fromtheashes2.com Blog Posts,Conspiracy 101,Conspiracy 201 Agenda 21 – Why it is so important that the People know what it is – Some think that it is the beginning of Totalitarianism Audio and Text Files

Agenda 21 – Why it is so important that the People know what it is – Some think that it is the beginning of Totalitarianism Audio and Text Files

Spread the love

I strongly suggest that you learn as much as you can about this. As I have pointed out in a post that I just made, looks can be deceptive

Text Version


by Kathleen Marquardt

January-February  2012

from NewsWithViews Website

 

 

Kathleen Marquardt has been in the freedom movement since before it was called that. She was founder and chairman of Putting People First, a non-profit organization combatting the animal rights movement. Her book, AnimalScam: the Beastly Abuse of Human Rights, was published by Regnery in 1993. Kathleen has been Vice President of American Policy Center since 2000. She is a contributing writer and researcher for Freedom Advocates.
E-Mail: marquardtkathleen379@gmail.com


PART 1

Wake-up call
January 21, 2012

Global sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”

Professor Maurice King

Birth of an abomination

In simple terms
Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the end of civilization as we know it.

It is the end of private property, the elevation of the collective over the individual. It is the redistribution of America’s wealth to the global elite, it is the end of the Great American Experiment and the Constitution. And, it is the reduction of 85% of the world’s population.

In 1992, twenty years ago this summer, Agenda 21/Sustainable Development was unveiled to the world at the UN’s Earth Summit in Rio. (While Agenda 21 was introduced in June, 1992, it was already installed as public policy in communities across the country as early as 1987.)

In his opening remarks at the ceremonies at the Earth Summit, Maurice Strong stated:

The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.

It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.”

If this is true, then he and his cohorts must be even more against individual sovereignty.

Keep this quote in mind as you read about Agenda 21.

George H.W. Bush was in Rio for the ceremonies and graciously signed on for America so that our Congress did not have to spend the time reviewing the treaty and learning then what dastardly deeds were in store for us – that protecting the environment would be used as the basis for controlling all human activity and redistributing our wealth.


Definitions of Sustainable Development

U.N. definition of Sustainable Development:

meeting today’s needs without compromising future generations to meet their own needs.”

In actuality, Sustainable Development is not sustainable unless the population actually is reduced by the 85% called for by the globalists.

The true purpose of Sustainable Development and all of its policies is the control of all aspects of human life – economic, social and environmental (see 3 Es of Sustainable Development further below).

Here is how the United Nations described Agenda 21 in one of its own publications in a 1993 article entitled “Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save our Planet:”

Agenda 21proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth… it calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.”

So George H.W. Bush signed the Rio Accord and a year later Clinton established his President’s Council for Sustainable Development which would render the guidelines of Agenda 21 into public policy to be administered by the federal government via all departments.

In doing this, Bush and Clinton set up Agenda 21 as ruling authority, i.e., implementing a U.N. plan to become U.S. policy across the whole nation and into every county and town. And every succeeding president has fully endorsed and implemented Agenda 21 through every department of the federal government.

If one were to research the source of U.S. policy, one would find that much of our policy of the last few decades is the outcome of agreements we have entered into via treaties with the U.N. And that policy has trickled, no gushed, down into every state and into almost every other jurisdiction – county, city, town – in the nation; Sustainable Development is the official policy of our country even though many citizens are yet ignorant of its existence.

And this policy encompasses an entire economic and social agenda.


So what is Sustainable Development?

According to its authors, the objective of
Sustainable Development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity (the 3Es of sustainability).

They insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.

Look at these words, they are part of the new vocabulary:

Free trade, open space, smart growth, smart food, smart buildings, regional planning, walkable, bikeable, foodsheds, viewsheds, consensus, partnerships, preservation, stakeholders, land use, environmental protection, development, diversity, visioning, social justice, heritage, carbon footprints, comprehensive planning, critical thinking, community service, regional planning.

All of these words are part of the Newspeak, the altering of the English language as a tool to promote a global government through a diabolical agenda called Agenda 21.

In fact, the world will be retooled from top to bottom through this agenda and using the new vocabulary.

This is not just policy but a complete restructuring of life as we know it. We not only will be taught how we must live, but where we are allowed to live; taught how to think and what is acceptable thinking; told what job we will be allowed to have; taught how we can worship and what we will be allowed to worship; and we will be brainwashed into believing that the individual must cede all to the collective.

Private property will be a sin that will be eradicated as will be free-market economics which will be replaced by public private partnerships and a planned central economy.

Individualism will be rooted out and social justice will rule the land.

Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people,

“to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.”

In other words, the redistribution of wealth.

This will be achieved through an organizational structure of land use controls:

  • control of energy and energy production

  • control of transportation

  • control of industry

  • control of food production

  • control of development

  • control of water availability

  • control of population size and growth

And all of this will be decreed under the guise of environmental protection.


The 3 Es of Sustainable Development

The 3Es of sustainability which make up the
Sustainable Development logo consists of three connecting circles labeled,

  • Social Equity

  • Economic Prosperity

  • Ecological Integrity

These Es together encompass every aspect of human life.

First E – Social Equity
Social Equity is based on a demand for “social justice.” – in non-Newspeak, redistribution of the wealth.

Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people,

to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.”

Redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care is a social injustice. [To understand Agenda 21, click here]

Equity is a system of “social justice” that works to abolish the American concept of equal justice in order to pursue the globalist ideal of the “common good.” Individuals rights must be abolished for the good of the collective, just as in Communism; in fact, Karl Marx was the first person to use the term social justice.

Social justice is an unnatural leveling of all wealth (other than that of the global elites); no one person is supposed to profit more than another.


Second E – Economic Prosperity

From Wikipedia comes this discussion of economic prosperity promoted under Sustainable Development:

Economic growth is often seen as essential for economic prosperity, and indeed is one of the factors that is used as a measure of prosperity.

The Rocky Mountain Institute has put forth an alternative point of view, that prosperity does not require growth, claiming instead that many of the problems facing communities are actually a result of growth, and that sustainable development requires abandoning the idea that growth is required for prosperity.

The debate over whether economic growth is necessary for, or at odds with, human prosperity, has been active at least since the publication of Our Common Future in 1987, and has been pointed to as reflecting two opposing worldviews.

Keep in mind that almost every concept under Agenda 21 is written in Newspeak – words often have the opposite meanings of those in your Webster Dictionary so that the general public might be deceived, at least for a time (and it has been).

Economic prosperity under Agenda 21 is anything but prosperity – other than for the global elites who are controlling the system. It is economic ruin for the ordinary people of the entire globe.

Agenda 21 proponents would have you believe that all of the wealth in the world was made on the backs of the poor and that the only way that this inequity can be corrected is to redistribute that wealth.

While they claim that the wealth must be taken from the American middle class and given to the poor of the world, in actuality the money will be taken from that American middle class and given to the global elite (as if they didn’t control most of the world’s wealth already – but that is not the issue; it is to reduce us to slaves at best).

The poor, in Africa and other parts of the world, will never see a dime of the redistributed wealth, they are only the pretense for taking our money.

Agenda 21 encompasses the so-called free trade movement that created both NAFTA and Public/Private Partnerships which were incorporated into a government-driven economy called “corporatism.”

These public/private partnerships are nothing more than government sanctioned monopolies – Mussolini style economics.


Third E – Ecological Integrity
To understand the power of the transformation of society under sustainable development, consider this quote from the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty which also was introduced at the Rio Earth Summit:

Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual and material) where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living creatures are considered equal. Therefore the natural way is the right way and human activities should be molded along nature’s rhythms.”

This quote says it all; that we humans are nothing special – just one strand in the nature of things or, put another way, humans are simply biological resources.

No better than slugs or dung. In fact, in the eye of the globalist, we are of less value than slugs or dung. Their policy is to oversee any issue in which man interacts with nature – which, of course, is literally everything. This is necessary, they say, because humans only defile nature.

And private property ownership and control, along with individual and national sovereignty, are main targets of Sustainable Development.

Consider this quote from the report of the UN’s Habitat I conference:

Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributes to social injustice.”

This mixture of socialism, fascism and corporatism (as Tom DeWeese so aptly pegs it), called Agenda 21, is the ruling force in our government today from the federal to the local.

Not one of those ingredients would be allowed by our forefathers and not one is in sync with the Constitution; so how have we allowed all three to be combined into a recipe for global government and served to our unwitting nation?

PART 2
February 4, 2012

In part I above, I gave you the first half of the overview of Agenda 21. This is part 2 of the overview. Keep in mind that it is just an overview; I will expound upon the key aspects in later articles.

In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.

The Earth Charter

As
Tom DeWeese puts it,

The fact is, Agenda 21 is a blueprint to completely change our society to a top-down planned central economy in a strange mixture of Socialism, fascism and corporatism.

This is a political movement led by those who seek to control the world economy, dictate development and redistribute the world’s wealth. They use the philosophical base of Karl Marx, the tactics of Adolph Hitler, and the rhetoric of the Sierra Club.”

The next order of business for the globalist was to convince the general public that the fate of the world was at stake, that we had to do something right now and that “something” would require us to not only give up our standard of living but would have us give up our basic freedoms.

But what could they come up with to achieve all this – a big order even for the Maurice Strong‘s, Al Gore‘s and George Soros‘ of the world.

In the past we were hit with everything from a new ice age to global food shortages and starvation. But those dire threats didn’t pan out; not enough people were willing to swallow the Kool Aid yet. But all those New Age forecasters were not ready to give up on scaring the bejesus out of us.

How else would they achieve their ends?

Heidi and Alvin Toffler, John Naisbitt, Amatei Etzioni, with the Club of Rome and the Rand Corporation among others, have been looking for that exact universal scare to make us beg them to take control of the world; to have people crying, “just protect us.”

And what did they come up with? A biggie. Environmental Armageddon. Stop everything you are doing and the world might be able to correct itself; go on using natural resources and we doom not only ourselves but the entire rest of the world.

What could be better?

Put on your hair shirt, get rid of your middle class home and become one with the earth, i.e., throw out God and turn to Gaia worship and then maybe, just maybe, the globalists can steer us into a safe harbor of post-carbon existence.

(Note that we will be living in a post-carbon world, but the globalists will still be using carbon because they have to live comfortably so they can better rule over us. Like other extremists i.e. communists and animal rightists, as soon as they get the world in control {set up Utopias, free the animals} they will then join us in the post-carbon nightmare. In their dreams.)


Do you doubt what I am saying, then consider this quote by Alexander King, co-founder of the Club of Rome:

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill… All of these dangers are caused by human intervention…the real enemy then, is humanity.”

Do these scenarios sound familiar? Water shortages, famine, global warming – all in the news daily; all to make humanity the enemy of Mother Earth, Gaia.

We are constantly being bombarded with news stories (like the threat of global warming) that make man the evil doer, a cancer on the face of the earth in spite of evidence to the contrary.[1]

Now that the globalists have decided how to make this “wrenching transformation of society” according to Al Gore, they have been moving quite swiftly and efficiently. The transformation is to get humans first out of the rural areas, then out of the suburbs, and when they have us in the human settlement areas, to reduce our numbers by civil unrest, natural attrition, and eventually starvation.

How will this come about?

In conjunction with NGOs (Non-governmental Organizations affiliated with the United Nations) as well as corporations and private individuals, our state and federal governments are working to promulgate rules, regulations, fees and taxes that trickle all the way down to the smallest town, community and individual citizen.

Our local bureaucrats are either ignorant (or pretending to be) of the fact that this is all coming down from above – from the mighty UN and the global elite.

They, the bureaucrats, tell us that they are just working hard to design a template for our future, creating the necessary planning that will take us and our progeny into the next century with sustainability for even future generations and centuries. They claim that none of what they are doing has anything at all to do with the UN; that they are coming up with these cityscapes with stack-em and pack-em housing connecting to public transportation on their own.

They claim any talk to the contrary is just the claptrap of right wing radical conspiracy theorists; they figure if they tell this lie often enough, as Nazi Joseph Goebbels said, people will believe it and drink the Kool Aid.

People are waking up to the dishonesty and collusion, enough so that the powers-that-be, the NGOs and the global elite, are having to rename things to try to hide them again.

Consider this quote from J. Gary Lawrence, a planner for the city of Seattle, and an advisor to the President’s Council for Sustainable Development:

Participating in a U.N. advocated planning process would very likely bring out many… who would actively work to defeat any elected official… undertaking Local Agenda 21. So we will call our process something else, such as “comprehensive planning,” “growth management,” or “smart growth”.”

Do you see what I mean?

In his new Sustainable Development Manual, Tom DeWeese pulls these quotes from the UN’s Our Common Future: Sustainable Development involves,

…a progressive transformation of the economy and society (p.43),… international interdependence (p. 47),… redistribution of wealth (p.50),… less material and more equitable growth (p.50-52),… ensuring a sustainable level of population (p.55),… merging environment and economics in decision making (p.62),… and a new ethics that will include the relationship between man and nature above all (p.71).

Clearly there is more to Sustainable Development than good stewardship of natural resources.[2]

Put that all together and it equals what we so-called conspiracy theorists have been saying all along: this is a plan to control every aspect of our lives, economic, environmental, spiritual, educational, reproduction.

The state will not only be in our pocketbooks and our bedrooms, but in our schools and churches. They will decide what foods we can eat (food-sheds), if we can have children, how much education each child will be allowed, how much space we can inhabit, and what we will worship – Jehovah or Gaia or something else entirely.

So how is Al Gore’s wrenching transformation going to transpire?

There are five paths being used to transform America from the land of the brave to the pen of the slave, they are:

  1. For the rural areas it’s the Wildlands Project.

  2. For the cities it’s smart growth.

  3. In business it’s Public/Private Partnerships.

  4. In government it’s called stakeholder councils and non-elected boards and regional government – or reinvented government.

  5. And in the schools it is called No Child Left Behind.

Wildlands Project

Dave Foreman, formerly of the Wilderness Society and the Nature Conservancy, first dreamed up Earth First!, the club of eco-terrorists, then decided to play “grown up” and along with Arne Naess (Norwegian deep-ecologist), drew up the plans to re-wild North America. I say that he was playing at being grown up because no sane, reasoning person would want to take civilization back to a primitive stage.

The Wildlands Project literally calls for the “re-wilding” of 50% of all the land in every state – back to the way it was before Christopher Columbus set foot on this land.

In 1983, when Foreman first dreamed up the scheme for the Wildlands Project, he said:

It is not enough to preserve the roadless, undeveloped country remaining. We must re-create wilderness in large regions: move out the cars and civilized people, dismantle the roads and dams, reclaim the plowed lands and clearcuts – reintroduce extirpated species.”

In order to re-wild America, the people must go somewhere else.

They must be driven from their farms and rural homes (and even cabins) and crammed into cities, in Newspeak, human settlements. Human settlements is a much more descriptive word for the globalists plans than cities, as cities as we know them will be mutated into holding areas for great numbers of human beings (see Smart Growth below.)

The Wildlands Project (the product of a very disturbed mind, as I intimated before) actually became the blueprint for the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty. So now we have an eco-warrior’s sick idea of Utopia becoming the prototype for international re-wilding of the world and it has the power of law.

And what kind of person gleefully says,

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrial nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

That was Maurice Strong basically praising Foreman’s folly at the Earth Summit.


Smart Growth

Second path to Sustainable Development

The second path to Sustainable Development is
Smart Growth.

According to the Wildlands map, certain areas have been designated as human habitat areas; those are the larger cities of our country. You might want to look human habitat areas this way: it is rather like at a zoo. Creatures are penned and other creatures are free to roam and look at the penned creatures; this time it will be humans in the pens and the animals having the run of the country.

There are many ways in which the globalists are achieving this scenario. One was the U.S. Conference of Mayors in San Francisco.

On June 5 (World Environment Day), 2005, two documents – the “Green Cities Declaration” and the “Urban Environmental Accords” – were presented. Every mayor in attendance signed them. The two documents are part and parcel of the United Nations’ Agenda 21.

The first is the declaration that the mayors of all the cities of the United States and the world are going to be the implementers of Agenda 21.

The second explains how it will be implemented, closing with the statement,

The goal is for cities to pick three actions to adopt each year.”

Smart Growth cities have stack-em and pack-em housing often connected to public transportation; there will be no garages or parking lots other than for bicycles. Yes, I said connected.

Often a train line comes right under the building. You can see examples of this in Seattle, Portland, Oregon and San Francisco. We once thought that living near a freeway or railroad was undesirable.

I still do, but it is in the plans for all of our futures – railroads that is, freeways must go the way of the dinosaur because in Newspeak,

think elevator not automobile when you think of transportation to work.”

That is, you will be riding the elevator up from your living quarters to your work in the dream (nightmare) world of Sustainable Development.

All this seems overwhelming and you want to holler, “stop, enough.”

Regretfully there is more. 


Footnotes

1. Simon, Julian, The Ultimate Resource, Princeton University Press, 1981. p. 45.

Environmental, resource, and population stresses are diminishing, and with the passage of time will have less influence than now upon the quality of human life on our planet. These stresses have in the past always caused many people to suffer from lack of food, shelter, health, and jobs, but the trends is toward less rather than more of such suffering… Because of increases in knowledge, the earth’s “carrying capacity” has been increasing throughout the decades and centuries and millennia to such an extent that the term “carrying capacity” has by now no useful meaning.”

2. DeWeese, Tom. Sustainable Development Manual/Stop Agenda 21, p.122

PART 3
February 25, 2012


Overview

When public policy is made by elected officials who are accountable to the people who are governed, then government is truly empowered by the consent of the governed.

Sustainable development has designed a process through which public policy is designed by professionals and bureaucrats, and implemented administratively, with only symbolic, if any, participation by elected officials.

The professionals and bureaucrats who actually make the policies are not accountable to the people who are governed by them.

Henry Lamb

Sovereignty International

Public Private Partnerships

Third path to Sustainable Development

The third path to
Sustainable Development, is Public/Private Partnerships.

PPPs are business ventures that are undertaken with a partnership between the government (public sector) and private business entities.

The businesses promise the government that they will operate under the laws of sustainable development and the government then acts as a bullying big brother to the businesses and forces onerous rules and regulations on those who won’t play the PPP game; this tactic often results in putting the competition out of business while the PPPs get more powerful – thanks to Congress.

We are bombarded constantly by the PPPs messages of going “green” with their products from toilets (that often take several flushes thus negating their claim to use less water) to wind power, to building materials.

Are all of these products really better for us and the environment? What about the new, green light bulbs?

GE used their partnership with government to ban their own product – the incandescent light bulb and replace it with the new “green” bulbs. Soon we won’t be allowed to buy incandescent bulbs.

Why? Because GE can make three times as much from the new ones as they are more expensive.

But they are less green than fuel oil. They come with instructions on how to deal with them if they break – don’t touch with your hands, you could absorb some of the mercury; don’t vacuum, the mercury vapor could be released into the air and you or your children could breathe it causing great harm, etc.

It is a miracle they don’t require wearing a Hazmat suit when cleaning one up. Nevertheless they are considered “green” because the government decreed them to be because their manufacturer is a PPP and thus only produces “green” items.

And now there is a new kind of corporation being developed through Public Private Partnerships – it’s called “benefit” corporations.

As Michael Shaw of Freedom Advocates describes it,

imagine a legislated brotherhood of business where favored businesses get to go to the front of the line for permits, licenses and opportunities merely because they agree to advance the principles of Sustainable Development and Agenda 21.

Five states already have Benefit Corporation legislation:

  • Hawaii

  • Virginia

  • Maryland

  • Vermont

  • New Jersey

And six more are in the process of making it part of their states corporate legal system, including California, Colorado, Michigan, New York, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.”


Stakeholder Councils

Fourth path to Sustainable Development


The fourth path to Sustainable Development is called Stakeholder Councils.

In our local governments – city and county – an unelected, self-selected group of people are steadily taking over the control of planning and then running the government. Who are these unelected people? First there are the employees of the NGOs (Non-governmental organizations affiliated with the UN) that were working on a visioning plan or another regional planning scheme in the area (see regionalism coming in subsequent article).

The Council usually will be composed of several of these NGO workers and one or two globalist-leaning, leading members of the community.

How do these Councils take control?

They usually come into town to help run the process of a “visioning” plan link or other program designed to regionalize the area. Once they have completed the plan, if they like that area of the country, they stick around to take over and become unelected officials who have no allegiance to the community and no accountability to the electorate while the locally elected, and thus legitimate, office holders are reduced to being rubber stamps for the Council’s decrees.

There will not be just one Stakeholder Council, there will be numerous ones, all overlapping other Stakeholder Councils (again see regionalism in subsequent article).

The best way I can describe this is like when you make something out of paper mache, you overlap a piece on top of another and another until you have completed your piece of art. In this case it is not art but totalitarian control of the country. Each of these Councils will be autonomous in their sphere. And none of them will be beholding to the citizenry.

Let me give you an example from here in Knoxville. We are being “sold” on planET (plan East Tennessee), also called Five Counties, One Vision.

The areas of our lives that will be controlled by this stakeholder council will be transportation, housing, economic development/jobs, environment and community health. Think about it, a group of people who have very different views on what is needed vis a vis these areas of our lives is going to be controlling every aspect of housing, the environment and transportation.

Here is the UN’s Conference on Sustainable Development’s description of what defines good jobs,

…green and decent jobs defines these as positions across all sectors that contribute to greening, preserving or restoring the quality of the environment, promoting social inclusion and aiding in a transition to a low-carbon economy.”

Those are necessary factors in jobs for the future in America; if a job doesn’t fit all those qualifications then it must be phased out.

And let me tell you what they mean by community health.

Have you heard of Gross National Happiness? No? Well you better learn about it now, it is going to replace Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the measurement of our national well-being. I said replace not complement.

Here are The Four Pillars of GNH:

  • the promotion of equitable and sustainable socio-economic development

  • the preservation and promotion of cultural values

  • the conservation of the natural environment

  • the establishment of good governance

By now you should be able to figure out what most of that Newspeak means to us normal people.

Equitable and sustainable socio-economic development means to take us back from industrialized society to a meaner, more primitive one thus we are all poor together struggling with survival.

You can bet the cultural values being promoted are not those of Western Culture and Judeo-Christian values.

The so-called conservation of the natural environment is actually the preservation of pre-Columbian environment and the establishment of good governance is global government.


Education

Fifth path to Sustainable Development

The fifth path to Sustainable Development is education.

Perhaps I should have made it the first, but one needs to know what the goal is to understand what is happening in our schools – or a better term is retraining facilities. Our children are no longer being educated or taught as we think of education – reading, math, science, history.

To cut to the chase, let me quote from the introduction to Charlotte Iserbyt’s The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America,

Iserbyt has also documented the gradual transformation of our once academically successful education system into one devoted to training children to become compliant human resources to be used by government and industry for their own purposes.

This is how fascist-socialist societies train their children to become servants of their government masters.

The successful implementation of this new philosophy of education will spell the end of the American dream of individual freedom and opportunity. The government will plan your life for you, and unless you comply with government restrictions and regulations your ability to pursue a career of your own choice will be severely limited.”

Our children are being programmed to be good global citizens, to believe in social justice instead of equal justice thus to sublimate themselves to the common good.

Their values, attitudes and beliefs are being altered to make them viable citizens of a serfdom with earth worshipping as their religion.

Again from the intro to DDDoA,

Americans forget that the present government education system started as a Prussian import in the 1840’s-’50’s. It was a system built on Hegel’s belief that the state was “God” walking on earth.

The only way to restore educational freedom, and put education back into the hands of parents where it belongs, is to get the federal government, with its coercive policies, out of education.

The billions of dollars being spent by the federal government to destroy educational freedom must be halted, and that can only be done by getting American legislators to understand that the American people want to remain a free people, in charge of their own lives and the education of their children.”

You know how the globalists are effecting the so-called education of our children, but how are they effecting the transformation from a Republic (the greatest one the world has ever known) to a Regionalized slave state?

Through the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and the American Planning Association (APA) and a myriad of other ‘programs’ to achieve the same goals (Green Cities, Cool Mayors, Urban Environmental Accords, etc).

This is a lot to grasp, but you must realize that it is but a drop in the bucket of what is being done under the guise of protecting the environment. As I put it at the beginning of this piece, back in part One, Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the end of civilization as we know it. It is the end of private property, the elevation of the collective over the individual. It is the redistribution of America’s wealth to the global elite, it is the end of the Great American Experiment and the Constitution.

And, it is the reduction of 85% of the world’s population.

There are a lot more aspects that you need to understand. But most importantly, we – every American who loves his or her country and the republic formed by the most incredible forefathers the world has ever known – must fight this with everything we have. There are so many of us and we have reason, right, sound science and the glory of Western Culture and our Judeo-Christian heritage behind us.

If we truly want to win this fight, we can.

This is the end of the overview of Agenda 21, the end of Western Civilization or a wake-up call. The next part will cover ICLEI, the APA and the other means of achieving the goals set out in the Agenda.

September 17, 2015

from StatelessHomesteading Website

With Q3 of the 2015 fiscal year just around the corner, one cannot help but notice unprecedented unease in both financial and social spheres, and perhaps with good reason.

With alternative media forecasters, national banks, and supranational institutions alike heralding the coming of “global depression” by the end of 2016, this consensus of seemingly strange bedfellows almost universally agree that something wicked this way comes.

These dire economic prognostications exist simultaneously in a world in which energy and development prospects, both nationally and transnationally, are being reworked – with equally profound implications as the aforementioned financial trend analysis.

Be it the Obama Administration’s “Clean Power Plan” or the EU and China’s planned Neomalthusian 2030 carbon emission cutbacks, national entities the world over are positioning themselves for profound shifts in energy, development, trade, and even currency ahead of COP21 in Paris this December, or as some have deemed it, “Agenda 2030.”

The convergence of both engineered economic crisis and an engineered “sustainable development” crisis in late-2015 are hardly coincidental, nor are they insignificant.

While the alternative finance community seems destined to eternally squabble about the mechanics of a coming global depression, few have set themselves to the task of projecting what the character of such a post-depression society will look like – and the “New World Economic Order” it has the potential to initiate.

It is this author’s contention that the character of this coming era can only be understood when financial calamity is viewed in tandem with Agenda 21’s faux-ecological insidiousness; and you, Reader, deserve the knowledge and documentation of this sagacious plot. It’s pervasive, it’s global, and has existed (in its modern form) since at least the 1970s.

Seeking to contextualize this historical continuity, we must first examine the writings of erudite anti-Technocracy researcher, Patrick Wood, and his pioneering work on the Trilateral Commission’s “New International Economic Order” of the 1970s.

Technocracy and the “New International Economic Order”

As an integral decade in this ongoing “Age of Transitions,” the 1970s brought with it previously unimagined sociopolitical and economic shifts. Deflation was prevalent.

The decade also saw the rise of the Petrodollar and the end of the gold-backed Bretton Woods era, as well as the seeding of eugenic “environmental catastrophe” memes propagated by works like the Club of Rome‘s 1972 publication, Limits to Growth, or John P. Holdren‘s equally Neomalthusian and lauded Ecoscience.

It also saw the birth of the Trilateral Commission, co-founded by David Rockefeller and Zbignew Brzezinski in 1973, who, among other things, pushed forth the concept of a “New International Economic Order” to quell the world’s ailing economic and environmental “doom and gloom” forecasts.

While the nature of this “New International Economic Order” at the time evaded Mr. Wood and his research partner, Dr. Antony Sutton, the perspective granted by the passage of time has lead Patrick Wood to declare Technocracy to be the true aim of this New Order.

He writes:

It is plainly evident today, with 40 years of historical examination behind it, that the “New International Economic Order” was really “new” and envisioned historic Technocracy as replacing Capitalism altogether.

Technocracy was based on energy rather than money and its system of supply and demand that regulates pricing.

Some distinctives of Technocracy include:

  • Elimination of private property and wealth accumulation

  • Replacing traditional education with workforce training

  • Micromanaging all energy distribution and consumption

  • Driving people to live in a limited number of cities and off of rural land

  • Enforcing a balance between nature’s resources and man’s consumption of them.

Are you thinking that this list is vaguely familiar?

You should, because it represents the modern manifestation of programs like Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, Smart Grid, Cap And Trade, Climate Change, Common Core, massive surveillance operations and a whole lot more.

All of this has been brought to us by the machinations of the Trilateral Commission and its members since 1973, and it is all part of its master plan to completely replace capitalism with Technocracy.

This is their “New International Economic Order“!

Patrick Wood, Endgame of Technocracy

The Trilateral Commission, however, was not alone in the propagation of the “New International Economic Order” ideal.

As with all things global and “sustainable,” the United Nations is sure to be lurking nearby.

The UN’s “Council on Trade and Development” (or UNCTAD) was the chief multinational institution (in cooperation with the Trilateral Commission) in proudly promoting such a New Order throughout the decade:

Phase 1: The 1960s and 1970s

  • In its early decades of operation, UNCTAD gained authoritative standing:

    • as an intergovernmental forum for North-South dialogue and negotiations on issues of interest to developing countries, including debates on the “New International Economic Order”.

UNCTAD’s history promoting the “New International Economic Order”

from their official website

As noted in a previous article about COP21 and the coming Agenda 21 “update,” documentation on what this “binding and legal agreement” entails directly from UN sources related to the Conference is sparse.

That is, until one abandons searching for literature on the “green” facade and goes straight to the source of the “New International Economic Order” itself – that is, global trade governance, as documented by UNCTAD:

From UNCTAD’s

Policy Brief No. 36 of 2015

It is within UNCTAD’s 2015 policy briefs that we begin to find some semblance of clarity as to what a post-global depression geopolitical and economic environment has in store for us; and as all burgeoning Hegelians know, global problems invite (engineered) global solutions.

UNCTAD and the “Sustainable Multilateral” Vision of Humanity

Over the past 40 years, the “New International Economic Order” has changed its name and structure, but never its primary objectives.

Its old name cast away in favor of representing our increasingly captive and globalized world, “Multilateral Global Trade Governance” is its new moniker.

The threats of population bombs, peak oil, and Global Cooling prevalent in the 70s, too, have given way to the phantom foes of carbon emissions and “unsustainability” so overtly propagandized to us in the 21st Century.

In true Technocratic fashion, UNCTAD declares the new face of “transformative” and “multilateral” global governance to be underpinned by none other than sustainable development in their 2015 Policy Brief No. 31:


This shift towards “multilateralism” is more than rhetorical, representing a structural change in the nature of globalism.

It’s also not limited to UNCTAD, as the IMF, BIS, World Bank, and yes, even the BRICS have been calling for a “New Multipolar World Order” for quite some time.

This new form of globalism is slated to be seemingly inclusive, allowing nations like China, Russia, India, and Brazil some measure of regional control, while ultimately being subservient to the “binding and legal agreement” of COP21. Continuing with Policy Brief No. 31:


We see that these new “inclusive multilateral mechanisms” are anything but voluntary, as UNCTAD goes on to conclude that such mechanisms would “preclude competitive liberalization;” in other words, multilateralism is designed to prevent Second and Third World nations from seeking a development structure outside the UN’s “sustainable” vision.

If any are still in doubt as to whether the BRICS alliance and its New Development Bank represent this globalist multilateral trap, UNCTAD steadfastly declare the BRICS to be an integral regional component in this plot:


This latest forecast echoes UNCTAD’s 2014 publication, A BRICS Development Bank – A Dream Coming True?’ which also holds the BRICS NDB as a key partner in Agenda 21 and its global Technocratic serfdom, written about at length by this author previously.

This bank-against-bank dialectic is the Globalist version of Coke vs. Pepsi. Republicans vs. Democrats. East vs. West. BRICS Bank vs. World Bank. Multilateral vs. Monopolar.

All result in the synthesis of “global trade governance” aspired to by the Anglo-American Establishment and Agenda 21.

In UNCTAD’s Policy Brief on Climate Change No. 4, the structure of this new system of governance was enumerated upon by none other than Chinese (Editorial Correction: S. Korean) UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon.

If his description does not represent “multilateral globalism,” I don’t know what does:


Supposedly sovereign nations will be subservient to regional entities (BRICS, NAFTA, EU, etc).

Regional entities will abide by a commonly agreed upon set of global development and economic standards (COP21). The city, town, and community, long subsumed by ICLEI’s “sustainable development” principles as set forth by Rio ’92, are already in lock-step with this “multilateral globalism.”

“And what of the individual,” one may ponder?

Such an “outmoded” concept has no place in the eternal Cybernetic feedback loop of “green” global trade governance as outlined by UNCTAD:


The aforementioned “knowledge sharing,” “peer reviewing,” and “accountability” standards will be handled not wholly by governing bodies, but governing algorithms, as such banal tasks are likely to be managed by our increasingly “smart” cities, metering devices, homes, and cars; a shift destined to portend the increased control such devices will bring to everyday life within this “New Multilateral Economic Order.”

It is unlikely that such sweeping alterations to global as well as social interaction will take place unless “motivated” by periods of crisis.

In UNCTAD’s Policy Brief No. 36, the importance of our last global crisis of 2008 in creating the prerequisites for “Green” Globalism is noted:

It therefore stands to reason that the activation of these bilateral, regional, and megaregional trade agreements created in the wake of the 2008 Depression will likewise require economic calamity to activate; calamity that alternative media and the Bank for International Settlements alike are predicting as inevitable.

If such a “transformative” global structure is to be initiated in advance of or around COP21 this December, the remainder of 2015 is likely to be wrought with continued economic uncertainty.

The brief goes on to note a number of transnational corporations complying with this new Green Globalism, some of whom should be familiar to the astute Deep Political reader and researcher:


All have been intimately involved in the Neomercantile “opening of China” and the rampant technological buildup of the East by Western capital since the 90s, with IBM’s insidious participation in programs as varied as,

Of Lucent Technologies and IBM specifically, James Corbett of The Corbett Report writes:

In the same time period, China rose from the 30th-largest target of US R&D investment to the 11th on the back of a doubling of US affiliates in the country.

The list of companies that started major R&D activities or facilities in China in the 1990s reads like a who’s who of the CFR-nested Fortune 500 set:

DuPont, Ford, General Electric, General Motors, IBM, Intel, Lucent Technologies, Microsoft, Motorola, and Rohm and Haas all had a significant stake in China by the beginning of the 21st century.

James Corbett

The Great Decoupling: How the West is Engineering its Own Downfall

So it would seem this same set of “CFR-nested Fortune 500” companies responsible for building up China’s industrial and technological capacity are now pushing forth sustainable development with the UN as well as within the BRICS nations themselves.

  • Have these Western entities bolstered China’s modern economic stature out of sheer goodwill?

  • Merely self-interested profiteering?

  • Or is the fulfillment of this greater collectivist agenda the “quid pro quo” demanded by the West in exchange for such niceties as increased regional power in the Asia-Pacific?

This year’s demise of the BRICS economies (most notably China) as well as key Western markets, if not overtly coordinated, certainly provide a unique opportunity to bring about these proposed “global (green) solutions” to “global crises.”

In Closing

As this blog has set out to demonstrate since its inception, globalism is indeed what its title claims – global. 

It knows no borders, nations, or ideologies, save complete and utter transnational subjugation of autonomous human beings – globally.

Technocracy – rule by a class of entrenched elites and “snitch society” technologies – will be the character of this coming global era. Sustainable development (Agenda 21) is its vehicle.

It doesn’t reach the “End of the Road” without a transition from the “Old Economic World Order” to the New, a divergence impossible without a global economic crisis the likes of which has not been seen in nearly a Century.

Agenda 21 and the prospect of economic calamity have been inseparable concepts since the ravings of former UN Under-Secretary General and co-Agenda 21 architect, Maurice Strong, became a matter of public record back in 1992.

In talking with late activist George Washington Hunt at a UN Environment Conference in Colorado, Strong, under the auspices of a fictional book he hoped to pen, mused casually about how such a “New World Order” could take shape:

What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?

In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?

This group of world leaders forms a secret society to bring about an economic collapse. It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists.

They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodities and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock markets and computers and gold supplies, a panic.

Then, they prevent the world’s stock markets from closing. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the leaders at Davos as hostage. The markets can’t close.

Maurice Strong

Strong abruptly ended his tale by concluding that he,

“probably shouldn’t be saying things like this.”

Not that he had to continue, as from where we stand in 2015, we can see how this tale ends:

With Strong’s world on the horizon.

The next engineered economic crisis, ready to be sprung with a proverbial “flip of the switch,” will certainly be a global one.

Yet Strong’s fantasies of Davos hostage takings of over twenty years ago may prove entirely unnecessary at COP21 in our modern era, as nearly all opposition to Agenda 21 on the global stage has been subsumed by its promise of complete technological control and a seat at the “multilateral table.”

You, though, Reader, have no seat at this table. An ostensibly insignificant cog in an international machine; but armed with the knowledge of what is to come, perhaps a cog that may someday soon decide to grind to a halt.

This machine, after all, is each and every one of us.

Leave a Reply

Related Post

Afrikaansالعربية简体中文HrvatskiČeština‎DanskNederlandsEnglishEestiFilipinoSuomiFrançaisFryskDeutschΕλληνικάעִבְרִיתMagyarÍslenskaBahasa IndonesiaGaeilgeItaliano日本語Қазақ тілі한국어Latviešu valodaLietuvių kalbaLëtzebuergeschМакедонски јазикBahasa MelayuMalteseNorsk bokmålفارسیPolskiPortuguêsਪੰਜਾਬੀRomânăРусскийСрпски језикSlovenčinaSlovenščinaAfsoomaaliEspañolSvenskaТоҷикӣไทยTürkçeУкраїнськаاردوO‘zbekchaTiếng ViệtCymraegZulu