I'm curious, how is it that pets are a block to agenda 21?

andyh wrote:
In my opnion andyh, it is a case of who cleans up after them....who will give up the resources to feed them, etc etc is the thinking, as they want to shrink the human population to around half a billion, so they need to remove animals in order to be able to contain the human herd, without a vast number of domestic and farm animals, then they have the herd they want contained to cities...where even human reproduction will be very limited...so definitely no room for animals.....

But they have to succeed first Andyh and that is why they are stepping up a gear in all areas.....i call it panic they are hiding, like the swan gliding yet beneath the water its paddling frantically...they know they are facing something that can take away all they have done in the case of duality as i mentioned....

Goldenprince13 wrote:
Yes, sorry that wasn't intended to be a dig at you, the author of the article irked me a bit with his flippancy. I also got a slightly nefarious whiff from it that it's been cobbled together by some corporate dudes to ban animal rights groups.... just a hunch.

My main criticism of PETA & so forth is that the money should go towards caring for the animals rather than exterminating them as much as possible. But that creates an outlet for people to do it more and care less and then animals can be traded cheaper. There is really no happy outcome.

Goldenprince13 wrote:
It doesn't seem to be a block tbh.
We live with huge numbers of rats in cities unnoticed for example.

Agenda 21 if anything is aimed at getting people in megacities as you say and funnily enough making people live more like Europe as it is now. Its the Americans who would be most affected, especially rural dwellers.
We already have the stupid bin rules for example, the whole bin thing was classic agenda 21 and it got implemented in Europe very quickly.
(oddly enough the new bin rules encourage bloody rats lol)

You need only gradually remove rural jobs and increase jobs in cities to have the desired effect very quickly and easily.
They could facilitate it with subsidised housing in cities for example which would encourage yet more to move there.

Sure animals are a bit of a drain but not a major one, I don't consider it to be a major blocker to agenda 21 IMHO. A partial one perhaps.

Space Bandit wrote:
I didnt think it was a dig Sb , thank you anyway,

And i also understand what it is you mean concerning corporate issues with animal rights...but the point i would make is...peta and humane society of america [which is nothing to do with humane societies in the individual states btw] and the rspca are the corporate interests, peta makes over 100 million and has huge political lobbying power, despite the fact they have a 90% kill rate...same as rspca who like peta have over 100 million, and use headline grabbing cases to thrust themselves as animal welfare concerns, yet are killing factories to decrease the population...

I love animals myself i dont even eat them, i want to see them free to offer the wonderful companionship and love they have to share, it is the control agenda 21 that i am pointing out, and how the animal rights movement is a tentacle of that, and peta and others are forwarding agenda 21 massively.....

huntingdon life sciences were given the protection they needed and the government used it to their advantage via domestic terrorism laws....the extreme end of the tentacle is the extreme animal rights who in my opinion are no better than fascists themselves,and full of mi5 & So19 provocateurs....and it ensures that others can be labelled domestic terrorists for being involved in seeking to end animal suffering.....so again the tentacle has done the control system at the centres bidding.

andyh wrote:

Hi Andyh last one before bed


There are rats running everywhere as they dont care where they are as long as they do not come near them, they couldnt care less with us living near them as we are seen no better than a rat.....the point i was making was, if they had not been already vastly neuturing and spaying, they would be over-run by the time they seek to remove them, whereas now they are getting close to being in a position to breed the whole lot out, leaving just what is left to be exterminated, rather than scores of puppies popping out to everyone one they slaughter....

Thats why it would be a block, as domestic animals breed fast and in great numbers as you know.....


As for moving people out of rural areas, that is why the rural economies are being destroyed, flooding, disease you name it will be thrown at them to move them to cities....

Hope this helps im off to bed now , thanks for the great discussion.....

Goldenprince13 wrote:
I'm not so sure about it being part of a wider conspiracy.
Huntingdon is purely about making cash, that's why it gets protected. Anybody who'd do that sort of thing needs their own head testing, it's witchcraft with very few results that affect human necessity. I remember probably the only time I read the Financial Times was a comment in there about how all animal rights groups should be violently suppressed because they were hindering how much money could be made out of trading the products of animal experimentation. That's the kind of mentality that's the alternative to these groups. In terms of extermination rates, I think these organisations are kind of stuck between a rock & a hard place. It's obviously a huge problem but they are at the arse end of it. As Andy points out this is just a symptom of a much bigger underlying problem.

Space Bandit wrote:
I see it differently, and i feel i would be chasing my tail going any further but thank you for your response,