I am not sure but I am under no illusion that there are nations allied under the UN agenda. I'm just not sure whether our nation has made specific decisions deliberately or whether it was driven by public consensus
It doesn’t matter how the agenda is accomplished, only that it indeed be accomplished. However, the ideal situation for the perp’s would be for
the public to scream for it e.g. scripture’s ‘Save us!’, they cried to Caesar. The slaves who work the hardest are those who believe they are free.
All manner of mind control (“psy ops”) are being perpetrated 24/7 to get us to do it to ourselves. This is because Satan operates in dishonor, thus he requires us to exercise our free-will to move
away from/step
off the Foundation that is Christ. I don’t worry about “the gov’t” jack-booted thugs kicking my door in because I am growing my own food for my family (as has occurred in USA and such legislation is pending in NZ); rather, I am concerned with my so-called neighbor who dobs me in to the State for not keeping my lawn trimmed to his expectations. John 16:2 comes to mind. Adolph Hitler handed out an extra week’s food rations to those who snitched out their neighbors. The difficult part for decent folks like you is in believing that there exists a group of people who are
fundamentally involved in perpetuating evil.
I'm still not totally convinced that the reasons our Police officers don't carry guns is because of the UN agenda. There have been past debates over whether our officers should carry guns. In 2010 a public poll was conducted which did not support Police in NZ carrying firearms. In 2013 the Nielsen survey authorized by the NZ Police Association showed a significant drop in support.
There you have it. “Debates,” “public polls,” and “Nielsen surveys” are simply more conditioning tools to desensitize you, in the present example, to the eventuality of universal disarmament of the populace.
The Six- Step Attitudinal Change Plan
Step 1. Some practice so offensive that it can scarcely be discussed in public is advocated by a
RESPECTED expert in a
RESPECTED forum.
Step 2. At first, the public is shocked, then outraged.
Step 3. But, the
VERY FACT that such a thing could be publicly debated becomes the
SUBJECT of the debate.
Step 4. In the process, sheer repetition of the shocking subject under discussion gradually dulling its effect.
Step 5. People then are no longer shocked by the subject.
Step 6. No longer outraged, people begin to argue for positions to moderate the extreme; or, they accept the premise, challenging, instead, the means to
ACHIEVE it.
This insidious method of changing the deeply-held attitudes of people is being successfully directed toward the population as a whole. Millions of people are experiencing attitudinal changes on a wide variety of subjects today. This attitudinal change is essential to achieving the
New World Order.
We follow along the lines of the British Policing traditions...
“We”? Funny, isn’t it, how we adopt the dictates of the State as our own? It’s all a part of the plan.
Based on International models; " All major police forces in Europe, as well as the US, Canada and Australia routinely carry firearms, says Prof Peter Waddington. The exceptions are Britain, the Irish Republic, and New Zealand. In Norway officers carry arms in their cars but not on their person, he says. New Zealand has adopted an armed response model similar to Britain, says the International Law Enforcement Forum.
Of course, as Britain serves as the absolute epicenter of global control. NZ is a huge social experiment in progress -- very Brit-ish. Abortion, gambling, and prostitution are legal in NZ. And with only ~4 million people, any agenda “setbacks” can be contained and “remediated.” Unlike USA, they don’t vette the firearm in NZ; they vette the firearm
owner. NZ is
very “NWO.”
And you can forget the “exceptions” per the talking head “Prof Peter Addington;” those “exceptions” are the new norm! Rather,
in law, what has the NZ officiating body adopted to follow? Again, exactly where NZ stands,
in law, in relation to the United Nations’ agenda of private firearms elimination, can be found by checking the chart
here.
There was considerable debate there in 2010 when two officers were shot, and commissioner
Peter Marshall wrote: "International experience shows that making firearms more accessible raises certain risks that are very difficult to control."
“Universal”/“International”/etc. -- take your pick of conditioning buzz words. Public "debates"/meetings are held as desensitizing tools, when the agenda is less likely to be accepted outright by the masses. And the outcomes of these "debates" are treated as irrelevant by those in control because it truly IS irelevant to them. They proceed thereafter as they wished, in every instance-- armed with even further knowledge of their "enemy."
In any case, they sometimes slip up and reveal their hand to the diligent ala the NZPD’s incomplete/“blank” chapter on “Universal Registration of Firearms” as found in their Police Arms Manual.
Knowledge blows fear away. But without a performance of due diligence, or a clear solution being offered or suggested, the OP unknowingly perpetuates the injustice and fear so vital to the agenda of those to whom the majority has unwittingly submitted.
