a five minute clip, but crucial for everyone to see before we get into the meat of this report.
Take a look. Take a look.
Starting in the 1950s, the UN began funding scientists to measure for carbon dioxide.
And in 1992, they drafted what they describe as the international legal instrument for the conservation of biological diversity and outlined their plans to seize control of land under the guise of climate conservation, known as Agenda 21, because they wanted to accomplish their goals by the 21st century.
But by 2015, they were failing.
And officially pushed their deadline back with Agenda 2030.
In 2010, the Rockefeller Foundation published Scenario for the Future of Technology and International Development, wherein they outlined four different ways of achieving their goals, which they wrote, once crossed, these axes create a matrix of four very different futures.
In 2020, they crossed the axis into the lockstep matrix.
In 2022, at their 15th Convention on Biological Diversity, COP15, the UN increased the amount of land they plan to steal to 30% by 2030.
Their 30 by 30 plan will require the displacement of millions.
So far, the direct confiscation approach is working in Europe.
The Dutch farmers have been peacefully protesting, but they are being shot at by the police.
And so the government isn't stopping.
Which is why the direct approach won't work in America.
Less than a year after Agenda 21 was drafted, the U.S. federal government attempted stripping away constitutional land rights from the Bundy family in Nevada.
It was fought in the courts for decades and resulted in a peaceful protest with armed protesters.
To avoid a gunfight, the feds backed off and adapted their plans.
In 2008, the Rockefeller Foundation published America 2050, a strategy to reclaim natural resources and reform the federal role in land use policy.
The America 2050 documents outline which areas of the country will be depopulated and which areas will be politically absorbed into 10 new mega-regions.
The Rockefellers envision most of the depopulation to occur in the central corridor of the United States.
These are the same states that experienced the most COVID vaccine deaths, a massive area that is not included in the America 2050 infrastructure map, and excluded from the new high-speed rail system planned.
A big part of Rockefeller's America 2050 is the High Speed Rail in America Plan, which requires the use of existing railways for its implementation.
Some are suggesting that this is why we are seeing so many train derailments.
There have been over a dozen derailments and chemical spills on railways in just the past few months, some of which, like the one in East Palestine, are highly suspicious.
And these chemical spills could be used as an excuse by the state to evacuate you from your homes and steal your land.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress in 1980.
The Superfund provides the EPA with the authority to seize control of private lands for long-term remedial response actions during the event of a toxic disaster.
If what we are being told about the chemicals that were burned and released into East Palestine is true, then the EPA could plausibly shut down a massive area, and Cleveland can house the dislocated Ohioans in their 15-minute cities, while the government cleans up the mess and accepts the land as payment.
Whether it's called Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, or America 2050, the United Nations and their friends are never going to quit.
Reporting for InfoWars, this is Greg Rees.
Always incredibly, incredibly fantastic reporting from Greg Rees. incredibly fantastic reporting from Greg Rees.
I had the pleasure of interviewing him some time ago.
That interview is up on zamedia.com.
Very, very thought-provoking individual.
I wanted to draw everyone's attention to the Public Health Act of 2005 in the state of Queensland here in Australia.
We have similar provisions, as Greg was just outlining, that exist in the United States in Australia under the Public Health Act for environmental health and public health risks.
Where they can enter your property by force, command you to stay out of your property for however long.
I believe a similar thing exists inside Western Australian legislation.
But the important thing within Queensland is that there are loopholes where other states can access some of...
What is demanded by this legislation, for example, if a public health risk was going to transfer to another state, they could sort of piggyback off the Queensland legislation.
That's my understanding.
But under the Public Health Risk Section Chapter 2 within this legislation, you will find similar provisions For seizing property, entering homes, and sort of indefinitely, really.
I mean, they have to give you an order that specifies a period of time.
But there are, as always, loopholes for indefinitely seizing property due to an environmental emergency.
And of course, I always go back to the pandemic preparedness report that Australia published that talks about the fact that future pandemics will be caused by human encroachment on natural habitats.
And you can find that On websites that promote this agenda, they all talk about how, you know, humans going into nature is what's causing pandemics.
So let's get into some of the other documentation I want to talk about today.
So here's Wikipedia's definition of UN 30 by 30.
It says it's a worldwide initiative for governments to designate 30% of Earth's land and ocean area As protected areas by the year 2030.
The target was proposed by a 2019 article in Science Advances, a global deal for nature, the guiding principles, milestones and targets, highlighting the need for expanded nature conservation efforts to mitigate climate change.
And it's really interesting because they do talk about some of the controversies and international reactions You know, some of the criticism from members of the scientific community, accusations of green colonialism, and I'd have to, you know, agree with all that green grabbing, which is essentially what the entire climate change narrative is about.
It is about seizing land, it is about stopping human beings from going into nature, and their reasons are carbon reduction, preserving biodiversity, and also, of course, climate...
I said that.
Carbon reduction, biodiversity, and stopping humans from going into natural habitats because it's causing pandemics.
I note that one of the criticism pieces that they've included here is that they actually said that it does not protect Biodiversity by stopping humans from going into these habitats.
In fact, in the last 60 years in Germany, in protected areas, the decline in the number of insects neared 80%.
So, you know, my thoughts on this really, and wherever you sit on the Theological spectrum.
God created the earth for humans to interact with it.
He did not say you are allowed to be fruitful, multiply and inhabit the earth until we reach 8 million people and then we have to mitigate.
No.
The earth has what it needs to sustain itself.
That does not mean that we go and abuse that.
But if we're going to talk about abuse, let's talk about China first and foremost.
But...
None of the globalists want to talk about that.
Now I want to take you to some ludicrous statements on the BBC about why this convention and this summit took place and why we need to protect 30% of the land, but it doesn't stop at 30%.
That's just the beginning.
Take a look at this.
Can you outline the scale of the challenge ahead?
Yeah, it's huge, Lucy.
So the latest report from the World Wildlife Foundation says that 69% of the world's animal populations have been in decline since 1970.
And in some parts of the world, that's even worse.
So Latin America and Caribbean, That goes up to 94%.
And we're told by experts that species are actually going extinct a thousand times faster than the natural rate, which is really upsetting, not only for the species themselves and, you know, living in a beautiful planet,
but also for climate change, because together these species and ecosystems Play a vital role in capturing carbon, and experts have told us that actually keeping to our goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees is going to be impossible if we don't protect nature.
So the stakes are really high, and that's why this summit in Montreal was seen as a make or break time.
I mean, those figures that you just gave us are pretty heartbreaking, actually, when you think about it.
And so when we look at some of the commitments that have been made, in your mind, Sophie, what's the most significant thing that we should be looking at that's come out of this conference that will make a real difference quickly?
Well, the landmark deal is to protect 30% of the world's oceans and land by 2030.
So that's the key deal.
And it is the biggest commitment that's ever been made in terms of area.
We're told by experts No data presented, no dissenting views, no opinions or studies from the experts that are presenting evidence that actually when we go to these extreme conservation efforts, it reduces insect populations by 80%.
No, none of that the experts told us.
Great reporting, BBC. And see how they tug on the emotional heartstrings?
Wow.
Some really, you know, I don't remember what word she used.
It's just devastating, heartbreaking, really.
And these people sitting in their ivory towers being guilted into thinking that...
And this is relevant to the voice that's happening in Australia.
For anyone that's watching from the United States, I'll give you a quick rundown on this.
Right now we're being told that we need to amend the Constitution.
We need to vote.
We're going to a referendum.
And I dare say, if the vote...
Passes as yes.
It will be a clear indication that we have a rigged election system here in Australia because the amount of media attention that this is getting and the majority of the people saying no is just, I mean, it's flooding the airwaves, even mainstream media and the radio.
So there's no way that Australians would support a yes vote right now.
But what they're doing is they're saying we need to give Indigenous people a voice because all of a sudden Australia cares about the Aboriginals.
We need to give Indigenous people a voice, and we're going to do that by enshrining that into the Constitution.
We're going to make amendments to the Constitution, but we're not going to tell you what those amendments are until after you've voted.
And all it is is giving them a voice, and if you have any questions, you're a racist.
Really?
And so we're being asked to vote on amendments to the Constitution without knowing what those amendments are.
They're going to be giving them an advisory board Apparently, that's going to represent what the Indigenous community wants.
Meanwhile, you have Aboriginal elders from all over the country saying, we do not want this.
They still have their Aboriginal law, L-O-R-E, which makes them sovereign, which means that the colonial law does not apply to them.
And they're campaigning for these people to be put into the Constitution, therefore submitting them to colonial law, which is run by the UN, as we will see in a moment.
This is really pushed by UNDRIP or UNDRIP and it's had devastating effects already in Canada.
And there is no desire to assist these people, to protect these people.
It will actually be stripping them of their land.
An example I can give you is in Western Australia, they passed this controversial new legislation, which meant that if you were to disturb 50 centimetres of your soil, you had to seek permission from an Aboriginal appointed person to come and assess your land and see whether it's heritage or not.
And of course, these people aren't actually going to be people that are represented by the elders, for example.
They're not going to be doing an honest assessment of your land.
It was a way to stop farming in Western Australia.
Thank goodness, because of the pushback from the people, it got pulled back.
And that's exactly what we need to do with every one of these agendas.
I want to play you a very quick clip.
This is actually an example out of a Southeast Cameroon in Barca where the people and their neighbours are being illegally forced from their ancestral homelands in the name of conservation.
They're being accused of poaching.
This is from some time ago, 2015.
But these are the human rights abuses that occur under the watch of...
Organizations like the United Nations and all the NGOs associated with them that say that they're going to conserve land and protect nature.
But what they're actually doing is abusing the people who have real rights to that land and have natural rights to that land, to eat from it, to hunt in the land, which, by the way, is outlawed now in many places as well.
Take a look at this video.
Take a look at this video.
Take a look at this video.
we have to pay for granted.
We give to the public service to the public service and because news of the community, I am stuck in my language and that's why it is a difficult problem as well.
I am stuck in my language and I am stuck in my language.
The people who are in the middle, they come to the people with a mask.
They make someone's clothes.
The person is naked, not the clothes.
We put them like that on the knees, we tap them with a mask.
We put the water on the person.
Even someone, a child, we put the water on the other side.
These people.
Now, the menace that was before, those who hit them there, they're not here.
They died with the pain of these machines they wanted to hit them with.
So as you can see, historical attempts to protect nature and conserve land have nothing to do with protecting indigenous people.
In fact, history tells us that there is a military approach to harm and in some cases kill anyone that gets in their way, which is ever so consistent with the New World Order and their goons.
They'll do anything to achieve their goals.
Just look at Lahaina.
But as with most things, Africa has been a testbed for some of the worst human rights abuses known to men, and that is well known now.
Bill Gates' vile experimentation on women making them infertile, the WHO's involvement, Tedros Ghebreyesus' genocide of the Ethiopian people, the list goes on and on.
And sadly, the West paid very little attention to this until it hit their doorstep with the genocide via the COVID injections.
Are we paying attention yet or does it need to get much, much worse from here?
Because it's about to.
Here is a Council of Foreign Relations article about the push to conserve 30% of the planet and what's at stake.
This was from March 2023.
They go on to talk about, during the UN Biodiversity Conference in 2022, COP15, countries reached a landmark agreement that aims to reserve the unprecedented destruction of nature.
One of the agreement's 23 targets, which we will go through in a moment, Aims to protect at least 30% of the planet's land and water by 2030.
That goal almost doubles the target for 2020, which wasn't achieved.
And it was the inspiration behind a 2023 UN agreement to protect biodiversity.
Anyway, I want to show you this main part.
Forgive me.
Protected areas and wilderness around the world.
They show the protected areas and intact wilderness.
They want to expand this.
And they say here that this land is estimated to be habitat unmodified by humans.
Areas that are important for biodiversity can occur within and outside of these areas.
That's why I say to you they don't plan on stopping here and I'll prove it to you in a moment.
They say here uh yeah even so indigenous leaders and activists say much more needs to be done some experts call for protecting 50 of the planet an initiative known as the half earth project while some indigenous communities call for 80 and isn't that just so classic globalist where they give you a goal And
it seems small and it seems like maybe that's achievable and maybe it won't affect us so much, but really the plan is for much more than that.
And it says here that some Indigenous communities are apparently calling for 80%.
I dare say no Indigenous communities, no real Indigenous communities are calling for that.
They just want to be left alone, as we saw in that video before, which was absolutely heart-wrenching.
and the 30 goal depends on implementing the broader un biodiversity agreement look at this the plan to turn half the world into a reserve for nature the bbc so telling you that it's potentially going to be more than 30 is not a stretch they want more and more and more and it's all going to be done under the guise of pretending That they are cooperating with Indigenous people,
just like they're doing in Australia with The Voice, just like they did in Canada.
And it's going to be the same case everywhere.
We'll keep going.
You'll note that the Council of Foreign Relations mentioned that reaching the 30% goal depends on implementing the broader UN Biodiversity Agreement, which is actually the coming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
The framework is the outcome or an outcome of the 2022 United Nations Biodiversity Conference.
Its tentative title had been the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, and we have it Here coming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
I want to take you to page four right now and point three where it says that this builds on the strategic plan for biodiversity of 2011 to 2020 and its achievements, gaps and lessons learned.
And the experience and achievements of other relevant multilateral environmental agreements sets out an ambitious plan to implement broad-based action to bring about a transformation in our society's relationship with biodiversity by 2030 in line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its SDGs to ensure that by 2050 The shared vision of living in harmony with nature is fulfilled.
So what do they actually mean by that?
Well, if we go to page five and section C, they say here that the framework, including its vision, mission, Goals and targets is to be understood, acted upon, implemented, reported and evaluated consistent with the following.
And they talk about the fact that they claim that they acknowledge the important roles and contributions of Indigenous peoples and local communities as custodians of biodiversity and partners in the conservation, restoration and sustainable use.
And that we must ensure their rights, knowledge, including traditional knowledge associated with biodiversity, innovation, worldviews, values and practices of Indigenous peoples and local communities are respected, documented, preserved with their free, prior and informed consent.
Well, if the voice in Australia is any example of how they plan to do none of those things, you can see that that will be the model everywhere.
Because right now you have First Nations people, elders from all over the country Protesting relentlessly, putting out videos on social media, gathering in mass Zooms.
Grandmother Malara, a good friend of mine, and a very respected elder, got together with elders from all over the country who said, we do not want this!
Ah...
The United Nations says you do!
And they say that they're respecting you and they're giving a voice to the indigenous people around the world.
And then all of the people that have been subjected to feeling guilty because they're being told they're white supremacists and racists, if they don't agree with this, have absolutely no idea what this is actually about.
There is no respect for indigenous peoples.
They don't care about the traditional owners or custodians of the land.
If they did, they would leave them be.
They wouldn't be gathering in their ivory towers, flying around in their private jets to the climate meetings, emitting all of these emissions into the atmosphere while you, the consumer, Are not allowed to breathe without being taxed.
No, they would actually listen to the people on the ground and not contribute to global emissions in their private jets.
They don't care.
This is all lofty dreams from the UN, from the globalist cabal, to stop you from going into nature, and they even say it.
We'll keep going.
They go on to say, this is a framework for all, for the whole of government and the whole of society.
Its success requires political will and recognition at the highest level of government I mean, as long as we are part of the UN, this problem's not going away.
And we have to get people out of government.
Who are aligned with the UN, are aligned with the WEF, are aligned with the WHO. It is the only solution.
These people, these organisations are terrorist organisations running your country behind the scenes.
And the clowns you see on TV are just the ones that are there for the show.
While they sign off on the bills that make this kind of stuff possible.
We're going to go to page 6 now.
And part 14, where it says the implementation of the framework should allow a human rights-based approach respecting, protecting, promoting, and fulfilling human rights.
But then they say that the framework acknowledges the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.
So they consider human rights Your human rights, that word there, sustainable.
So they're defining your human rights.
They're telling you, oh, you don't have access to your human rights unless we commit to a sustainable environment.
But their version of sustainable is stripping you of all your resources, all your assets, all your land, absolutely everything, your ability to go out, hunt, get food.
Huge part of this is stopping fishing as well, by the way.
And that's what's sustainable because it's good for mother nature.
That's what they actually mean by that.
So when they tell you a human rights-based approach, there's the little caveat there.
And then if we go to page eight under goal A, It says here that the integrity, connectivity and resilience of all ecosystems are maintained, enhanced or restored, substantially increasing the area of natural ecosystems by 2050.
Listen to this.
These are their goals for 2050.
Global goals.
This is the framework that came out of this meeting that they're saying every government is subjected to as long as they're part of the United Nations.
Human induced extinction of known threatened species is halted and by 2050 extinction rate and risk of all species are reduced tenfold and the abundance of native wild species is increased to healthy and resilient levels.
How do you think?
How do you think that they'll say that it needs to be halted?
And how will you know when you're no longer allowed to go into nature and all you've got is AI-generated images in the metaverse?
You're not allowed to step into nature.
How are you going to know that nature's doing really well out there without you?
Or that it hasn't become an absolute wasteland because humans are supposed to be in nature?
You won't because all you have is whatever AI tells you reality is out there.
It's literally the brave new world.
Don't go out there.
It's a threat and if you step outside, you're gonna induce a pandemic and nature's doing a lot better without us.
We've got to conserve and protect Mother Earth.
That is what this is.
And if you think That there won't be geo-fencing in place to stop you from going out to see whether nature is really doing better without us?
Oh, you're mistaken.
Apple already has a pattern out for it.
Now I want to take you to the global targets, the 2030 global targets.
It says the framework has 23 action-oriented global targets for urgent action over the decade to 2030.
The actions set out in each target need to be initiated immediately and completed by 2030.
Together the results will enable achievement towards the outcome-oriented goals for 2050.
Now listen to this.
Actions to reach these targets should be implemented consistently, so on and so forth.
Sorry, that's not the part I wanted to show you.
This is the part.
Ensure, target one, ensure that all areas are under participatory, integrated, biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning.
And or effective management processes addressing land and sea usage to bring the loss of areas of high biodiversity importance, which by the way will be all areas that aren't smart cities.
Yeah, they will all be high biodiversity importance, including ecosystems.
Close to zero by 2030.
Now what does it mean when it says integrated biodiversity inclusive spatial planning?
Well, I'm going to show you right now.
If you just do a quick Google search on integrated biodiversity inclusive spatial planning, you will see that it means intact and wilderness areas, natural areas that are undisturbed by significant human activity, free of modern infrastructure and where natural forces and processes predominate.
Okay, so when we go back to the UN document, the Montreal framework, all areas are under participatory, integrated, biodiversity, inclusive spatial planning.
And or effective management processes addressing land and sea usage change to bring the loss of areas of high biodiversity importance.
They're saying all areas, all areas under this biodiversity inclusive spatial planning.
I'm going to go here one more time in case you guys don't fully grasp this.
Natural areas that are undisturbed by significant human activity, free of modern infrastructure and where natural forces and processes predominate.
So, again, the target is that all areas are under biodiversity-inclusive spatial planning, which means all that is left is for human beings to be in smart cities.
That is what that means, ladies and gentlemen.
It's as clear as day and they decorate their words with as many adjectives as you can pull out of a thesaurus to make you not understand what this actually means for humanity.
This is what The Voice is about.
This is what every single country that is implementing UNDRIP, which we will go through in a moment, is actually about.
But I want to finish quickly on this document.
Target 2.
Ensure that by 2030, at least 30% of areas of degraded terrestrial, inland water, and coastal and marine ecosystems are Are under effective restoration and their restoration, first of all, what they tell you is degraded really isn't degraded.
When they tell you carbon dioxide is a problem and human-induced CO2 is a problem, it's not the case.
Everything's inverted.
So, first of all, they'll tell you this is degraded, but it's not.
And they're under restoration and they're not under effective restoration.
It's not what they say it is.
It's always the reverse.
And so they're saying that it's in order to enhance biodiversity, even though that isn't really going to help.
Stopping in human encroachment on natural habitats is going to make this worse.
Because we're supposed to interact with nature.
And they go on and say in Target 3 that ensure and enable that by 2030, at least, at least, again, there's that word, at least.
Remember, the goal is, according to the Council of Foreign Relations, some experts say up to 80% of terrestrial inland water and of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance, are effectively conserved and managed.
Through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably, equitably, so everyone's trans, govern systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures.
And they say recognising Indigenous and traditional territories, which again, is not actually...
I mean, just look at what the land councils have done here in Australia with the original custodians of this land.
They haven't protected their land rights.
They're just people that are installed to pretend that they're representing these people, but actually they're just taking money from the globalists.
And that's what this system is.
And so when they tell you that they're going to recognize indigenous and traditional territories, that's just going to depend on whoever has the most shallow pocket and is willing to be bought off by the globalists to declare this a traditional territory.
It's not actually going to be caring about what is a true indigenous territory.
Some of their other targets, I don't want to read through absolutely everything, but it's important for people to get it.
Urgent management actions to halt human-induced extinction.
So that is really telling you that you're not allowed to hunt for anything.
That's what it's going to lead to.
It doesn't say that now, but that's what it'll lead to because we know how these people operate.
And the recovery and conservation of species.
And in particular, threatened species.
What is a threatened species?
We don't know.
It's whatever they tell us.
How can we trust anything they tell us?
At this point, you can trust 0% of the information that these people give you.
So to say that they're trying to reduce the threat to a particular threatened species, they could say that a species that's flourishing is threatened, and we would be none the wiser because AI controls the information.
They want to ensure that the use, harvesting and trade of wild species is sustainable.
Again, so all they have to do is say this is unsustainable and all of a sudden you are not allowed to use, harvest or trade wild species.
Eliminate, minimize and reduce or mitigate the impacts of invasive alien species on biodiversity.
Establishment of priority invasive alien species, reducing the rate of introduction and establishment of other known or potential invasive alien species.
Again, this is what they say is alien species or something that's going to harm the environment when in fact it might not.
These experts just are not experts in anything other than achieving what the UN wants.
And they have very clear goals.
They say that they want to reduce pollution risks and the negative impact of pollution from all sources by 2030 to levels that are not harmful.
So again, stop the farming.
The farming's harmful.
We've got to stop the farming.
That's where it ends in accordance with this framework.
It's harmful to biodiversity.
Reducing the overall risk from pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals.
Sorry guys, I keep clearing my throat.
I've had a bit of a coughing issue and some blocked nose.
You might have noticed last week when I was broadcasting my nose was blocked, but I'm doing well.
Recovering quickly.
Lots of vitamin C and Z stack.
It's been great.
Reducing the overall risk from pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals.
Are you going to stop chemtrailing?
Haven't we stopped chemtrailing?
Maybe that'll reduce the risk from highly hazardous chemicals.
They're going to minimize the impact of climate change, ensure that the management and use of wild species is sustainable.
And, you know, apparently they care about people in vulnerable situations.
They say that ensuring that...
Oh, sorry, here I just noticed products and services that enhance biodiversity.
So, of course, protecting and encouraging customary sustainable use by Indigenous peoples and local communities.
Oh, so they're going to protect and encourage making sure that Indigenous people are adhering to sustainable use too.
By educating them, you know?
Ensuring that areas are under agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry are managed sustainably.
Again, there's that word.
Oh, it's unsustainable.
Sorry.
Can't do it.
Can't fish.
Can't hunt.
Can't do anything.
Restore, maintain, and enhance nature's contributions to people, which they want to reduce the disease risk, but they'll keep giving you toxins in your food, in your air, and through the injections and pharmaceutical products.
Nature-based solutions, they say.
You just gave a Nobel Prize to people that contributed to the mRNA injections that have killed or disabled millions of people around the world.
But do you care about nature-based solutions?
Please.
They want to significantly increase the area and quality and connectivity of and access to benefits from green and blue spaces in urban and densely populated areas sustainably.
So, Sustainably is the word here so if you live in an area that has access to blue or green spaces it has to be sustainable for you to access those but what they'll do is in your districts they'll build you nice green spaces for you to still access and i've seen countless videos of their smart city plans where they say they talk about how they'll have really nice green spaces in these smart cities to make sure that people still have access to nature it's like hang on a second If
the smart cities are purely for convenience, so that your shop's there, your work's there, your child's school is there, and it's just convenience and you still get to do everything normally, why would you need a dedicated nature space to make sure you're not missing out on that?
Because you're not allowed to go into nature anymore!
That's why.
They say that they want to take effective legal policy, administrative and capacity building measures at all levels.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And they say here, sharing of benefits that arise from the utilization of genetic resources and from digital sequence information on genetic resources.
This is very likely to do with the tagging that they've done of every single thing on earth achieved through geoengineering.
And by 2030, facilitating significant increase of the benefits shared of this, which will be, if you recall, when I did the report on geoengineering in the United States, and we looked at the NOAA when I did the report on geoengineering in the United States, and we looked at the NOAA and we looked at their omics goals, which was to basically upload everything they had so that AI could assess this and figure out
AI would be spitting it out for us.
That's essentially what these types of systems are referring to.
AI will decide because AI is their god now.
Of course, the full integration of biodiversity and its multiple values into policies, regulations, planning, development, poverty eradication, strategic environmental assessments, environmental impact, appropriate national accounting, all levels of government, all sectors.
And this is going to just take over everything and we see that climate, carbon tax, everything, everything.
It's permeated every area of society and happens first and foremost through the corporations.
And of course, they want to destroy all small business so that all you're left with is the conglomerates who are subjected to these agendas.
They talk about legal and administrative policy measures for businesses, of course, and companies and financial institutions, which is, I mean, I hadn't forgot about that part.
I, you know, said it in advance there.
It's done through the corporations.
People being encouraged and enabled to make sustainable consumption choices, which of course will be up.
But it says here, including by establishing supportive policy, legislative or regulatory frameworks.
And of course, they want to improve education and access to relevant and accurate information and alternatives.
Trudeau's just banned podcasts effectively.
So Australia, you can expect that next.
And they say that you know this is all in order to reduce the global footprint of consumption.
So they want to have global food waste and basically they say you know all these lofty things but what it really is here when it's talking about people being enabled to make sustainable consumption choices by legislative or regulatory so they're not enabling It means people are forced through legislation enacted that will be weaponized through the social credit system and digital ID and everything linked to your digital ID and your
CBDC where you don't have a choice and it's in legislation and it's monitored by AI. That is what that means.
Target 17.
The handling of biotechnology and distribution.
I'm not sure about Article 19 of the convention.
Phase out or reform incentives including subsidies harmful for biodiversity.
So basically any grants that could be helping businesses right now, if they say that it's going to be harmful for biodiversity, oh, your business doesn't get the grant anymore.
No one's escaping this agenda, guys.
Absolutely no one is escaping this agenda for anyone who thinks that they're flying under the radar.
You are not going to escape.
You will be subjected to a digital ID. You will be subjected to a CBDC and tracked and traced by AI. Every single thought that you have will be monitored unless you join the resistance with us.
I promise you, your life will be a living hell if you don't join the resistance now.
You didn't listen to us about the injections.
You need to listen now.
You know, increasing financial resources, access to and transfer of technology, promote development of and access to innovation and technical and scientific cooperation.
um um Accessible to decision makers, of course.
So the best available data, which will come from AI, accessed by decision makers.
Full, equitable, inclusive, effective and gender responsive representation and participation in decision making and gender equality.
You've got to have gender equality, guys, because women and children are apparently most affected by climate change.
So I just wanted to show you really quickly that this is also on the United Nations website.
Let me zoom out of that a little bit for everyone.
Under the Sustainable Development Goals, you can find this whole framework there, a new global framework for managing nature through 2030.
The first detailed draft agreement debuts and everything that we just read can be seen Well, almost everything, but all the targets can be found there along with some of their 2050 goals and milestones.
I'm not going to go through all of that because I don't want to do a death by document for you, but you can find it there on the UN. And all of this, all of this can be found on the UN's website.
The globalists always tell you what they're going to do before they do it.
Before we finish up today, I want to talk to you about UNDRIP and how this all relates And I mean, cemented in for you.
Because right now me saying that Indigenous people having no rights is speculation, right?
It's just based on the historical behaviour of the globalists and what we've seen and what they're doing right now with The Voice, zero consultation with the Indigenous people, you know, really just the few You know, chosen few that do the media appearances that claim to be representing the original custodians of this land, but are not.
So, apart from these examples, we don't really have it in writing.
But we do.
Let me show you.
Before I move on, really quickly, I want to show you about protected areas and the CBD. This is the Convention on Biological Diversity website, www.cbd.int forward slash protected forward slash P-A-C-B-D. Okay?
Protected areas and the CBD, which is protected area provisions in the Convention on Biological Diversity.
So it says here, The Convention on Biological Diversity is the most important international legal instrument addressing protected areas.
That's what we just went through.
The term protected area is defined in Article 2 of the Convention as a geographically defined area which is designated or regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives.
So that goes back to what I was saying before about the fact that they will just say that something is a conservation objective it has to this is a an area that we have to protect and and that's it that's it there's no other uh debate it's it's at risk and who do you argue with the scientists the climate experts now The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
also known as UNDRIP. This is a Trojan horse declaration that claims to care about Indigenous people worldwide.
It does not.
And it's important to understand that this was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 2007.
Now, so much of what I've reported on over the past few years, Is legislation or documents that have been introduced or passed that we have not seen them in full effect yet.
We haven't seen the use of these documents yet.
This was passed all the way back in 2007 and we are only now seeing the effects of this in Australia, for example, with The Voice.
That is the nature of many of these declarations and documents.
Take a look at this.
Law Council of Australia, as of July 2022, Australia must formally adopt UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous People.
The Law Council of Australia is calling on governments to comprehensively adopt the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous People in order to protect the human rights of First Nations peoples.
Ah.
Guess what?
It's not legally binding yet, technically.
Oh, but it might be once it's in the Constitution under the voice.
So what does Andrup actually say?
Does it actually protect Indigenous people?
Well, in black and white, it says absolutely not.
I'm going to show you right now.
Okay, so here's the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Really fancy and you've got the United Nations logo on there, which isn't a globe.
Anyway, if we go to page eight, We can see that they say that Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment as a collective or as individuals of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples.
I agree with absolutely all of this.
I'm sure any decent human would.
Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination, you know, exercising their right in self-determination.
That's all fantastic.
In on article 10, it says here that indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories.
No relocation shall take place without the free prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation.
But who are the people that are agreeing?
Who are the people that are agreeing?
I had Grandmother Malara, for example, tell me that they convened a meeting of Aboriginals, got them to sign a face, a blank piece of paper, and that was their agreement to something.
You know, the people that came there to present this agreement didn't speak their language, didn't explain to them what they were signing.
They just went ahead and signed it.
So that's what they consider the globalist system considers agreement.
On page 13, we have Article 13.
uh which says that they um states sorry here we go so it talks about indigenous peoples having the right to revitalize use develop transmit to future generations so on and so forth but states shall take effective measures to ensure that this right is protected and also ensure that indigenous peoples can understand okay that's all well and good but You go here and where it says Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems,
states shall in conjunction with Indigenous peoples.
They don't actually ever work with Indigenous peoples.
They don't ever do that.
They appoint people to say they're representing the community and then the funds get funneled through the people that pretend they're representing the community and it never actually gets back to the community.
Those funds...
Rarely get back to the community in Australia.
We spend millions upon millions of dollars, you know, through these organizations that claim that they're for the original custodians of this land and those people never see it.
Page 16, I want to take you to Article 18.
Here.
Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision making in manners which would affect their rights through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures.
So this is what the voice is in Australia where they're saying, oh, they have the right to participate in decision making, but the ones who are representing them are not actually representing are not actually representing the majority of the Indigenous people in this country.
And when you go to Article 19, it says that states shall consult and cooperate in good faith.
Well, no.
Because they're not getting their free prior and informed consent on The Voice, for example.
It's all just a front.
Then you go to page 19.
We're almost done with this document because we're about to get to the smoking gun of the document.
In Article 26, it says that the Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.
They have the right to own, use, develop and control those lands, territories and resources.
And states shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands.
But what's what's actually going to happen?
Well, the example that I gave you from Western Australia where they say to the farmers, oh, no, this is traditional land.
You can't disturb more than 50 centimeters of your soil.
And no actual person went out there and said, no, you can't do this.
It wasn't traditional land.
It wasn't heritage land.
It was all just it was going to all just be declared as heritage.
So that people could no longer farm.
On page 20, Article 28, Indigenous peoples have the right to redress by means that can include restitution or when this is not possible, just fair and equitable compensation for the lands, territories, And resources which they've traditionally owned.
And this is being shown right now in Australia where it says, you know, monetary compensation or other appropriate redress.
They're telling us that people have got to pay the rent now.
We've got to pay the rent.
And some people may think that that's required because the land was stolen from these people.
But do you really think that that money will be going to those people?
Or will it be going to the front organizations that pretend they're there for the indigenous peoples of the land but are actually just pocketing from the globalists and part of this money funneling scheme scheme scheme and then page 21 article 29 It says that they have the right to the conservation and protection of the environment and the productive capacity of their lands,
and that states shall establish and implement assistance programs.
So this is where they'll say, oh, this is conservation and protection for the indigenous people.
We have to do this for the indigenous people.
But that's not what it's about.
It's making sure that you can't live outside of a smart city.
That's what it's really about.
And finally, page 28.
Article 46.
The smoking gun.
Nothing in this declaration may be interpreted as implying for any state, people, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to the Charter of the United Nations.
Oh!
So what you're saying is that really UNDRIP isn't about giving rights to Indigenous people.
It's about giving all of the rights to the Charter of the United Nations, which is the UN. It seems like the conspiracy theorists were right all along.
This is how they'll do it, people.
This is how they will do it.
It will all come through the UN. And as a final cherry on the cake, I want to show you a Politico article from 2015 that talks about 1945 when the United Nations came into existence.
Less than two months after the end of World War II, the UN officially came into existence.
What a timely...
After a manufactured war, the UN came into existence.
The Charter of the UN calls on the UN to maintain international peace and security, to promote social progress and higher standards of life, so on and so forth.
Okay.
Expansion of human rights.
On October 24, 1949, four years after the Charter went into effect, the cornerstone was laid for the UN headquarters building.
Actually, before we go there, Yes?
No, this is the one I want to read you.
Near the East River in mid-Manhattan, Nelson Rockefeller arranged for the purchase.
After an initial offer to locate it on the Rockefeller family estate in the Westchester County was rejected as being too far from New York City, the $83.4 million purchase as adjusted to reflect current dollars was funded by Nelson Rockefeller's father, John D. Rockefeller, who donated the land to the city because he's...
He's just such a generous guy.
And technically, this is Politico, guys.
The UN headquarters complex in New York remains an extraterrestrial site that remains beyond the jurisdictional reach of the surrounding city and state as well as the federal government.
However, in exchange for police and fire protection and other essential services, the UN has agreed to abide by most local, state and federal laws.
Technically the UN is outside of your government and they've agreed to abide by most laws, not all.
Which laws do they not have to abide by?
I dare say they see themselves as exempt from every law and really that article just told us the truth.
The United Nations is an unelected body funded by the Rockefellers, funded by the globalists, continued to be funded by the globalists.
The WHO, Major Funders, Bill Gates, Big Pharma.
The WEF, Big Business.
The Globalists.
All of these organizations are.
It's surprising that they are considered above the law officially on Politico.
But the undertone is that they are considered above the law.
And the irony of this entire situation is that they have no right to tell human beings what they can and can't do and yet they are and you see the coercive measures that they've been using throughout history words like conservation sustainability for the betterment of humanity peace security protecting nature all of these fronts for what they're actually aiming to do which is completely control your life and transition you into a fake world the ai world society we've spoken i did a four-part
series on this if you haven't watched it Go back and watch Uncensored, the four-part series on the UN100 Agenda 2045 and the AI World Society, how you are an object as defined by the United Nations.
Not even a human, an object.
This is the most evil front organisation in the world, apart from the CFR and those above them.
The WEF, the United Nations, the World Health Organization are unelected bodies operating as global government and no one asked for it.
And what does it take for the world to be free of what is essentially a terrorist, a group of terrorist organizations that have infiltrated every single country?
It requires people demanding an exit from this.
That is all it is.
Non-compliance and exit from these organizations.
We don't want them.
We don't need them.
We need new government.
Anyone associated with them is gone.
This is what needs to be demanded.
The sole focus of humanity is to exit these organizations and demand fair government.
Because guess what?
You are still the ones in power.
Human beings are the ones in power.
There are more of us than there are of them.
Or we could just go with what they want and let them conserve 30, 50, 80% of the land, push us into smart cities with streetlights that are going to kill us on impact.
It's up to us what future we want.
And I know that the viewers of this broadcast understand this, but this is what the world needs to wake up and realise.
Rather than worrying about how are we going to do this and what are we going to do and how am I going to stay under the radar.
For goodness sake, the self-preservation.
You have no self-preservation.
Do you understand?
There is none.
They will imprison you.
And if you don't comply and you become enough of a problem for them, they'll take you out.
And for the record, no, I would never commit suicide.
So please, humanity, share this message.
Share my series on Uncensored about the UN and Agenda 2045, the UN100, the age of global enlightenment.
What they are forcing us into no interaction with nature them lying about the climate lying about what's protected pretending that they're collaborating with indigenous people while they strip every single person of their human rights and you saw from that video what they've already done in the name of conservation them and all their ngos and in the meantime prepare you and your household I mention this on every broadcast.
It is because of the businesses that support us that I'm able to continue getting this information out to you.
The Stu Peters Network and all of the amazing truthers out there are able to keep getting this info out.
It's literally going to save humanity if people act on it.
So please, if you're in the United States, head to HeavensHarvest.com.
Get yourself some survival food, emergency water filtration and storage, heirloom seeds, gardening and survival resources.
These guys are amazing.
They have buckets for every budget.
Use promo code Z with three E's for 5% off your order.
If you're in Australia, head to Survival Supplies Australia for all of your needs, including first aid, medical, emergency and survival, food, water, water filtration as well.
They've got everything.
You know, radios, literally anything you could think of that's survival, they have it.
Go to goldbullionaustralia.com.au.
Link is in the description below.
They are the number one, in my opinion, in Australia in gold and bullion, and namely because they actually really care about their customers, and that is a big thing for me.
I was a customer before they were a partner, so this is why we chose them, and I really do encourage people to think about that.
I just heard about Costco selling out of gold within four hours of them putting it up online.
People are buying it up like crazy.
They understand that the economy is on its last legs.
That the dollar and the fiat systems on its last legs and really the only thing that will survive is tangible assets.
Things that you can trade with, you know, gold shavings like Venezuela where they were paying for their haircuts is starting to look like a reality and that is terrifying.
But it's less terrifying if you're prepared.
So please prepare and share this broadcast everywhere.
I appreciate your time.
▲
Export Selection