How did I miss this? Bob Heisler posted information on Rosa Koire discussing U.N. Agenda 21 the other day. Shocking. One of the manifestations of 20-year old conspiracy theories "plans," yet here it is, trying to happen in our neighborhood. The coolest thing is that this amazing woman, Rose Koire, LIVES IN SANTA ROSA! I began listening to Art Bell in 1992 (coast to coast am) and Jeff Rense (rense.com) 20 years ago. ANYbody can get on those shows, talking about ANYthing going on, even ex CIA agents who wrote books. So much can be learned about the schenanigans perpetrated by the creepy-greedy people of low character. Alex Jones is another telling the truth on radio and Youtube. The Old Guard is beginning to break apart, and Occupy is accellerating it. These radio hosts say "The Revolution is us."
We ALL should massivly organize and MAKE Ron Paul get elected president. The Boomers have the power to do that, working with everybody else of right motivation.
How did I miss this? Bob Heisler posted information on Rosa Koire discussing U.N. Agenda 21 the other day. Shocking. One of the manifestations of 20-year old conspiracy theories "plans," yet here it is, trying to happen in our neighborhood. The coolest thing is that this amazing woman, Rose Koire, LIVES IN SANTA ROSA! I began listening to Art Bell in 1992 (coast to coast am) and Jeff Rense (rense.com) 20 years ago. ANYbody can get on those shows, talking about ANYthing going on, even ex CIA agents who wrote books. So much can be learned about the schenanigans perpetrated by the creepy-greedy people of low character. Alex Jones is another telling the truth on radio and Youtube. The Old Guard is beginning to break apart, and Occupy is accellerating it. These radio hosts say "The Revolution is us."
We ALL should massivly organize and MAKE Ron Paul get elected president. The Boomers have the power to do that, working with everybody else of right motivation.
UN agenda 21 and it's LOCAL arm ICLEI is pretty insidious. Even the Occupy Town Hall Meetings are being sponsored by the Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy, an ICLEI group with a nice name and a nefarious agenda. I heard Rosa mention it in one of the videos of the recent One Bay Area Santa Rosa meetings shown on her site.
The only way Ron Paul could make it past the rigged voting machines is if two things happened. Most importantly, that the counting was successfully audited. And secondly if he won by a landslide; make it obvious. He's probably already winning and an audit of each state's primary would reveal that. Anyone's main motivation for voting for him? To head off the fascist police state that is well underway and becoming more obvious by the day. Who cares about political wedge issues in the face of this?
Liz:waccosun:
01-25-2012, 12:40 PM
"Mad" Miles
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
"...Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy, an ICLEA group with a nice name and a nefarious agenda."
Would you care to substantiate your slander Ubaru?
01-25-2012, 04:30 PM
CyberHippy
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
"...Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy, an ICLEA group with a nice name and a nefarious agenda."
Would you care to substantiate your slander Ubaru?
Yeah, if you're going to push a conspiracy theory, it helps to get the spelling correct: https://www.iclei.org/
Chill out with your knee jerk reactions and do your homework before attacking me. You didn't check out that link did you? You just shot from the hip.
Rosa Koire reported that the Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy is an ICLEI group in the video I watched. ICLEI is the correct acronym. You can read about it here, and at the link I provided above. If you do your homework, and you don't like the corporate elite controlling us, you will probably agree this is something to become aware of now, and kick out of our communities because a lot of rural Sonoma County and eventually all of us are screwed by their policies. I have a friend up in rural Sonoma county who does not agree with me on Ron Paul but is very up on UN Agenda 21, ICLEI, and how it's trodding all over his property rights, decreasing his property value because the new policy is to not maintain 1,200 miles of road, and highjacking his property taxes. Does this raise an eyebrow for you?
From her website:
What does ICLEI (pronounced ICK-LY) stand for? International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. It was created as a non-governmental spin-off by the United Nations to implement Agenda 21 locally. It is a lobbying and policy group that is designed to influence and change local governmental policies related to all aspects of human life.
Barry, I see you've given CyberHippy gratitude and I can imagine that it would be pretty provoking and unsettling to consider that you've sold advertising to such an organization or partnered with them in sponsoring the Occupy Town Hall. Check out the data. Maybe it's time to sift the wheat from the chaff.
Meanwhile guys, be respectful, keep an open mind, and do your research.
Liz:waccosun:
01-25-2012, 10:29 PM
"Mad" Miles
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Uburu,
The Leadership Institute for the Ecology and Economy is a Liberal training institute for local leaders, or prospective ones. Some of whom may go into public service, or at least try by running for office.
It is well respected and has been around for twelve years. At least that's how long I've known about it/them.
I know someone who was the Director from 2001-2004 or so (I don't have the exact years down, that's ballpark from memory.) It was founded by Rick Theis and others.
It is the Liberal, Environmentalist corollary to the Santa Rosa Leadership Institute, which is the mainstream establishment organization that does the same but from a conventional business perspective. When I worked at the Red Cross '89-'00 as the Executive Assistant to the CEO and Board Secretary (Chief Gofer) many board members had gone through the mainstream training.
The Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy focuses on Social Justice, Labor, Environmental and Economic Sustainability issues and how to integrate them into governmental, non-profit and community grassroots organizations and institutions.
I don't care what some conspiracy mongering wingnut has to say in linking them to some One World Government scheme, that's ludicrous. You're the one casting aspersions on respected members of and organizations in our community. Our Progressive community. An organization and hard working well meaning group of individuals who long precede you in efforts to improve our county and region.
If you're going to sling mud, you better back it up with facts. And you better have better facts than fringe, unsubstantiated foolishness (I'm pulling my punches here for the sake of civility in Waccovia, if I wrote what I really think of that stuff, and much else you spam this site with daily, well, what would be the point, it's already pretty clear to anyone with a modicum of common knowledge about science, history, politics and economics what any of it is worth.)
I've ignored, for the most part, with the exception of providing resources for those willing to learn, the garbage you constantly regurgitate here. But, when you accuse good people of being in league with, "The Devil", you've crossed over the bounds of acceptability. And you will get an eyeful from me, let the chips fall where they may.
"You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."
Ubaru, You're the one who has not done her homework. Something you demonstrate on a daily basis. Try reading the critics of your critics once in a while. You might actually learn something new.
https://ecoleader.org/drupal/resources
01-25-2012, 10:50 PM
rossmen
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
this is a conspiracy like public education, training participants to stay seated, do the meaningless work, and space out. there is no hidden agenda in onebayarea plans. what are they for santa rosa? from 101 to fulton, from hwy 12 to two blocks south of sebastopol rd, 40+ residential units/acre and 40+ jobs too. this is comparable to the most densely developed parts of sf. preferred development area stack em and pack em. i guess roseland didn't have any reps at the first meeting.
what are they for where you live? are they even likely to manifest? does the process really shut down all new building outside of pda's like koire contends? don't shoot the messenger on this one, these are issues very close to home.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by ubaru:
Ok Mad Miles and CyberHippy,
Chill out with your knee jerk reactions and do your homework before attacking me. You didn't check out that link did you? You just shot from the hip.
Rosa Koire reported that the Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy is an ICLEA group in the video I watched. ICLEA is the correct acronym. You can read about it here, and at the link I provided above. If you do your homework, and you don't like the corporate elite controlling us, you will probably agree this is something to become aware of now, and kick out of our communities because a lot of rural Sonoma County and eventually all of us are screwed by their policies. I have a friend up in rural Sonoma county who does not agree with me on Ron Paul but is very up on UN Agenda 21, ICLEA, and how it's trodding all over his property rights, decreasing his property value, and highjacking his property taxes. Does this raise an eyebrow for you?
From her website:
What does ICLEI (pronounced ICK-LY) stand for? International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. It was created as a non-governmental spin-off by the United Nations to implement Agenda 21 locally. It is a lobbying and policy group that is designed to influence and change local governmental policies related to all aspects of human life.
Barry, I see you've given CyberHippy gratitude and I can imagine that it would be pretty provoking and unsettling to consider that you've sold advertising to such an organization or partnered with them in sponsoring the Occupy Town Hall. Check out the data. Maybe it's time to sift the wheat from the chaff.
Meanwhile guys, be respectful, keep an open mind, and do your research.
Liz:waccosun:
01-26-2012, 03:09 AM
ubaru
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:
this is a conspiracy like public education, training participants to stay seated, do the meaningless work, and space out. there is no hidden agenda in onebayarea plans. what are they for santa rosa? from 101 to fulton, from hwy 12 to two blocks south of sebastopol rd, 40+ residential units/acre and 40+ jobs too. this is comparable to the most densely developed parts of sf. preferred development area stack em and pack em. i guess roseland didn't have any reps at the first meeting.
what are they for where you live? are they even likely to manifest? does the process really shut down all new building outside of pda's like koire contends? don't shoot the messenger on this one, these are issues very close to home.
Thanks rossmen for having an open mind. It's good to see you start asking questions about this. But Mile's post is so inflammatory, I can't even read the rest of it. I did catch the words "I don't care" and that is too bad because this IS serious, and it is non-partisan, and the agenda would eventually make our society look like the Chinese if we didn't stop it.
Re: "does the process really shut down all new building outside of pda's like koire contends?" Yes, I've heard Rosa say that it does for 25 years.
And I think it's worth everyone's while to pick one of the 100 minute videos at the bottom of https://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/videos.html of Rosa Koire speaking on this in more detail. She is a professional real estate appraiser working for the state specializing in eminent domain, and she is a expert legal witness who speaks based only on facts. She's been studying the redevelopment issue for 10 years.
You'll notice that her audiences so far in these videos have been Tea Party people because property rights are a big concern for them. But don't let that stop you from listening. She says right up front to them that she's a liberal democrat who disagrees with them on many issues, but believes that keeping our freedom as Americans is vitally important. And I believe the ruling elite have won if we buy into their divide and conquer tactics that would have us spend so much energy polarizing around two parties that really operate as one corporate controlled party. We are all seeing now that it's the people vs. the corporate bankster elite. And if that is so, then this is worth your time, because they are planning our life for their benefit and our demise and it's time to get wise.
Yes, I am just the messenger. I've only taken in one hour and a half video that was absolutely fascinating as she followed the money, and a few pages of her website which I've summarized here. And I've learned what the Delphi technique is. Rosa's the expert and I'm grateful for her courage and tenacity to bring this information forward. Here's one of them.
Do you fully grok the benefits of urban growth vs suburban growth? High density urban settings and rural areas are both more efficient and environmentally friendly than mid-density suburban sprawl with it's dependence on vehicles to be able to do ANYTHING. High density areas make walking to a store far more palatable. Low density areas spread out the pollution from drivers over a much wider area, lowering its impact.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:
this is a conspiracy like public education, training participants to stay seated, do the meaningless work, and space out. there is no hidden agenda in onebayarea plans. what are they for santa rosa? from 101 to fulton, from hwy 12 to two blocks south of sebastopol rd, 40+ residential units/acre and 40+ jobs too. this is comparable to the most densely developed parts of sf. preferred development area stack em and pack em. i guess roseland didn't have any reps at the first meeting.
what are they for where you live? are they even likely to manifest? does the process really shut down all new building outside of pda's like koire contends? don't shoot the messenger on this one, these are issues very close to home.
01-26-2012, 01:41 PM
ubaru
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by smunsch:
Do you fully grok the benefits of urban growth vs suburban growth? High density urban settings and rural areas are both more efficient and environmentally friendly than mid-density suburban sprawl with it's dependence on vehicles to be able to do ANYTHING. High density areas make walking to a store far more palatable. Low density areas spread out the pollution from drivers over a much wider area, lowering its impact.
Yes I fully grok the benefits of urban growth vs suburban growth. However at what price? Who asked my friend who lives in rural Sonoma county if it was Ok if his land be declared a "blighted" zone because there were too many local businesses in that area and not enough corporate ones like Kinkos, CVS, and Jack In the Box? That's ICLEI's definition of "blighted." Too many local businesses. Does that sound like your community values?
Who asked my friend if it was Ok to take his property taxes and put them into the redevelopment fund and stop paving some 1,200 miles of Sonoma county roads which is lowering his property value?
He was invited to a meeting that he couldn't make and even if he had, they were fake meetings. The agenda was pre-planned. Asking for people's input at One Bay Area meetings was/is all for show and to look like all is being handled democratically when it's not. That's what the Delphi meeting control technique is about.
That's just two examples.
From Wikipedia:
Franklin D. Roosevelt “ The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. ” — "Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Recommendations Relative to the Strengthening and Enforcement of Anti-Trust Laws"
Most of us know the benefits you speak of. We've been thoroughly educated about how to go green. That's not what this discussion is about. How many know the real nature of redevelopment and UN Agenda 21? How many know how the green movement has been used as an excuse for so many toxic, community destroying, and unsustainable policies? Smart Meters are one. How many know the connection between the prison industrial complex and the policies being implemented in Sonoma County? See the 2nd half of this video which does an incredible job of following the money. That's the opportunity here.
I'd like to request that anyone who posts on this thread do some research at https://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com and preferably watch one of the 100 minute videos at the bottom of https://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/videos.html of Rosa Koire speaking on this in a lot more detail. Because there is a lot more valuable info than I can possibly put here. Then let's have some high quality discussion about it.
Liz:waccosun:
01-26-2012, 03:00 PM
CyberHippy
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by ubaru:
Ok Mad Miles and CyberHippy,
Chill out with your knee jerk reactions and do your homework before attacking me. You didn't check out that link did you? You just shot from the hip.
Rosa Koire reported that the Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy is an ICLEA group in the video I watched. ICLEA is the correct acronym. You can read about it here, and at the link I provided above.
From her website:
What does ICLEI (pronounced ICK-LY) stand for? International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. It was created as a non-governmental spin-off by the United Nations to implement Agenda 21 locally. It is a lobbying and policy group that is designed to influence and change local governmental policies related to all aspects of human life.
Barry, I see you've given CyberHippy gratitude and I can imagine that it would be pretty provoking and unsettling to consider that you've sold advertising to such an organization or partnered with them in sponsoring the Occupy Town Hall. Check out the data. Maybe it's time to sift the wheat from the chaff.
Please re-read my post. If correcting your spelling is "attacking" you then your skin is far too thin to hang out on a public forum on the Internet.
I followed your links, they are both to a post of your own, in which the only mention I could find of "ICLEA" was yours. An actual defense of the spelling would have involved linking to someone else using the term. I followed through to the source page in your post: https://www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com/ - searching for "ICLEA" gave me nothing, "ICLEI" gave me two links. I went through ten of the linked articles and did the search again, every time "ICLEA" had zero returns.
It gets better when, in the paragraph you quoted next (in red above) the spelling I presented is used exclusively.
Finally, did you just attack Barry for expressing gratitude for my post? That is a seriously weak debate tactic!
(see… now I'm attacking you - that's what it looks like)
01-26-2012, 04:43 PM
rossmen
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
oh yeah, i fully grok it. i am an environmentalist. and i think the government has a role in building a more sustainable world. i just don't think that economic and racial segregation is the right strategy. agenda 21 and iclei are just government gas farts. onebayarea in santa rosa is the east side doing the west side as usual. infill means all the places humans live now, not just the current low income areas.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by smunsch:
Do you fully grok the benefits of urban growth vs suburban growth? High density urban settings and rural areas are both more efficient and environmentally friendly than mid-density suburban sprawl with it's dependence on vehicles to be able to do ANYTHING. High density areas make walking to a store far more palatable. Low density areas spread out the pollution from drivers over a much wider area, lowering its impact.
01-26-2012, 05:01 PM
rossmen
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
i am not so sure about koire's claim. i think it is a good question though. i really enjoyed her videos of the latest onebayarea meeting. i worry about her though, she has been the subject of hit pieces in the pd and will be jenkeled if sonoma county authorities get the chance.
i don't think the details of new sticks and carrots for building have been finalized. as a builder who has infilled (repair/remodel/addition), for myself and others, right now the system is sticks for this kind of work.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by ubaru:
Thanks rossmen for having an open mind. It's good to see you start asking questions about this. But Mile's post is so inflammatory, I can't even read the rest of it. I did catch the words "I don't care" and that is too bad because this IS serious, and it is non-partisan, and the agenda would eventually make our society look like the Chinese if we didn't stop it.
Re: "does the process really shut down all new building outside of pda's like koire contends?" Yes, I've heard Rosa say that it does for 25 years.
And I think it's worth everyone's while to pick one of the 100 minute videos at the bottom of https://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/videos.html of Rosa Koire speaking on this in more detail. She is a professional real estate appraiser working for the state specializing in eminent domain, and she is a expert legal witness who speaks based only on facts. She's been studying the redevelopment issue for 10 years.
You'll notice that her audiences so far in these videos have been Tea Party people because property rights are a big concern for them. But don't let that stop you from listening. She says right up front to them that she's a liberal democrat who disagrees with them on many issues, but believes that keeping our freedom as Americans is vitally important. And I believe the ruling elite have won if we buy into their divide and conquer tactics that would have us spend so much energy polarizing around two parties that really operate as one corporate controlled party. We are all seeing now that it's the people vs. the corporate bankster elite. And if that is so, then this is worth your time, because they are planning our life for their benefit and our demise and it's time to get wise.
Yes, I am just the messenger. I've only taken in one hour and a half video that was absolutely fascinating as she followed the money, and a few pages of her website which I've summarized here. And I've learned what the Delphi technique is. Rosa's the expert and I'm grateful for her courage and tenacity to bring this information forward. Here's one of them.
I think this is an important discussion. This is essentially about the balance of communal good vs private good. Plus both sides of that dynamic can be prey to unhealthy abuses of it (co-opting the leadership of the communal good by private interests).
Let's start with a basic understanding of Agenda 21. You can find it here. It's basically a strategic plan for sustainable development.
Frankly I haven't read it yet, but I plan to. If you want to participate in this discussion from a knowledgable place, and not from a propaganda place, I suggest you read it.
Here's the opening paragraph:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Agenda21:
Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can - in a global partnership for sustainable development.
The table of contents is quite promising. See it below with hot links.
A separate and worthy question is how it is being implemented locally.
Let's step back for the Tea Party and conspiracy theory echo-chamber and look what it's really about.
Let's start with a basic understanding of Agenda 21. You can find it here. It's basically a strategic plan for sustainable development.
I'm in disbelief that you would suggest this. I wouldn't go to the UN to get info on Agenda 21 anymore than I'd go to Monsanto to get info on how to grow organic corn.
Liz :hmmm:
01-27-2012, 09:58 AM
Orm Embar
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Hi Liz,
I've been hearing about Agenda 21 for years . . . mostly by people being freaked out about some conspiracy theory. I just started reading the actual text of Agenda 21 and have yet to find anything that alarms me or makes me feel like my liberties (or what's left of them) are being threatened. I don't have hours and hours to read every word . . . I'll work on it. Please help me by pointing to a particular section (of the actual document, not someone's interpretation) that would demonstrate a threat to my liberty beyond what has already transpired over the last decade.
Yes, I want to have a reference in the actual agenda 21 document, or an original source form someone who has signed the document, since this is the source that people are reacting to. This is not my going to Monsanto to learn how to grow organic crops. This is me going to Monsanto to read that they are really crazy and believe GMO crops are safe. I can make up my own mind about whether I think GMOs are safe or whether Agenda 21 threatens me based on the original source. This is also why I go to original source studies when researching each individual vaccine for my children . . . I don't go for emotional salesmanship (in either direction).
Thanks,
Larkin
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by ubaru:
I'm in disbelief that you would suggest this. I wouldn't go to the UN to get info on Agenda 21 anymore than I'd go to Monsanto to get info on how to grow organic corn.
Liz :hmmm:
01-27-2012, 10:46 AM
podfish
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by ubaru:
... I can't even read the rest of it. I did catch the words "I don't care" ...
somehow I can't see this discussion going anywhere. Although I guess using the term 'discussion' isn't warranted once we've reached a point where posts are unreadable if they're disagreeable. Why would I expect anything from this thread other than ever louder assertions of a given perspective?
01-27-2012, 11:43 AM
Orm Embar
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Okay, I've read a little more and I find I have lots of questions . . .
According to the bits I've read so far, much of Agenda 21 is about local communities coming together and providing for our own general needs while also making sure we don't deplete our natural resources.
This is something that a lot of us are working towards.
At the same time, I am reading concerns about closed meetings - secret agendas - and concerns that our liberty is threatened.
I'm not into global central control, nor do I care for closed meetings or secret agendas.
I wonder, though, if there is some sort of movement to dissipate some of the wonderful community work starting to take place?
I am seeing most of the work that I do in the community being slammed as being part of a global control conspiracy. Much of what I find important in community is being dismissed in these articles, since it is viewed as being part of Agenda 21. How very convenient to marginalize a vast array of work by simply saying it's part of that Agenda 21 conspiracy for global control. Seems a little too simple to me. What is going on here?
How do we tease out the nasties, while keeping what is important to us? Are we to stop having town hall meetings because people are concerned that open, transparent, local communication is written into Agenda 21?
While I am very concerned about the ongoing erosion of our Bill of Rights and the lack of adherence to our Constitution - those pieces that make America great - I fear that focusing on Agenda 21 might be a distraction.
What do you all think?
-L
01-27-2012, 03:14 PM
theindependenteye
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
A few thoughts--
* Any operational plan that tries to address a problem -- whether of local, national, worldwide or galactic scope -- is going to have some negative consequences, somewhere, that can be used as anecdotal argument against the plan as a whole. If it's a plan that might impact the potential profits of major corporate entities or of well-heeled developers, there will be a cadre of full-time professionals hired to seek out these anecdotes and use them to maximum effect.
* Any group of two or more people meeting to make any plan about anything whatsoever can be termed a "conspiracy" -- and will be if it's in the interests of the people opposing them. The more these opponents are themselves conspirators, the more vociferous they'll be about conspiracies.
* There's a great deal to be said for local control and local planning, and real dangers in sweeping generalities that don't take local complexities into account. On the other hand, when major economic, environmental, and social challenges are of international scope, they have to be addressed on that level. To argue otherwise is to say "God (or The Market) will provide."
The Agenda 21 conspiracy argument is, as far as I can see, one more Libertarian wig bubble designed to undercut ANY and ALL environmental activism (among other things). I know some perfectly intelligent people involved in that movement -- and I'm assuming those on this bulletin board are among them -- but I have yet to get a clear understanding how their arguments are for anything other than an absolute reversion to the robber-baron era of the 1880's and 1890's.
That era, of course, had Government hand-in-glove with Capital to establish monopolies, rape and pillage the West, and keep Labor under heavy guns. So the presumption, as far as I can read it, is that if we castrate Government, then Capital won't have a shield to do its nasty things and will only do good things because the People will be freed from their oppressive Government and fill their tanks only with gas from Good Guys. Making allowances for my snarky tone, is that the essence of it?
Which to me seems to involve about the same degree of blind faith as Mao's Great Leap Forward. The anti-regulatory movement demands absolute, incontrovertible, 100% certainty that global warming will produce catastrophe -- that is, seeing it actually HAPPEN -- before they will allow the slightest initiative toward its prevention. And yet they ask us to do away with major elements of Government, turn the clock back more than a century, depend on multinational corporations to Do the Right Thing simply because it's Good Business. And on what evidence?
The sum total of the evidence seems to be that, well, Government does some bad things. And yes, they sure do. And I've done some bad things during my 70 years on Planet Earth as well, but I don't intend to shoot myself any time soon.
Enough. Back to work.
Peace & joy--
Conrad
01-27-2012, 10:13 PM
rossmen
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
i agree that agenda 21 is a distraction from the real issue of how we come together to create a sustainable, loving, society. agenda 21 is just 21 yr old good advice from a collection of nations.
the challenge is how to act on the advice. some people challenge these actions by refering back to the original documents and name it as a conspiracy. that is their stuff. that doesn't mean their challenge to current actions is without merit.
i think it is more important to listen and understand each persons truth than to critique how they share it. if something you are involved in gets feedback that it is a conspiracy for one world total control, like maybe more bike lanes in sebastopol? there are a lot of different ways to understand this. they could just be concerned about their freedom of movement since the way the bike lanes are being created takes room from car lanes and parking.
please don't give up trying to create a better world!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Orm Embar:
Okay, I've read a little more and I find I have lots of questions . . .
According to the bits I've read so far, much of Agenda 21 is about local communities coming together and providing for our own general needs while also making sure we don't deplete our natural resources.
This is something that a lot of us are working towards.
At the same time, I am reading concerns about closed meetings - secret agendas - and concerns that our liberty is threatened.
I'm not into global central control, nor do I care for closed meetings or secret agendas.
I wonder, though, if there is some sort of movement to dissipate some of the wonderful community work starting to take place?
I am seeing most of the work that I do in the community being slammed as being part of a global control conspiracy. Much of what I find important in community is being dismissed in these articles, since it is viewed as being part of Agenda 21. How very convenient to marginalize a vast array of work by simply saying it's part of that Agenda 21 conspiracy for global control. Seems a little too simple to me. What is going on here?
How do we tease out the nasties, while keeping what is important to us? Are we to stop having town hall meetings because people are concerned that open, transparent, local communication is written into Agenda 21?
While I am very concerned about the ongoing erosion of our Bill of Rights and the lack of adherence to our Constitution - those pieces that make America great - I fear that focusing on Agenda 21 might be a distraction.
What do you all think?
-L
01-28-2012, 07:21 PM
ecoearthyacht
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
I think you need to look at your motivations on making these claims about an attempt to bring some coherent international planning to previously not dealt with sustainability and natural resource depletion facing us and our planet. Smells like conspiracy thnking and paronoia about big planning goverment efforts to get some grasp of the issues needing for intergovermental cooperation on these most critical issue. Look in the mirror and your intent before you spout off here.
01-29-2012, 02:11 AM
ubaru
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Orm Embar:
Okay, I've read a little more and I find I have lots of questions . . .
According to the bits I've read so far, much of Agenda 21 is about local communities coming together and providing for our own general needs while also making sure we don't deplete our natural resources.
This is something that a lot of us are working towards.
At the same time, I am reading concerns about closed meetings - secret agendas - and concerns that our liberty is threatened.
I'm not into global central control, nor do I care for closed meetings or secret agendas.
I wonder, though, if there is some sort of movement to dissipate some of the wonderful community work starting to take place?
I am seeing most of the work that I do in the community being slammed as being part of a global control conspiracy. Much of what I find important in community is being dismissed in these articles, since it is viewed as being part of Agenda 21. How very convenient to marginalize a vast array of work by simply saying it's part of that Agenda 21 conspiracy for global control. Seems a little too simple to me. What is going on here?
How do we tease out the nasties, while keeping what is important to us? Are we to stop having town hall meetings because people are concerned that open, transparent, local communication is written into Agenda 21?
While I am very concerned about the ongoing erosion of our Bill of Rights and the lack of adherence to our Constitution - those pieces that make America great - I fear that focusing on Agenda 21 might be a distraction.
What do you all think?
-L
Larkin,
I'm hearing that you want your community work honored and it should be. I don't think this is a black or white situation. I'm hearing Rosa Koire reporting that there is quite a bit of corporate/government control happening in the name of sustainable redevelopment. Why not look into it and understand what is corporate influenced and what is genuine community work so that your community work is not usurped/wasted for corporate interests?
If, for instance, ICLEI is paying people to start and head up neighborhood associations that represent corporate interests, as Koire reports, wouldn't you want to know so you don't give it your time and energy?
I think your question
Quote:
How do we tease out the nasties, while keeping what is important to us?
is a good one and could be done by finding out what the nasties are.
Although I don't sense a lot of support yet in this thread, I can't keep from thinking about having Rosa Koire speak for a group of people interested in building community and doing things that support the environment in a way that does not support corporate interests.
Liz:waccosun:
01-29-2012, 01:00 PM
CSummer
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Liz wrote: "Why not look into it and understand what is corporate influenced and what is genuine community work so that your community work is not usurped/wasted for corporate interests?"
Please give an example of what community work could be usurped/wasted for corporate interests. "If, for instance, ICLEI is paying people to start and head up neighborhood associations that represent corporate interests, as Koire reports, wouldn't you want to know so you don't give it your time and energy?"
Does Ms Koire give any examples of how such neighborhood associations represent corporate interests?
I searched "Rosa Koire" and ICLEI. Haven't spent a lot of time looking but the first web site was one called "Freedom Advocates." Here's some of what I found on that web site:
They advocate that we "Unite against the advance of international collectivist movements that cause poverty, oppression, and a degraded earth."
(They do? What movements? And how do they cause these things? I wonder if they're referring to the Occupy movement?)
"Policies, procedures, and laws enacted by government and non-government organizations in the name of diversity, community, and earth are diminishing individual liberty, degrading ecology, and threatening human life and happiness across America."
(Is this true? No examples are offered. My guess is that they're most concerned about the liberties of large property owners and developers.)
"One of their concerns: Limitations on privately owned resource extraction."
Another is: "Freedom of Mobility: To the extent that government assumes authority for building infrastructure, some politicians have openly worked toward limiting transportation infrastructure to support what they call a "smart-growth" political agenda. "Smart growth" policies have openly and successfully resisted infrastructure improvements, resulting in a transportation infrastructure that is inadequate."
(i.e, They want more and bigger freeways. Note that this group originated in Santa Cruz county, where pressures for development have been extreme. One way of trying to limit that development - so they don't become another LA - is by not expanding the highways. Since I grew up in that county and have seen it over-run by housing subdivisions, apartments and shopping centers, I heartily support any attempts to resist such growth.)
Article title: "Democracy is Not Freedom (quote): "While young Iranians in Tehran may misguidedly carry signs proclaiming their march for “Democracy” and “Freedom”, the youth of America, the scholars, and the corporate professionals, indeed all sectors of society need to be made aware of the danger of democracy so they too might work to pursue the continued making of a republic that defends individual liberty and protects unalienable rights."
(Clearly they are anti-democratic, but don't suggest a better method of governance.)
Under "Regionalization of resources by non-elected administrators"
" * There is more than adequate water in Santa Cruz County to meet needs of humans, while supporting and enhancing the environment. * That "sustainable" water policy is based on political objectives, not objective science. * The further implementation of politically-motivated environmental policies will prevent proper storage and adequate use of water."
(This is clearly the position of developers against those who are charged with managing limited resources. Santa Cruz county has always had very limited water resources. I'm quite amazed that so much development has been able to happen given these limitations. And still the developers complain about "politically-motivated environmental policies." Yet they say nothing about what the "political motivation" might be, other than to do their job of managing resources adequately so they don't get fired!)
Reading this, I get the strong impression that these are people who profit from real estate development and perhaps construction and who appeal to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence to resist any limitations to their exploitative business ventures. They don't seem to get that some resources are - or should be - part of the commons, held by everyone. Water is obviously one of those; land and other natural resources certainly should be. There can be no justice, freedom or equality until everyone's right of free access to a fair share of these resources is recognized, i.e., until the hording and exploitation of privately held natural resources is seen as the most fundamental economic injustice.
Human rights must always take precedence over human liberties.
CSummer
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by ubaru:
Larkin,
I'm hearing that you want your community work honored and it should be. I don't think this is a black or white situation. I'm hearing Rosa Koire reporting that there is quite a bit of corporate/government control happening in the name of sustainable redevelopment. Why not look into it and understand what is corporate influenced and what is genuine community work so that your community work is not usurped/wasted for corporate interests?
If, for instance, ICLEI is paying people to start and head up neighborhood associations that represent corporate interests, as Koire reports, wouldn't you want to know so you don't give it your time and energy?
I think your question is a good one and could be done by finding out what the nasties are.
Although I don't sense a lot of support yet in this thread, I can't keep from thinking about having Rosa Koire speak for a group of people interested in building community and doing things that support the environment in a way that does not support corporate interests.
Liz:waccosun:
01-29-2012, 01:30 PM
Larry Robinson
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
If you want to see the embodiment of the libertarian dream of "getting government off our backs" you need look no further than Somalia - the land of unbridled opportunity.
01-29-2012, 08:45 PM
Rosa Koire
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Hi everyone,
Great to see this issue being openly discussed here. It's not an easy subject because there is so much disinformation from the corporate press, and because a vital part of the dialectic is the interest in keeping us apart from others who may be on the other end of the political spectrum from us. UN Agenda 21 is a corporate plan for implementing totalitarianism under the banner of environmentalism. Yes, it sounds good when you read some of this stuff. Undoubtedly some of the best public relations people in the world are working on developing jargon that appeals to our sense of concern for the planet.
Sustainable Development is a term that was created by the 1983-87 Brundtland Commission (UN World Commission on Environment and Development). The definition is: 'Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.' Who could be against that, right? It was decided that what we were doing at the time was indeed compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Some things that were declared unsustainable: single family homes, meat eating, appliances, private vehicles, air conditioning, dams, tillage (farming). The commission was told to come back in 5 years with the 'action' plan for implementing sustainable development world wide. UN Agenda 21 is the action plan adopted by 179 nations in 1992, and signed onto by George H. W. Bush for the US. It is a plan to inventory and control all resources--human and natural---and all means of production in the world. It is a whole life plan. The three cornerstones of UN Agenda 21 are ecology, economy, and social equity. Sounds great.
The following year Bill Clinton created the President's Council on Sustainable Development. Who was on it? 12 cabinet level secretaries, captains of industry including Dow Chemical and Ken Lay of Enron, and a group of environmental NGO's. The PCSD gave a multi-million dollar grant to the American Planning Association to come up with a way to get sustainable development into every area of the US. The APA came up with Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook with Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change. Growing Smart is Smart Growth. This is not just a design style for construction but a plan to remake cities across the US. Still sounds ok, right? Maybe.
The plan, according to the 12 cabinet level secretaries, could have been implemented administratively through the Departments of Defense, Education, Interior, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development etc. But because the proposals were so radical and involved control and inventory of all land, human beings, and information, it was suggested that Americans may not like having this plan imposed on them. So the PCSD commissioned Sustainable America, A New Consensus. Now, a consensus, if you are an old hippie feminist like I am, means that you have some kind of an action you want to do, or some idea you're working on with a group, and you get together in a room with all of your pals and hammer it out, for hours if necessary, until everyone is heard and an agreement can be reached on the plan. But the President's Council on Sustainable Development called for a 'new consensus.' This new consensus is the neutralization of the opposition. It is based on the RAND Corporation mind control technique called the Delphi Technique. This is the technique that is being used in every government sponsored 'community input' meeting you'll go to now. You are invited to give your input on the new plan, whether it is ONE BAY AREA or the redevelopment project, or the General Plan update, but your input is solicited to give the illusion of public buy-in. The plan was designed and completed before you walked in the room. If your comments don't fit the model they will be neutralized and thrown out. The jargon is well designed to make you feel that the plan is 'green', that you are cool if you go along. It sounds so good--who wouldn't want to be vibrant, walkable, bikeable, friendly, sustainable?
Public private partnerships are the backbone of UN Agenda 21. Corporate partnerships that look and sound so great. BP IS GREEN! They partner with local groups. They fund political campaigns. They serve as incubators for local politicians who will play ball. They buy advertising space. They give grants. They get favors. They back developers. They get laws passed. They do not want dissent. Revolution is bad for business.
I really encourage you to take a look at our websites for more info. We have source documentation, videos, radio shows, and commentary. I'll be speaking at the California Libertarian Convention in March and I can tell you that this is not a left/right issue, that more and more Democrats across the nation are getting the info and recognizing that the environmental movement has been hijacked.
Thank you for keeping an open mind and checking out the information.
Rosa
Thanks for this post. I would be interested to see more information supporting this statement:
"UN Agenda 21 is a corporate plan for implementing totalitarianism under the banner of environmentalism."
CSummer
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Rosa Koire:
Hi everyone,
Great to see this issue being openly discussed here. It's not an easy subject because there is so much disinformation from the corporate press, and because a vital part of the dialectic is the interest in keeping us apart from others who may be on the other end of the political spectrum from us. UN Agenda 21 is a corporate plan for implementing totalitarianism under the banner of environmentalism. Yes, it sounds good when you read some of this stuff. Undoubtedly some of the best public relations people in the world are working on developing jargon that appeals to our sense of concern for the planet.
Sustainable Development is a term that was created by the 1983-87 Brundtland Commission (UN World Commission on Environment and Development). The definition is: 'Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.' Who could be against that, right? It was decided that what we were doing at the time was indeed compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Some things that were declared unsustainable: single family homes, meat eating, appliances, private vehicles, air conditioning, dams, tillage (farming). The commission was told to come back in 5 years with the 'action' plan for implementing sustainable development world wide. UN Agenda 21 is the action plan adopted by 179 nations in 1992, and signed onto by George H. W. Bush for the US. It is a plan to inventory and control all resources--human and natural---and all means of production in the world. It is a whole life plan. The three cornerstones of UN Agenda 21 are ecology, economy, and social equity. Sounds great.
The following year Bill Clinton created the President's Council on Sustainable Development. Who was on it? 12 cabinet level secretaries, captains of industry including Dow Chemical and Ken Lay of Enron, and a group of environmental NGO's. The PCSD gave a multi-million dollar grant to the American Planning Association to come up with a way to get sustainable development into every area of the US. The APA came up with Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook with Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change. Growing Smart is Smart Growth. This is not just a design style for construction but a plan to remake cities across the US. Still sounds ok, right? Maybe.
The plan, according to the 12 cabinet level secretaries, could have been implemented administratively through the Departments of Defense, Education, Interior, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development etc. But because the proposals were so radical and involved control and inventory of all land, human beings, and information, it was suggested that Americans may not like having this plan imposed on them. So the PCSD commissioned Sustainable America, A New Consensus. Now, a consensus, if you are an old hippie feminist like I am, means that you have some kind of an action you want to do, or some idea you're working on with a group, and you get together in a room with all of your pals and hammer it out, for hours if necessary, until everyone is heard and an agreement can be reached on the plan. But the President's Council on Sustainable Development called for a 'new consensus.' This new consensus is the neutralization of the opposition. It is based on the RAND Corporation mind control technique called the Delphi Technique. This is the technique that is being used in every government sponsored 'community input' meeting you'll go to now. You are invited to give your input on the new plan, whether it is ONE BAY AREA or the redevelopment project, or the General Plan update, but your input is solicited to give the illusion of public buy-in. The plan was designed and completed before you walked in the room. If your comments don't fit the model they will be neutralized and thrown out. The jargon is well designed to make you feel that the plan is 'green', that you are cool if you go along. It sounds so good--who wouldn't want to be vibrant, walkable, bikeable, friendly, sustainable?
Public private partnerships are the backbone of UN Agenda 21. Corporate partnerships that look and sound so great. BP IS GREEN! They partner with local groups. They fund political campaigns. They serve as incubators for local politicians who will play ball. They buy advertising space. They give grants. They get favors. They back developers. They get laws passed. They do not want dissent. Revolution is bad for business.
I really encourage you to take a look at our websites for more info. We have source documentation, videos, radio shows, and commentary. I'll be speaking at the California Libertarian Convention in March and I can tell you that this is not a left/right issue, that more and more Democrats across the nation are getting the info and recognizing that the environmental movement has been hijacked.
Thank you for keeping an open mind and checking out the information.
Rosa
I wrote a book on this (BEHIND THE GREEN MASK: U.N. Agenda 21) and have provided details there. It's not a long book but it's too long to post here. You can get it on Amazon or Kindle. Or not.
Here's something from our website:
The three cornerstones of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development are Economy, Ecology, and Social Equity.
Economic collapse creates a chain of events, but on a micro level (county, city) there is a marked reduction in revenue for maintenance of services. Loss of services to outlying areas means, for example, roads not being maintained to rural/suburban areas. Sonoma County Board of Supes last year said that they would only be paving 150 miles of the more than 1,380 miles of county roads. They intend to pulverize the 1,200+ miles of road and return them to gravel. Roads not being maintained to those areas, schools not being supported in those areas, law enforcement/fire/social services not being supported in those areas means a gradual movement into the denser city centers. Add to that the increased cost of gasoline (manipulated), and the higher cost of energy (manipulated) to heat and cool statistically larger homes, and you have more pressure to leave rural and suburban areas. Reduction of energy usage is key. Smart Growth/New Urbanism is the supposed answer: smaller units, attached condos, little or no parking, few private cars. More eyes on the street. Paid for and subsidized with your property tax dollars through redevelopment, and your transportation tax dollars. You pay for 30-45 years, or longer and this money is diverted from your city and county General Funds.
In addition to these factors, ecologically motivated regulation makes rural/suburban development prohibitive. From stream/creek/ditch protection to watershed protection, to bayland/inland/rural corridor prohibitions, to increased species protection (lists are growing), the use of land is greatly limited. Water well monitoring and loss of water rights reduce the opportunity for living outside of cities. Wildlands programs that prohibit roads/trails into rural areas while supposedly protecting them with conservation easements (sale of development rights to Agricultural Land Trusts that restrict farmers and ranchers from using their lands and therefore make it impossible to farm for more than one more generation) increase the loss of our food source independence.
Add to this the pressure from Climate Protection Campaigns to reduce our energy usage to pre-1930 levels (80% below 1990 levels by 2050 is the goal for the US) and increased regulations on industry and you have the perfect storm for loss of jobs and greater dependence on other countries for goods. As the population becomes more and more urbanized and less able to provide food or necessary products, more people are dependent on the government for housing, food, and other basic necessities. Government itself becomes dependent on grants and loans with requirements attached. In this way policy-makers are influenced and pressured by the corporatocracy. Public/private partnerships favor some businesses over others and completely unbalance the playing field. Independent businesses go out. Poverty works its way into the middle class.
Social equity, another one of the cornerstones of Agenda 21 comes in here. As a major leveler, the loss of money, land, food, and energy independence brings the US into 'social equity' with the poorer countries. This is a goal of UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development. Health will suffer, presumably health care will suffer, nutrition will suffer. Psychological problems, stress from living in tight areas with other un- or underemployed people, and crime will result. Community Oriented Policing will encourage, if not require, people to watch their neighbors and report suspicious activity. More activity will be identified as 'crime'--such as obesity, smoking, drinking when you have a drinking problem, name calling, leaving lights on, neglect (in someone's perception) of children, elderly, and pets, driving when you could ride a bike, breaking a curfew, failure to do mandatory volunteering. The 'community' will demand more law enforcement to restore order, and more rules and regulations will ensue. The National Defense Authorization Act, new rules redefining torture, FBI permitted to surveil you without a warrant---all part of the plan. The Chinese and Russian models are instructive. See: Nien Cheng's Life and Death in Shanghai, and Alexzander Solzhenitsen's The Gulag Archipelago for details.
You can see that the groundwork for this has been laid and is being implemented throughout the nation. When you create deep dependence and then withdraw assistance the result is chaos and poverty. Propaganda infuses our culture with messages that there are just a few winners and many losers; that we are killing the earth and time is running out; that prosperity is an anachronism and detrimental to life; that individual freedom is selfish and injures those who are less free.
This is Agenda 21.
Communitarianism is the 'balancing' or subsuming of individual rights below the needs of the 'community.' The community is defined now as the global village. So anything identified as serving the global village takes precedence over the rights of the individual. In the United States, our constitution guarantees our rights to life and liberty. Ownership of property includes that of our own persons.
Personal liberty is at odds with Communitarianism, the new standard of the Twenty-first Century.
Rosa Koire
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:
Thanks for this post. I would be interested to see more information supporting this statement:
"UN Agenda 21 is a corporate plan for implementing totalitarianism under the banner of environmentalism."
CSummer
01-31-2012, 08:16 AM
podfish
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Rosa Koire:
...Economic collapse creates a chain of events, but on a micro level (county, city) there is a marked reduction in revenue for maintenance of services. Loss of services to outlying areas means, for example, roads not being maintained to rural/suburban areas.
we can agree economic collapse is bad, and has this kind of effect. So does a society's unwillingness to allocate resources to maintenance of public assets - with identical effects. The symptom is not the cause.
Quote:
...ecologically motivated regulation makes rural/suburban development prohibitive. From stream/creek/ditch protection to watershed protection, to bayland/inland/rural corridor prohibitions, to increased species protection (lists are growing), the use of land is greatly limited. Water well monitoring and loss of water rights reduce the opportunity for living outside of cities.
true, preserving the "right" to extract every last drop of productivity from the land makes it easier and cheaper to develop it.
Quote:
Add to this the pressure from Climate Protection Campaigns to reduce our energy usage to pre-1930 levels... and increased regulations on industry and you have the perfect storm for loss of jobs
I suppose I'm denying jobs to those who would like to tear down my house for cheap firewood, too - although I suppose that I'm protected from that, under a libertarian framework, by the extreme respect given to private property rights.
Quote:
Government itself becomes dependent on grants and loans
As opposed to dependent on taxation? I don't see the point... were you suggesting government generates revenue from its profits, like a business?
Quote:
. Public/private partnerships favor some businesses over others and completely unbalance the playing field. Independent businesses go out. Poverty works its way into the middle class.
This assumes you accept the dogma that the "balance" created by pure free-enterprise is actually better for the society as a whole. To my mind, it creates winners and losers, not "balance".
Quote:
Social equity... comes in here... , the loss of money, land, food, and energy independence brings the US into 'social equity' with the poorer countries. This is a goal of UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development.
This is the crux of the issue for me -- it explicitly defines our comfort as based on the suffering of the rest of the world. And accepts it as a given.
Quote:
Communitarianism is the 'balancing' or subsuming of individual rights below the needs of the 'community.' The community is defined now as the global village. So anything identified as serving the global village takes precedence over the rights of the individual. In the United States, our constitution guarantees our rights to life and liberty. Ownership of property includes that of our own persons.
Boy, Communitarianism sounds like a good idea, by most ethical standards! Certainly by Christian ones, which we are repeatedly reminded are the foundation of our country.
Quote:
Personal liberty is at odds with Communitarianism, the new standard of the Twenty-first Century.
Just because it's "at odds" doesn't mean you can't try to accommodate both goals. It would be truly remarkable if everything we want to accomplish reinforced each other; sadly we most often have to come up with tradeoffs between opposing good options.
01-31-2012, 09:06 AM
Rosa Koire
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
A full response to your deconstruction can be found in my book. This
is a large topic and it appears that you are predisposed to argue
regarding these points. That's ok, and I invite you to read my book
where this is all broken down and clearly explained.
Let's take your assumption that Communitarianism is ethical. Who is
it that determines what is 'best' for the global village, what the
'rights' of the global community are? Is it you? No. The individual
always loses when her rights are 'balanced' against those undefined,
amorphous rights of the community. We have a constitution which
guarantees individual rights. Communitarianism, when established as
the law of the land, looks like the Kelo decision (2005 Supreme
Court), being searched at the airport, domestic surveillance, and
restrictive land use that favors large developers. As I have stated,
spin can make this sound good. Look around you for the results.
You misunderstand my point about government being dependent on
corporations. Government revenue is generated from taxes, fees, and
fines. This is where the money comes from. If you are not working,
if your property taxes are lowered because of falling values, if land
is taken off the tax rolls because it has passed into public or
non-profit ownership, if permits are not being issued, if property tax
dollars are diverted through redevelopment---there is less money to
run the actual day to day functions of government. A starving
infrastructure and administrative system will be willing to partner
with corporations in order to continue to function. Public private
partnerships are the result. Prisons, for instance, are the ultimate
in corporate ownership of public infrastructure. Private corporations
construct and run prisons and so have an interest in lobbying for
longer sentences, expanded definition of crimes, and more prison
construction. Prison operators develop and fund candidates and sites
prisons in areas where they can impact redistricting (prisoners, even
if they can't vote, count as population). Public private partnerships
are made to sound good to you but are used as a building block of the
corporate take-over.
Your last comment about 'tradeoffs' is a concern. I really don't
think you realize what you're saying there. Yes, we need laws. I am
not an anarchist. But when you place your individual rights (defined,
clearly identified) against the 'rights of the community' (undefined,
envisioned by you as something entirely different than what the
corporations envision--Citizens United--) then you will lose. It will
sound nice though. Every totalitarian state is established 'for the
common good.' Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, Mao's China---all
for the fatherland, all for the motherland, all for the common good.
The rhetoric always sounds good. National Defense Authorization Act?
All for the common good.
Rosa Koire
Behind The Green Mask: UN Agenda 21
at Amazon and on Kindle
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
we can agree economic collapse is bad, and has this kind of effect. So does a society's unwillingness to allocate resources to maintenance of public assets - with identical effects. The symptom is not the cause.
true, preserving the "right" to extract every last drop of productivity from the land makes it easier and cheaper to develop it.
I suppose I'm denying jobs to those who would like to tear down my house for cheap firewood, too - although I suppose that I'm protected from that, under a libertarian framework, by the extreme respect given to private property rights.
As opposed to dependent on taxation? I don't see the point... were you suggesting government generates revenue from its profits, like a business?
This assumes you accept the dogma that the "balance" created by pure free-enterprise is actually better for the society as a whole. To my mind, it creates winners and losers, not "balance".
This is the crux of the issue for me -- it explicitly defines our comfort as based on the suffering of the rest of the world. And accepts it as a given.
Boy, Communitarianism sounds like a good idea, by most ethical standards! Certainly by Christian ones, which we are repeatedly reminded are the foundation of our country. Just because it's "at odds" doesn't mean you can't try to accommodate both goals. It would be truly remarkable if everything we want to accomplish reinforced each other; sadly we most often have to come up with tradeoffs between opposing good options.
01-31-2012, 09:28 AM
podfish
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Rosa Koire:
... it appears that you are predisposed to argue
regarding these points
???
Quote:
Your last comment about 'tradeoffs' is a concern. I really don't
think you realize what you're saying there.
probably I'm just parroting something I heard some smart folks say once... they must have been dumber than I thought. Never mind then.
01-31-2012, 06:07 PM
someguy
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
I'd like to bring a quotation from the Club of Rome into this discussion as it seems to fit nicely at this point in the conversation. From Wikipedia: "In 1993, the Club [of Rome] published The First Global Revolution.[5] According to this book, divided nations require common enemies to unite them, "either a real one or else one invented for the purpose."[6] Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, "new enemies must be identified."[6] "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 these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."[7]
So who makes up the Club of Rome anyway? Yet another quote from Wikipedia: "It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN bureaucrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe." Sounds like the .1% to me. Essentially this globalist think tank wants to turn us against ourselves! They want to make humanity the enemy!
The interesting thing to take note of here is that the people in this organization have written a book stating what they are going to do openly! And then like clock-work, the media, the bureaucrats, and the like trumpet this idea and according to plan, they change the mentality of the population. Do we really think these guys have our best interests in mind? Do we think that these power hungry individuals care so much about us and the planet? Or are they using it as an excuse to consolidate power as always??? These are the same people pushing GMO's on us globally without a care in the world about the ramifications on the planet. We all know this here on Wacco. We are all politically awake enough to realize these concepts. So lets stop this left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative crap and get down to exposing these criminals for who they are. Let's use the tools our founding fathers gave us to fight back against an out of control federal government/corporate government that serves only to squash the rights of the individual and funnel all the resources upwards.
The three cornerstones of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development are Economy, Ecology, and Social Equity.
Economic collapse creates a chain of events, but on a micro level (county, city) there is a marked reduction in revenue for maintenance of services. Loss of services to outlying areas means, for example, roads not being maintained to rural/suburban areas. Sonoma County Board of Supes last year said that they would only be paving 150 miles of the more than 1,380 miles of county roads. They intend to pulverize the 1,200+ miles of road and return them to gravel.
Roads not being maintained to those areas, schools not being supported in those areas, law enforcement/fire/social services not being supported in those areas means a gradual movement into the denser city centers. Add to that the increased cost of gasoline (manipulated), and the higher cost of energy (manipulated) to heat and cool statistically larger homes, and you have more pressure to leave rural and suburban areas.
Reduction of energy usage is key. Smart Growth/New Urbanism is the supposed answer: smaller units, attached condos, little or no parking, few private cars. More eyes on the street. Paid for and subsidized with your property tax dollars through redevelopment, and your transportation tax dollars. You pay for 30-45 years, or longer and this money is diverted from your city and county General Funds.
In addition to these factors, ecologically motivated regulation makes rural/suburban development prohibitive. From stream/creek/ditch protection to watershed protection, to bayland/inland/rural corridor prohibitions, to increased species protection (lists are growing), the use of land is greatly limited. Water well monitoring and loss of water rights reduce the opportunity for living outside of cities.
Wildlands programs that prohibit roads/trails into rural areas while supposedly protecting them with conservation easements (sale of development rights to Agricultural Land Trusts that restrict farmers and ranchers from using their lands and therefore make it impossible to farm for more than one more generation) increase the loss of our food source independence.
This is all very significant. I live in rural Sonoma County myself, so it definitely concerns me, personally. I also am in complete agreement with our own local celebrity, and auteur, Richard Heinberg, that in order to survive the crisis / bottleneck that will surely come at the End of Oil, millions and millions of Americans need to move back to the Land, and learn how to live on Farms. A Fact.
If Rosa's interpretation of U.N. Agenda 21 is correct - If, indeed it is the blueprint for the Agenda of the power elite; I begin to see a whole other scenario in my mind's eye:
Do you remember Al Gore's movie about Global Warming? As much as I detest Gore and his sleazy scheme to cash in on Carbon Credit futures, the thing that I took away with me after I left the movie theater was the credible - and alarmingfact- that if both the West Antarctic Ice-shelf, and the Greenland Ice Sheet were to break off, and dissolve into the Ocean, that the Seas would riseforty feet. Of course, I'd heard this rap before, from hanging out with some of the Brain Trust of Earth First; but Gore's movie brought the point home with graphic visual details.
Couple this with the stated intention of this Agenda to cram the Masses into low-lying cities, on the Coastal plains, and you get the Vision of millions and millions of po' folks drowning & dying like the denizens of the Ninth Ward after the levee broke. It would seem then, that this Agenda runs counter to the best interests and the survival of the Masses; i.e., We, the Plebes... In short, it is another front in the Class War.
The Power Elite who run the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the Security Council of the UN are our Class Enemy, kids. They don't mean us no good.
OCCUPY -- THE -- HIGHLANDS
Mark Walter Evans
02-01-2012, 09:32 AM
someguy
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
This video is a good example of how global warming, and other fake environmental crisis are being used by the corporate elite to offer nice sounding solutions to the so called problems. Just watch:
Notice the wonderful euphemistic language being used, as well as the scare tactics. All to get you to go against your better judgement and fall into their trap. This is exactly what Agenda 21 does. This is what the Club of Rome states they are going to do. This is the global warming swindle at work.
Mark mentioned Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, and how it made him feel. Here is what he said, "the thing that I took away with me after I left the movie theater was the credible - and alarmingfact - that if both the West Antarctic Ice-shelf, and Greenlandwere to break off, and dissolve into the Ocean, that the Seas would riseforty feet. Of course, I'd heard this rap before, from hanging out with some of the Brain Trust of Earth First; but Gore's movie brought the point home with graphic visual details." I don't mean to attack Mark because he is a great guy, smart too, but I have to point out the lies that are blatant and proven in a court of law to be so in that film.
https://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
"Gore says that a sea-level rise of up to 6 m (20 ft) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland. Though Gore does not say that the sea-level rise will occur in the near future, the judge found that, in the context, it was clear that this is what he had meant, since he showed expensive graphical representations of the effect of his imagined 6 m (20 ft) sea-level rise on existing populations, and he quantified the numbers who would be displaced by the sea-level rise.
The IPCC says sea-level increases up to 7 m (23 ft) above today’s levels have happened naturally in the past climate, and would only be likely to happen again after several millennia. In the next 100 years, according to calculations based on figures in the IPCC’s 2007 report, these two ice sheets between them will add a little over 6 cm (2.5 inches) to sea level, not 6 m (this figure of 6 cm is 15% of the IPCC’s total central estimate of a 43 cm or 1 ft 5 in sea-level rise over the next century). Gore has accordingly exaggerated the official sea-level estimate by approaching 10,000 per cent.
Ms. Kreider says the IPCC estimates a sea-level rise of “59 cm” by 2100. She fails to point out that this amounts to less than 2 ft, not the 20 ft imagined by Gore. She also fails to point out that this is the IPCC’s upper estimate, on its most extreme scenario. And she fails to state that the IPCC, faced with a stream of peer-reviewed articles stating that sea-level rise is not a threat, has reduced this upper estimate from 3 ft in 2001 to less than 2 ft (i.e. half the mean centennial sea-level rise that has occurred since the end of the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago) in 2007.
Ms. Kreider says the IPCC’s 2007 sea-level calculations excluded contributions from Greenland and West Antarctica because they could not be quantified. However, Table SPM1 of the 2007 report quantifies the contributions of these two ice-sheets to sea-level rise as representing about 15% of the total change."
... global warming, and other fake environmental crisis are being used by the corporate elite ...
the problem with the logic revealed on this thread is that, just because the corporate elite uses an issue for their own purposes, you can't infer that it's faked. Those in power (and, frankly, those not in power) are often extremely adept at using pretty damn near -anything- to advance their goals. Aside from a bit of intellectual dishonesty in the practice, it's not particularly evil.
And in this case, global warming's a weird choice of crisis to fake for the corporate elite - most of the corporations of the world find regulations that deal with global warming a problem, not an aid, in their quest for global domination. Only a few benefit from barriers to the ongoing exploitation of fossil fuels. The thesis is hard to make when the big corporations are so closely tied to the political powers of the world.
02-01-2012, 11:48 AM
theindependenteye
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
>>>From Wikipedia: "In 1993, the Club [of Rome] published The First Global Revolution.[5] According to this book, divided nations require common enemies to unite them, "either a real one or else one invented for the purpose."[6] Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, "new enemies must be identified."[6] "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 these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."[7]
Assuming the quote is accurate, it seems to me right on target. Yes, enemy nations only come together, if at all, when a common disaster looms. Yes, catastrophic environmental threats should be a more-than-adequate motive force for international cooperation. Yes, humanity is the snake devouring itself. I couldn't agree more.
Obviously, the posting is intended to focus us on the phrase "or else one intended for the purpose," to imply that the listed environmental threats have simply been invented by nasty guys around a table in Rome, perhaps aided by screenwriters and vast hordes of greedy climatologists.
Fortunately, though, it seems there's a countervailing force financed by such selfless champions of liberty as Bechtel, Chevron, Monsanto, etc. etc. etc., who've managed to stifle, to any significant degree, any of that international cooperation plotted by the Club of Rome.
When the human race has offed itself and cockroaches have evolved sufficiently to put up monuments, they'll surely memorialize those who made their ascendancy possible.
Peace & joy, anyway--
Conrad
02-01-2012, 02:23 PM
someguy
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:
Fortunately, though, it seems there's a countervailing force financed by such selfless champions of liberty as Bechtel, Chevron, Monsanto, etc. etc. etc., who've managed to stifle, to any significant degree, any of that international cooperation plotted by the Club of Rome.
Peace & joy, anyway--
Conrad
Conrad,
I am disturbed by your post, and even more so disturbed that two people, one of whom I find very reasonable, gave you gratitude. Maybe you didn't watch the video I posted in this thread by Monsanto (one of those corporations you say are stifling the Club of Rome's plan). If not, it is here for you to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fT-ChdL8BbY#!
As you'll see in the video, Monsanto is embracing the Club of Rome's mindset and that of the fake environmentalists and using that phony crisis to profit off of. They are not stifling the man made global warming, or peak everything, or even the overpopulation philosophy. Rather they are perpetuating it, and capitalizing on it to make a shit load of money, while simultaneously destroying the livelihoods and well-being of farmers all over the world, as well as polluting both the external environment and the genetic code of our crops. Monsanto would like us to believe that the only way to feed the world is widespread use of their own seeds. The saddest part to me is that well-meaning people who otherwise believe in local, sustainable, organic agriculture, are swayed by these fear-mongering scare tactics into supporting the use of GMOs, monocultures, toxic pesticides, and all of these other Ag. practices that are truly destroying our planet.
Chevron blatantly promotes the theories of the IPCC, and clearly is perpetuating the philosophy of man made global warming. You can't deny that. Just look here: https://www.chevron.com/globalissues...venprinciples/ In this article they explain first and foremost "Chevron shares the concerns of governments and the public about climate change and recognizes that the use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the Earth's atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded in its Fourth Assessment Report, released in 2007, that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal," and that it is "very likely" that a significant level of warming is due to human activity." Apparently Chevron wants people to believe in global warming, contrary to your claim. Do you really think that Monsanto and Chevron are really going to go out of business if we set up a giant global bureaucracy to regulate carbon emissions? No way I say. They are owned by the global elite who are also the ones perpetuating this mindset. Just like how the big banks and wall street gamblers get away with their corruption with aid from the government, these folks will too. And global warming plays right into their plans, most obviously reflected in Agenda 21, but also in the case of Monsanto and their push of GMOs on the planet under the pretext of a population and climate crisis.
In conclusion, its not always as simple as left v. right, or the oil companies against the environmentalists.. Sometimes, probably most of the time, there is way more going on behind the curtain than we know of. We always assume the EPA is out to protect us against those darn polluters. Yet, they do nothing about Monsanto. They don't say a lick about radiation from depleted uranium our military peppers across the middle east. Our agricultural practices that our tax dollars are subsidizing are creating a dead zone in our ocean!!!! Let me say that again, A DEAD ZONE IN OUR OCEAN. Where is the EPA? When do we hear the media talk about this? Could it be that our attention to real environmental issues has been diverted to a non issue that the media moguls, international politicians, big banksters, and corporate cronies have orchestrated? Seems that way to me.
02-01-2012, 03:20 PM
podfish
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by someguy:
I am disturbed by your post, and even more so disturbed that two people, one of whom I find very reasonable, gave you gratitude.
only one???
02-01-2012, 05:36 PM
theindependenteye
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
>>>I am disturbed by your post ... As you'll see in the video, Monsanto is embracing the Club of Rome's mindset and that of the fake environmentalists and using that phony crisis to profit off of. ... Monsanto would like us to believe ...
Chevron is perpetuating the philosophy of man made global warming. You can't deny that....Apparently Chevron wants people to believe in global warming, contrary to your claim.
Of course they hop on the bandwagon. And I've heard Chevron's hyper-green commercials on the PBS News Hour. They're promoting their image for exactly the same reasons they give to both political parties, and they'd give to the Greens or Libertarians or the KKK if they thought they might have any sway some day. But to assume that — let's just boil it down to one massive polluter — Big Oil is actively promoting and funding Big Environmentalism is a grand leap of illogic. I agree entirely it's a perfectly credible science fiction premise, but that's as far as your argument takes me.
>>>Do you really think that Monsanto and Chevron are really going to go out of business if we set up a giant global bureaucracy to regulate carbon emissions? No way I say.
And I will agree with you. They have vast resources to make adaptations, and many people on the payroll to do the planning and the promo. If cigarettes were banned, the tobacco companies would have plans in place to buy real estate or manufacture adult diapers, whatever. The only way they can be brought down, other than slow evolution to another model, as happened in the collapse of feudalism in the face of capitalism, is to adopt some of the measures proposed (on Wacco) for destroying the world economy. To which I'm opposed because I'm not in favor of a hundred years of armed anarchy in this country, however liberating that might feel to guys with lotsa guns.
>>>They are owned by the global elite who are also the ones perpetuating this mindset. ... And global warming plays right into their plans...
That to me is no evidence that global warming, population explosion, water shortages, etc., are not real and serious problems. Just that they're very very good at spin.
>>>In conclusion, its not always as simple as left v. right, or the oil companies against the environmentalists..
Could it be that our attention to real environmental issues has been diverted to a non issue that the media moguls, international politicians, big banksters, and corporate cronies have orchestrated? Seems that way to me.
I'm having difficulty understanding what constitutes certainty to you in distinguishing *real* from *artificial* environmental issues. Dead zones in oceans, yes: but why do you believe those particular things rather than something designated as a hazard by the EPA or the FDA or the UN? Simply because there seems to be a conspiracy to tout one thing and ignore another? To me that's not logical.
Your statement "It's not always as simple" — yes, and that's an understatement. To me, we're not dealing with one massive conspiracy that has absolute control of the world. We're within an environment of massive forces vying with one another — a much larger version of King vs. Nobles vs Church vs Free Cities vs Peasantry/Yeomanry vs. Guilds in the Middle Ages & Renaissance. Alliances are made and broken in a heartbeat, and politics is really a matter of trying to guide your raft through the rapids.
I don't trust ideologues of any stripe, even those who share most of my beliefs, because I see them working very hard to keep one eye closed while looking at the world, and that's a damned dangerous way to drive. We probably share a lot of that instinct of mistrust — it's just that from our respective observation points, the fog creates a different panoply of ghostly shapes.
Peace & joy--
Conrad
02-01-2012, 06:07 PM
someguy
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Quote:
Of course they hop on the bandwagon. And I've heard Chevron's hyper-green commercials on the PBS News Hour. They're promoting their image for exactly the same reasons they give to both political parties, and they'd give to the Greens or Libertarians or the KKK if they thought they might have any sway some day. But to assume that — let's just boil it down to one massive polluter — Big Oil is actively promoting and funding Big Environmentalism is a grand leap of illogic. I agree entirely it's a perfectly credible science fiction premise, but that's as far as your argument takes me.
Quickly, I am just going to clear up a misquote. I never said Big Oil was funding Big Environmentalism. Big Oil is actively promoting Big Environmentalism just as you said: " I've heard Chevron's hyper-green commercials on the PBS News Hour. They're promoting their image for exactly the same reasons they give to both political parties..."After saying something like that I don't understand why you would call it a "grand leap of illogic" to say that Big Oil is promoting Climate Change philosophy. We both have proven this to be the case just today.
02-02-2012, 11:31 AM
Iolchan
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Brad, I'm a little concerned that you take the tack that somehow Global Warming is a big hoax. While it is perfectly reasonable for you to promote the thesis that corporations are playing it for what they can get, nevertheless, it is quite clear, from the abundant evidence of how the the West Antarctic Ice Shelf, the Greenland Ice Sheet, & glaciers all over the planet are melting, quite quickly, that something very drastic is happening.
For a lot more visual evidence of this, quite apart from Al Gore's film; Google : youtube, {then type in phrases like: "Global Warming" , Antarctic, Greenland, } etc.
I opened the link* you gave, debunking Al Gore's film, "AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH" and found an article written by an English Laird, & Member of theHouse o' Lairds, one Christopher Walter, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who is "former policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom." He evidently brought suit against the showing of Al Gore's film in British public schools, charging that it was bad science & wrong. *https://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/m...oreerrors.html
What I suggest this means, is that the establishment in the U.K. decided to run a counter-operation, to put the brakes on the consciousness spreading among the masses in Britain, that the the seas might rise, quite considerably, if either the West Antarctic Ice Shelf, or the Greenland Ice Sheet were to break off and dissolve into the Ocean. After all, the powers that be do not want the people to panic; that would lead to Anarchy {in the U.K.}.
The fact is that Sea levels will rise - and I very much doubt that the minimalistic figures that Laird Monckton quotes are correct.
Google Advanced Search : "Global Warming" , "sea level"
Will someone in Waccovia kindly do some serious, extensive {all the pros & cons} reading on this topic, and give us a report?
Global Warming is a Reality, even if Al Gore is a big phony and an opportunist, dealing fast & wild with facts and playing the Market in Carbon Credit futures. All the evidence supports the fact that Ice is melting, quite quickly, all over the planet. It may even be a moot issue as to why or what is causing it to happen, i.e., whether it is a man-made catastrophe caused by Carbon emissions or whether we are witnessing the recurrence of some cyclical phenomenon of Nature. Because it definitely is happening; and it is not a "conspiracy."
It is also undeniable thatBig Oil is playing the Green Card, for all they can get out of it, & so is The Club of Rome - a Malthusian think tank, Mens' Club, & watering hole for the North Atlantic {Treaty Organization} power elite - and so is Monsanto.
They are all very much on the same page, even to the point of having quite a few directors, & interlocking directorates, in common.
Google Advanced Search : "Club of Rome" , Monsanto, {& use the variable, Oil}
Hey, Ye Commons !
{en Angleterre, ye
British & Scottish
Commons}
Occupy -- The -- Highlands
>The {former} Commons<
Lowlands, my Lowlands,
away...
- Mark
02-02-2012, 07:51 PM
someguy
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Iolchan:
Brad, I'm a little concerned that you take the tack that somehow Global Warming is a big hoax. While it is perfectly reasonable for you to promote the thesis that corporations are playing it for what they can get, nevertheless, it is quite clear, from the abundant evidence of how the the West Antarctic Ice Shelf, the Greenland Ice Sheet, & glaciers all over the planet are melting, quite quickly, that something very drastic is happening.
For a lot more visual evidence of this, quite apart from Al Gore's film; Google : youtube, {then type in phrases like: "Global Warming" , Antarctic, Greenland, } etc.
I opened the link* you gave, debunking Al Gore's film, "AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH" and found an article written by an English Laird, & Member of theHouse o' Lairds, one Christopher Walter, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who is "former policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom." He evidently brought suit against the showing of Al Gore's film in British public schools, charging that it was bad science & wrong. *https://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/m...oreerrors.html
What I suggest this means, is that the establishment in the U.K. decided to run a counter-operation, to put the brakes on the consciousness spreading among the masses in Britain, that the the seas might rise, quite considerably, if either the West Antarctic Ice Shelf, or the Greenland Ice Sheet were to break off and dissolve into the Ocean. After all, the powers that be do not want the people to panic; that would lead to Anarchy {in the U.K.}.
The fact is that Sea levels will rise - and I very much doubt that the minimalistic figures that Laird Monckton quotes are correct.
Google Advanced Search : "Global Warming" , "sea level"
Will someone in Waccovia kindly do some serious, extensive {all the pros & cons} reading on this topic, and give us a report?
Global Warming is a Reality, even if Al Gore is a big phony and an opportunist, dealing fast & wild with facts and playing the Market in Carbon Credit futures. All the evidence supports the fact that Ice is melting, quite quickly, all over the planet. It may even be a moot issue as to why or what is causing it to happen, i.e., whether it is a man-made catastrophe caused by Carbon emissions or whether we are witnessing the recurrence of some cyclical phenomenon of Nature. Because it definitely is happening; and it is not a "conspiracy."
It is also undeniable thatBig Oil is playing the Green Card, for all they can get out of it, & so is The Club of Rome - a Malthusian think tank, Mens' Club, & watering hole for the North Atlantic {Treaty Organization} power elite - and so is Monsanto.
They are all very much on the same page, even to the point of having quite a few directors, & interlocking directorates, in common.
Google Advanced Search : "Club of Rome" , Monsanto, {& use the variable, Oil}
I do agree that the planet is getting warming in general, has been since before the industrial revolution. And in fact, over the past ten years there hasn't been a significant amount of warming at all. But to say that I am denying the actual temperature records is a misconception of my position. In my extensive research on this issue, I have come to the conclusion that most likely Carbon Dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by humans burning fossil fuel, is not driving our weather patterns. There is far too much scientific corruption (climate-gate emails, consensus based science) and misinformation put forth by the Maltheusians to spread alarmism and further their agenda. There are straight up major flaws in the conclusions gathered from the real scientific evidence that exists on the subject on man made climate change. And Lord Mockton's website has a lot of excellent scientific evidence that objective people might find thought provoking. I think you have misjudged Monckton's character as a lackey for the conservative government in the UK, in my opinion.
The threat of man made climate change serves the purpose of the Maltheusians and eugenicists perfectly. To the left the concept of man made global warming serves the same purpose as 911 and Al CIAda do for the right. It pushes on the public this police state mentality, that "oh, we need a global government (NATO) to fight terrorism because terrorism knows no boundaries and keeps spreading..." or "oh, we need a global government (UN) to police society so that we don't overpopulate and use up all the resources.." If these eugenicists really want to take out a lot of people, then they have to convince both the liberals and the conservatives to be afraid of some multi-national boogy man so that they will give up all of their basic human rights to a supranational dictatorship in the guise of democracy.
I'd like field any questions or comments you may have for me Mark. Thanks.
"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond [i.e., man made climate change, terrorism], whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this *scenario*, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."
Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991
02-02-2012, 08:12 PM
someguy
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by someguy:
I do agree that the planet is getting warming in general, has been since before the industrial revolution. And in fact, over the past ten years there hasn't been a significant amount of warming at all. But to say that I am denying the actual temperature records is a misconception of my position. In my extensive research on this issue, I have come to the conclusion that most likely Carbon Dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by humans burning fossil fuel, is not driving our weather patterns. There is far too much scientific corruption (climate-gate emails, consensus based science) and misinformation put forth by the Maltheusians to spread alarmism and further their agenda. There are straight up major flaws in the conclusions gathered from the real scientific evidence that exists on the subject on man made climate change. And Lord Mockton's website has a lot of excellent scientific evidence that objective people might find thought provoking. I think you have misjudged Monckton's character as a lackey for the conservative government in the UK, in my opinion.
The threat of man made climate change serves the purpose of the Maltheusians and eugenicists perfectly. To the left the concept of man made global warming serves the same purpose as 911 and Al CIAda do for the right. It pushes on the public this police state mentality, that "oh, we need a global government (NATO) to fight terrorism because terrorism knows no boundaries and keeps spreading..." or "oh, we need a global government (UN) to police society so that we don't overpopulate and use up all the resources.." If these eugenicists really want to take out a lot of people, then they have to convince both the liberals and the conservatives to be afraid of some multi-national boogy man so that they will give up all of their basic human rights to a supranational dictatorship in the guise of democracy.
I'd like field any questions or comments you may have for me Mark. Thanks.
"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond [i.e., man made climate change, terrorism], whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this *scenario*, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."
Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991
I just wanted to jump in here on the offense before I get hit with the usual attack that follows most of my climate change posts eventually. First of all, I do not think we should be using fossil fuels as they are a pollutant, just not because of the carbon they emit, but because of the carcinogenic toxins. I am all for alternative, renewable, free energy for all people. In fact, I probably have a lower carbon footprint than most people here who would disagree with me, or call me a mindless consumer, or a denier who sticks their head in the sand because its convenient, or that I just want to drive my Hummer around. One guy on Wacco even accused me of having investments in oil companies! This couldn't be farther from the truth. In fact, for me, my life would be easier if I just went long with everyone else and said I believe Co2 ( a necessary life force) is a pollutant. But I try hard to be true to myself and as objective as possible and so I have come to quite a controversial conclusion which has its difficulties at times.
Add to this the pressure from Climate Protection Campaigns to reduce our energy usage to pre-1930 levels (80% below 1990 levels by 2050 is the goal for the US) and increased regulations on industry and you have the perfect storm for loss of jobs and greater dependence on other countries for goods. As the population becomes more and more urbanized and less able to provide food or necessary products, more people are dependent on the government for housing, food, and other basic necessities.
Government itself becomes dependent on grants and loans with requirements attached. In this way policy-makers are influenced and pressured by the corporatocracy. Public/ private partnerships favor some businesses over others and completely unbalance the playing field. Independent businesses go out. Poverty works its way into the middle class.
Social equity, another one of the cornerstones of Agenda 21 comes in here. As a major leveler, the loss of money, land, food, and energy independence brings the US into 'social equity' with the poorer countries. This is a goal of UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development. Health will suffer, presumably health care will suffer, nutrition will suffer. Psychological problems, stress from living in tight areas with other un- or underemployed people, and crime will result. Community Oriented Policing will encourage, if not require, people to watch their neighbors and report suspicious activity.
More activity will be identified as 'crime'--such as obesity, smoking, drinking when you have a drinking problem, name calling, leaving lights on, neglect (in someone's perception) of children, elderly, and pets, driving when you could ride a bike, breaking a curfew, failure to do mandatory volunteering. The 'community' will demand more law enforcement to restore order, and more rules and regulations will ensue.
The National Defense Authorization Act, new rules redefining torture, F.B.I. permitted to surveil you without a warrant---all part of the plan. The Chinese and Russian models are instructive. See: Nien Cheng's Life and Death in Shanghai, and Alexzander Solzhenitsen's The Gulag Archipelago, for details.
You can see that the groundwork for this has been laid and is being implemented throughout the nation. When you create deep dependence and then withdraw assistance the result is chaos and poverty. Propaganda infuses our culture with messages that there are just a few winners and many losers; that we are killing the earth and time is running out; that prosperity is an anachronism and detrimental to life; that individual freedom is selfish and injures those who are less free.
This is Agenda 21.
Communitarianism is the 'balancing' or subsuming of individual rights below the needs of the 'community.' The community is defined now as the global village. So anything identified as serving the global village takes precedence over the rights of the individual. In the United States, our constitution guarantees our rights to life and liberty. Ownership of property includes that of our own persons.
"As the population becomes more and more urbanized and less able to provide food or necessary products, more people are dependent on the government for housing, food, and other basic necessities."
I believe you, Rosa. Du ist ain o' dem wise wymyns.
The remedy to this tendency, that you have correctly identified as the result of social engineering, is for the population - or at least, the Remnant of human beings { in the Cheyenne sense } among them - to become less urbanized, to move back to the hills, to family farms - or, better yet, small, self-sufficient farming collectives, based on affinity - and to learn how to grow our own food. Behold the Kraal as the new model of social organization. Let us build our own, conscious villages, outside their Global Plantation; as a Kingdom on the top of the Mountains. Resist the Bloody Machine.Remove thyself from the belly of Leviathan.Resist.
Occupy -- The -- Highlands
>The {former} Commons<
Mark Walter Evans
02-02-2012, 10:58 PM
Rosa Koire
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
Love it, man. If only. It won't be possible. There is no 'outside.' This is a fight to the death going on. That water--not yours. That land---not yours. Those roads--not yours. Can't hide. Dams are coming down. Streams are being fenced in the name of conservation. Access to and use of water is being restricted. Check in with your friends in remote rural areas to find out what they're going through. Code enforcement--look at what's happening in Antelope Valley. I've just been speaking up in the San Juan Islands---they're cutting ferry service. Two hundred foot buffer zones. Establishment of no access National Monuments. Zero access wilderness. Regulatory takings. Wetlands declared on sloping sites. Forget Robinson Crusoe.
We have to stand and fight for private property rights, for personal rights, civil rights, human rights. The real rights, not the ones that are manipulated and manufactured by the smooth talking directors of 'our common future.' Communitarianism is that international law that says that you can't hold any land or water as an individual because it is inequitable. Any private ownership is inequitable. This is an incremental movement away from private land holdings. We may be old enough to finish our lives without seeing the complete end of it, but 2050 is the drop dead date, and it is actually slated for 2035. I wish that I was making this up. Ownership of property includes that of your own person. This is the truly terrifying element of this plan, and is exemplified by the increased surveillance and acculturation toward invasive technology. Look how easy it is to monitor every exchange we have now.
Awareness is the first step in the Resistance.
Thanks for the note. Glad to have the discussion.
Rosa www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Iolchan:
Occupy -- The -- Highland
"As the population becomes more and more urbanized and less able to provide food or necessary products, more people are dependent on the government for housing, food, and other basic necessities."
I believe you, Rosa. Du ist ain o' dem wise wymyns.
The remedy to this tendency, that you have correctly identified as the result of social engineering, is for the population - or at least, the Remnant of human beings { in the Cheyenne sense } among them - to become less urbanized, to move back to the hills, to family farms - or, better yet, small, self-sufficient farming collectives, based on affinity - and to learn how to grow our own food. Behold the Kraal as the new model of social organization. Let us build our own, conscious villages, outside their Global Plantation; as a Kingdom on the top of the Mountains. Resist the Bloody Machine.Remove thyself from the belly of Leviathan.Resist.
Occupy -- The -- Highlands
>The {former} Commons<
Mark Walter Evans
02-03-2012, 07:52 AM
podfish
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by someguy:
...The threat of man made climate change serves the purpose of the Maltheusians and eugenicists perfectly. To the left the concept of man made global warming serves the same purpose as 911 and Al CIAda do for the right.
to keep belaboring my point: your and Rosa's posts are both suffering from the same flaw. The whole issue of "whose purpose does it serve" has nothing to do with the issue! It's not proof of anything, and continuing to drag it in dilutes the credibility of your other points. If this seems like evidence to you, why should I believe your judgement about your other evidence??
Of course there's a place where this is relevant information; where the cliche "follow the money" is key. That is after you've established your premise and you've advanced to identifying the causes of it. Once you accept that there's no such thing as global warming, or that the environment really isn't being seriously degraded by human use, then you might start looking for the culprits who are using legislation as a tool toward their nefarious ends. But if the ends aren't all that nefarious, the motiviations of the participants aren't all that compelling except in a dramatic sense.
by the way, you shouldn't see this as "get(ing) hit with the usual attack".. it's not an attack, it's a response. If you are lucky enough to "usual(ly)" get a response, then I'd take that as a sign that there's something in your post that may be worth a response. That's a good thing, or should be.
02-03-2012, 11:08 AM
Rosa Koire
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Trying to wade through your 'points'. Somehow you are missing my point. Is it just because you want to argue? I'm not talking about global warming/climate change. This is akin to the JFK assassination--we'll still be arguing about it in 2050. With the implementation of the precautionary principle you could have a million scientists refuting global warming/climate change and it still would be used as the driver for this global domination plan.
Your 'follow the money' idea is ok, but not necessary, and you and I are not fully equipped to do that.
What you CAN do is look at the actual impacts and design of UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development now, today, on your freedom. As I said, I am not an anarchist--that seems to come up in the defense of UN A21/SD all the time--you'll get the 'why should some guy be able to put a pig farm up next to my house' argument in favor of extreme restrictions. This is a smoke screen. There are zoning rules etc already. If you understand how a General Plan works versus individual zoning you'll know that a GP change does not require notification, where a zoning change does. So your property use can be changed in the GP without you being aware of it. This is a way to restrict and limit our uses without notifying us. That's just one element of how UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is being implemented.
Anyway, if your point is that 'the ends aren't all that nefarious' then you are just unaware of the widespread implications of the regulatory and administrative means of implementing this plan. I'll say again: It is a whole life plan. It involves the educational system, governmental system, transportation, food production, water, land use, industry, domestic and foreign policy, and more. It is means to inventory and control all resources--human and natural---and means of production in the world.
I'm going to take an exit from your list now but I encourage you to please educate yourself about UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development, about how it impacts you in terms of personal surveillance and private property rights, with the knowledge that you are your own property. The most fundamental rights you have are those of life and liberty. We're not playing games here. Have the courage to question what sounds nice to you: the politics of green. Why you would believe that a government that brought you the Gulf of Tonkin, Iran/Contra, yellow cake uranium and WMD's etc. has somehow now morphed into that caring concerned protector of your environment (and oh, by the way you'll have to give up everything for the common good) is beyond me. This is a global plan and it is implemented locally. There are many seemly 'common good oriented' local groups which are on-board with the Agenda. Public/private partnerships. Do your research. Start with Ygrene, Dennis Hunter, Leadership Institute of Ecology and the Economy, Climate Adaptation Plans, ICLEI, and One Bay Area. Read your Greek history and look for the Trojan Horse.
to keep belaboring my point: your and Rosa's posts are both suffering from the same flaw. The whole issue of "whose purpose does it serve" has nothing to do with the issue! It's not proof of anything, and continuing to drag it in dilutes the credibility of your other points. If this seems like evidence to you, why should I believe your judgement about your other evidence??
Of course there's a place where this is relevant information; where the cliche "follow the money" is key. That is after you've established your premise and you've advanced to identifying the causes of it. Once you accept that there's no such thing as global warming, or that the environment really isn't being seriously degraded by human use, then you might start looking for the culprits who are using legislation as a tool toward their nefarious ends. But if the ends aren't all that nefarious, the motiviations of the participants aren't all that compelling except in a dramatic sense.
by the way, you shouldn't see this as "get(ing) hit with the usual attack".. it's not an attack, it's a response. If you are lucky enough to "usual(ly)" get a response, then I'd take that as a sign that there's something in your post that may be worth a response. That's a good thing, or should be.
podster isn't the only wacco reading your posts. i want to ask you some questions, and e bulletin boards are something i have limited time for. i guess this is true for you too.
question #1; i understand you believe the onebayarea plan will limit new construction to prefered development areas, i guess through general plan updates which change zoning? as well as mta funded development subsidies in pda's?
personally i don't have a problem with the incentive part of this, just the prohibition part. i would like to see less zoning and pmrd/code prohibition (for residential infill). i am an anarchist, and proud of it. are you still here?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Rosa Koire:
Trying to wade through your 'points'. Somehow you are missing my point. Is it just because you want to argue? I'm not talking about global warming/climate change. This is akin to the JFK assassination--we'll still be arguing about it in 2050. With the implementation of the precautionary principle you could have a million scientists refuting global warming/climate change and it still would be used as the driver for this global domination plan.
Your 'follow the money' idea is ok, but not necessary, and you and I are not fully equipped to do that.
What you CAN do is look at the actual impacts and design of UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development now, today, on your freedom. As I said, I am not an anarchist--that seems to come up in the defense of UN A21/SD all the time--you'll get the 'why should some guy be able to put a pig farm up next to my house' argument in favor of extreme restrictions. This is a smoke screen. There are zoning rules etc already. If you understand how a General Plan works versus individual zoning you'll know that a GP change does not require notification, where a zoning change does. So your property use can be changed in the GP without you being aware of it. This is a way to restrict and limit our uses without notifying us. That's just one element of how UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is being implemented.
Anyway, if your point is that 'the ends aren't all that nefarious' then you are just unaware of the widespread implications of the regulatory and administrative means of implementing this plan. I'll say again: It is a whole life plan. It involves the educational system, governmental system, transportation, food production, water, land use, industry, domestic and foreign policy, and more. It is means to inventory and control all resources--human and natural---and means of production in the world.
I'm going to take an exit from your list now but I encourage you to please educate yourself about UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development, about how it impacts you in terms of personal surveillance and private property rights, with the knowledge that you are your own property. The most fundamental rights you have are those of life and liberty. We're not playing games here. Have the courage to question what sounds nice to you: the politics of green. Why you would believe that a government that brought you the Gulf of Tonkin, Iran/Contra, yellow cake uranium and WMD's etc. has somehow now morphed into that caring concerned protector of your environment (and oh, by the way you'll have to give up everything for the common good) is beyond me. This is a global plan and it is implemented locally. There are many seemly 'common good oriented' local groups which are on-board with the Agenda. Public/private partnerships. Do your research. Start with Ygrene, Dennis Hunter, Leadership Institute of Ecology and the Economy, Climate Adaptation Plans, ICLEI, and One Bay Area. Read your Greek history and look for the Trojan Horse.
OK, you brought me back with that article in the PD. Did you read it? What did I do? I did my civic duty. I'm on the steering committee of a group which prefers not to publish the names of its members. Why? Read this article and you'll see. It's a smear. The reporter misquoted me, brought my partner into the article though I didn't mention her, lied about her, and interviewed people who are fundamentally dishonest. Can you blame people for not wanting to be subjected to this? Why was it written? Because I reported Michael Allen (now Assemblyman) to the Fair Political Practices Commission because of his serious conflict of interest while serving on the Santa Rosa Planning Commission. All of his invoices and notes are on our website (www.SantaRosaNeighborhoodCoalition.com) with full proof--the actual bills. He was found guilty and fined.
What's this article about? It was written to show whistleblowers what they can expect if they have the guts to do what I did. And it's working, right? This article was written in 2010. But people like you are still using it to try and smear me. Typical. If you can't attack the facts smear the person.
Notice I use my full name? Why don't you?
Rosa Koire
Just went and took a look at your other links. What a joke. Now I'm supposedly in the pay of big oil too. I don't know who you are Mad Miles, but your silly attack is just a waste of cyber space.
to keep belaboring my point: your and Rosa's posts are both suffering from the same flaw. The whole issue of "whose purpose does it serve" has nothing to do with the issue! It's not proof of anything, and continuing to drag it in dilutes the credibility of your other points. If this seems like evidence to you, why should I believe your judgement about your other evidence??
Why are you purposefully leaving out this quote of mine " In my extensive research on this issue, I have come to the conclusion that most likely Carbon Dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by humans burning fossil fuel, is not driving our weather patterns. There is far too much scientific corruption (climate-gate emails, consensus based science) and misinformation put forth by the Maltheusians to spread alarmism and further their agenda. There are straight up major flaws in the conclusions gathered from the real scientific evidence that exists on the subject on man made climate change."?
You know as well as I that I have been heavily involved in the scientific debates here on Wacco and have presented scientific facts to back up what I say. Your false statement that I only look at who this serves is absurd and you know it. I don't think people like you deserve my attention any longer. Ciao.
02-03-2012, 06:31 PM
podfish
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by someguy:
Why are you purposefully leaving out this quote of mine... Your false statement that I only look at who this serves is absurd and you know it.
these wild swings between detail and broad claims are what I'm addressing! good example! I don't see my "false statement"...
When making a case/argument (argument in the technical, not pejoritive sense) you build to a conclusion by presenting supporting evidence. Each piece can be then considered to see if the conclusion indeed does follow from the defensible claims.
When mixing indefensible claims with others that may indeed have validity, you weaken the overall argument. That's what my post said, if you go back and look at the words used. I don't think there's a lot of mystery about the predilections of most of those posting here; unless the threads are intended to be an exchange of rants, it might be a good idea to think about how to get your readers to consider new ideas. You won't (and I won't either) get any traction by appealing to authorities that aren't authoritative to those with opposing viewpoints. Nor will you strengthen an argument by bringing in unsavory supporters of opposing views to damn them by association. It's easier for those who -are- willing to change their views to consider your points if you only push the strongest ones. They get lost in the noise.
You may notice I don't tend to push arguments here myself; I'm more interested in the debate, and I do often try to keep them on track so I'm not reading opposing polemics. Selfish of me - I'm not really doing it for your own benefit. There are a lot of wacco arguments being made as to why low-level RFI hurts people, or as to why our air's being poisoned, or how supporters of the environment are nothing but ineffective pawns, or why we shouldn't care about human impact on climate. There are also good arguments being made on all those lines. I'm not blind to the co-opting of well-intended movements by those in power. I don't think it's prima-facie impossible that the climate can be impacted by humans, or that airplanes are spraying crap into the air, or that EMF is affecting us. It's just that I can't find advocates for those positions who seem to understand the difference between strong and weak arguments!!
Quote:
I don't think people like you deserve my attention any longer. Ciao.
"people like you"... uh, what kind is that??
02-03-2012, 07:47 PM
"Mad" Miles
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Ms. Koire,
You're new to Waccovia, so I'll forgive your ignorance. My full name is available under my profile. Many people use nom de keyboard's here, it's part of the culture. (The debate about whether everyone registered on waccobb.net should be required to give their Meat World name in their Public Profile, and if so, how to enforce that, is a very old and interesting one. It can be found in this sites archive.)
The "Straw Men" I was referring to were the ones you attack in your arguments.
The Wise Use links I provided were to show that people who foreshadow and privilege private property rights to argue against environmental protection, imminent domain uses to achieve social goals and see a bogeyman of collectivism around every corner (communitarianism in your parlance) have a historical track record. Starting back in the late eighties in deploying the particular style of argumentation, and the particular focus you have on governance issues, as a mask for an ideological agenda. Of course, the "debate" and the tactics you use, go back far, far longer.
I linked the article about your "work" because after reading your "contributions" on Watch Sonoma County (which I do not read regularly, I saw them while looking for your published pronouncements. Recently I was told by my brother, about the debates there. I avoid such venues as I find most of them to be exercises in futility and frustration. I make an exception here, and on Facebook.) I thought folk here, not already familiar with your modus operandi, might be interested.
As for your beef with Michael Allen, it's pretty well covered in the available record. Let's just say your take on his "crime" is very similar to your campaign to stop the oppressive one world government that's going to enslave us all!!!
For anyone else reading this, read the FPPC decision before you swallow Ms. Koire's version of events. Assemblyman Allen has apologized and paid his fine. I see no apologies forthcoming from Ms. Koire for her exaggerations and fear mongering. Nor do I expect any, ever.
Full Notice: While I'm a partisan Green Party of the United States of America member (since 1987, although GPUSA preceded GPUS, convoluted history not relevant here) I met Michael Allen while attending Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County meetings at the old SEIU 707 offices on 4th Street in Santa Rosa, back in 2000-2002.
I found him sharp, funny, caring, a union leader with admirable knowledge and political perspicacity. Sort of a moderate smart aleck with a heart of gold. I grew to admire him, still do. He's my Facebook friend in the last year and a half.
He belongs to the wrong political party given his values, but he's far from alone in that. I don't need to defend him, because he's more than able to do it for himself. We are not personal friends. I've never hung out with him. In recent years most of what I know about his political career, I read in the PD. And since August before last, on Facebook.
I was County Secretary and Treasurer for the Green Party of Sonoma County in the 2000 election cycle. Due to late filing of financial statements to the FPPC we were fined some five or six grand in February of 2001. This was due to the fact that I am not a bookkeeper, had numerous other onerous and time consuming voluntary duties, ended up Treasurer because the guy doing it wasn't even balancing the checkbook, and my pleas for data-entry and expert bookkeeper help, along with software to make it efficient, were unmet by the campaign coordinator and the group as a whole, until the filing deadline was looming (never got the software, but someone who knew what they were doing jumped in at the last minute and saved my/our ass, but not before we filed a few days late.)
I got the fine down to about two grand, by telling the appropriate bureaucrats the unvarnished truth and throwing myself and my county party on their mercy. Something they had no incentive to give, to cut us a break, because those jobs are filled by Democratic Party patronage hiring.
Did I get a thank you from the remaining active members of the GPSC? Not even.
Was I a career criminal politician? If anybody thinks so, I've got bagmen ready to collect your contributions to my empire building standing by!!!
There are many sides to every story. And the story Ms. Koire keeps telling, obviously, if you pay some attention, is full of bias, cant, opportunism, paranoia and self-promotion. That's cool. Plenty of other fish in that sea.
There are those who do, and those who prevent others from doing. Active and Reactive Force. Read up. I recommend Gilles Deleuze's, Nietzsche and Philosophy, for a very good exploration of the interplay between Active Force, Reactive Force and Ressentiment. Life changing stuff. I read it in 1982.
I have no doubt that Ms. Koire is sincere, convinced she knows exactly what she's doing, considers herself a force for good, social justice, liberty and many other admirable things. She's (you're) obviously intelligent and hard working. But, in my informed opinion, she's wrong in her conclusions about what real problems face all of us and what to do about it.
She'll garner plenty of attention (already has) and will mobilize plenty of people to attack "the system" in the name of defending their private property, prosperity and freedom. Google her. Read her comments on Watch Sonoma County. Read about her associations and tactics. Decide for yourself.
I'm all for rousing appropriate and effectively targeted public outrage at the crimes of corporations, and business associations, large government bureaucracies and alliances among and between all of those types of groups, regionally, nationally, internationally. But, there's a lot of nasty stuff going down. I choose to tilt at windmills that more closely resemble real threats, and prefer to not invest my efforts in preventing complete fantasies made up from biased reading and preconceived notions about the dangers of collective efforts. Efforts to address our dilemma, stemming from a rapacious economic system not subject to individual or conscious control, and the fallout from that fundamental systemic flaw. But most of you familiar with me here, already knew that.
Ms. Koire, before you trip the litmus test for hypersensitivity and emotional reactivity that my nom de keyboard here accidentally provides, the "Mad" (note the scare quotes indicating irony) in my handle is the result of calling myself a mad forwarder of political emails (still guilty) and a woman addressed me as mad miles.
I liked it, so I took it for my own. Partly because I'm a bit of an Anglophile and I am "passionate". That it became a marker for those who can't resist personalizing the argument when they have nothing else substantive to say, was completely accidental. It's served as a very useful accident in the subsequent years.
boy, just when my last post about not using unsavory associates to devalue an argument... a fat pitch comes right down the middle.
Fox news, Tea party, Gingrich, One World Order... all the usual suspects. Regardless, it's nice to have a richer context for this thread.
02-03-2012, 11:12 PM
ubaru
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
How do you like this Agenda folks? You can't even own your own rainwater. Be sure to check out the last 6 paragraphs.
(NaturalNews) Many of the freedoms we enjoy here in the U.S. are quickly eroding as the nation transforms from the land of the free into the land of the enslaved, but what I'm about to share with you takes the assault on our freedoms to a whole new level. You may not be aware of this, but many Western states, including Utah, Washington and Colorado, have long outlawed individuals from collecting rainwater on their own properties because, according to officials, that rain belongs to someone else.
As bizarre as it sounds, laws restricting property owners from "diverting" water that falls on their own homes and land have been on the books for quite some time in many Western states. Only recently, as droughts and renewed interest in water conservation methods have become more common, have individuals and business owners started butting heads with law enforcement over the practice of collecting rainwater for personal use.
Check out this YouTube video of a news report out of Salt Lake City, Utah, about the issue. It's illegal in Utah to divert rainwater without a valid water right, and Mark Miller of Mark Miller Toyota, found this out the hard way.
After constructing a large rainwater collection system at his new dealership to use for washing new cars, Miller found out that the project was actually an "unlawful diversion of rainwater." Even though it makes logical conservation sense to collect rainwater for this type of use since rain is scarce in Utah, it's still considered a violation of water rights which apparently belong exclusively to Utah's various government bodies.
"Utah's the second driest state in the nation. Our laws probably ought to catch up with that," explained Miller in response to the state's ridiculous rainwater collection ban.
Salt Lake City officials worked out a compromise with Miller and are now permitting him to use "their" rainwater, but the fact that individuals like Miller don't actually own the rainwater that falls on their property is a true indicator of what little freedom we actually have here in the U.S. (Access to the rainwater that falls on your own property seems to be a basic right, wouldn't you agree?)
Outlawing rainwater collection in other states
Utah isn't the only state with rainwater collection bans, either. Colorado and Washington also have rainwater collection restrictions that limit the free use of rainwater, but these restrictions vary among different areas of the states and legislators have passed some laws to help ease the restrictions.
In Colorado, two new laws were recently passed that exempt certain small-scale rainwater collection systems, like the kind people might install on their homes, from collection restrictions.
Prior to the passage of these laws, Douglas County, Colorado, conducted a study on how rainwater collection affects aquifer and groundwater supplies. The study revealed that letting people collect rainwater on their properties actually reduces demand from water facilities and improves conservation.
Personally, I don't think a study was even necessary to come to this obvious conclusion. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that using rainwater instead of tap water is a smart and useful way to conserve this valuable resource, especially in areas like the West where drought is a major concern.
Additionally, the study revealed that only about three percent of Douglas County's precipitation ended up in the streams and rivers that are supposedly being robbed from by rainwater collectors. The other 97 percent either evaporated or seeped into the ground to be used by plants.
This hints at why bureaucrats can't really use the argument that collecting rainwater prevents that water from getting to where it was intended to go. So little of it actually makes it to the final destination that virtually every household could collect many rain barrels worth of rainwater and it would have practically no effect on the amount that ends up in streams and rivers.
It's all about control, really
As long as people remain unaware and uninformed about important issues, the government will continue to chip away at the freedoms we enjoy. The only reason these water restrictions are finally starting to change for the better is because people started to notice and they worked to do something to reverse the law.
Even though these laws restricting water collection have been on the books for more than 100 years in some cases, they're slowly being reversed thanks to efforts by citizens who have decided that enough is enough.
Because if we can't even freely collect the rain that falls all around us, then what, exactly, can we freely do? The rainwater issue highlights a serious overall problem in America today: diminishing freedom and increased government control.
Today, we've basically been reprogrammed to think that we need permission from the government to exercise our inalienable rights, when in fact the government is supposed to derive its power from us. The American Republic was designed so that government would serve the People to protect and uphold freedom and liberty. But increasingly, our own government is restricting people from their rights to engage in commonsense, fundamental actions such as collecting rainwater or buying raw milk from the farmer next door.
Today, we are living under a government that has slowly siphoned off our freedoms, only to occasionally grant us back a few limited ones under the pretense that they're doing us a benevolent favor.
Fight back against enslavement
As long as people believe their rights stem from the government (and not the other way around), they will always be enslaved. And whatever rights and freedoms we think we still have will be quickly eroded by a system of bureaucratic power that seeks only to expand its control.
Because the same argument that's now being used to restrict rainwater collection could, of course, be used to declare that you have no right to the air you breathe, either. After all, governments could declare that air to be somebody else's air, and then they could charge you an "air tax" or an "air royalty" and demand you pay money for every breath that keeps you alive.
Think it couldn't happen? Just give it time. The government already claims it owns your land and house, effectively. If you really think you own your home, just stop paying property taxes and see how long you still "own" it. Your county or city will seize it and then sell it to pay off your "tax debt." That proves who really owns it in the first place... and it's not you!
How about the question of who owns your body? According to the U.S. Patent & Trademark office, U.S. corporations and universities already own 20% of your genetic code. Your own body, they claim, is partially the property of someone else.
So if they own your land, your water and your body, how long before they claim to own your air, your mind and even your soul?
Unless we stand up against this tyranny, it will creep upon us, day after day, until we find ourselves totally enslaved by a world of corporate-government collusion where everything of value is owned by powerful corporations -- all enforced at gunpoint by local law enforcement.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Rosa Koire:
We have to stand and fight for private property rights, for personal rights, civil rights, human rights. The real rights, not the ones that are manipulated and manufactured by the smooth talking directors of 'our common future.' Communitarianism is that international law that says that you can't hold any land or water as an individual because it is inequitable. Any private ownership is inequitable. This is an incremental movement away from private land holdings. We may be old enough to finish our lives without seeing the complete end of it, but 2050 is the drop dead date, and it is actually slated for 2035. I wish that I was making this up. Ownership of property includes that of your own person. This is the truly terrifying element of this plan, and is exemplified by the increased surveillance and acculturation toward invasive technology. Look how easy it is to monitor every exchange we have now.
Awareness is the first step in the Resistance.
Thanks for the note. Glad to have the discussion.
Rosa www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com
02-04-2012, 08:05 AM
Larry Robinson
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
For a little background on this anti-green movement, you might want to read this well-researched article from the NY Times:
The New York Times
By LESLIE KAUFMAN and KATE ZERNIKE
Across the country, activists with ties to the Tea Party are railing against all sorts of local and state efforts to control sprawl and conserve energy. They brand government action for things like expanding public transportation routes and preserving open space as part of a United Nations-led conspiracy to deny property rights and herd citizens toward cities.
They are showing up at planning meetings to denounce bike lanes on public streets and smart meters on home appliances — efforts they equate to a big-government blueprint against individual rights.
“Down the road, this data will be used against you,” warned one speaker at a recent Roanoke County, Va., Board of Supervisors meeting who turned out with dozens of people opposed to the county’s paying $1,200 in dues to a nonprofit that consults on sustainability issues.
Local officials say they would dismiss such notions except that the growing and often heated protests are having an effect.
In Maine, the Tea Party-backed Republican governor canceled a project to ease congestion along the Route 1 corridor after protesters complained it was part of the United Nations plot. Similar opposition helped doom ahigh-speed train line in Florida. And more than a dozen cities, towns and counties, under new pressure, have cut off financing for a program that offers expertise on how to measure and cut carbon emissions.
“It sounds a little on the weird side, but we’ve found we ignore it at our own peril,” said George Homewood, a vice president of the American Planning Association’s chapter in Virginia.
The protests date to 1992 when the United Nations passed a sweeping, but nonbinding, 100-plus-page resolution called Agenda 21 that was designed to encourage nations to use fewer resources and conserve open land by steering development to already dense areas. They have gained momentum in the past two years because of the emergence of the Tea Party movement, harnessing its suspicion about government power and belief that man-made global warming is a hoax.
In January, the Republican Party adopted its own resolution against what it called “the destructive and insidious nature” of Agenda 21. And Newt Gingrich took aim at it during a Republican debate in November.
Tom DeWeese, the founder of the American Policy Center<https://americanpolicy.org/>, a Warrenton, Va.-based foundation that advocates limited government, says he has been a leader in the opposition to Agenda 21 since 1992. Until a few years ago, he had few followers beyond a handful of farmers and ranchers in rural areas. Now, he is a regular speaker at Tea Party events.
Membership is rising, Mr. DeWeese said, because what he sees as tangible Agenda 21-inspired controls on water and energy use are intruding into everyday life. “People may be acting out at some of these meetings, and I do not condone that. But their elected representatives are not listening and they are frustrated.”
Fox News has also helped spread the message. In June, after President Obama signed an executive order creating a White House Rural Council to “enhance federal engagement with rural communities,” Fox programs linked the order to Agenda 21. A Fox commentator, Eric Bolling, said the council sounded “eerily similar to a U.N. plan called Agenda 21, where a centralized planning agency would be responsible for oversight into all areas of our lives. A one world order.”
The movement has been particularly effective in Tea Party strongholds like Virginia, Florida and Texas, but the police have been called in to contain protests in states including Maryland and California, where opponents are fighting laws passed in recent years to encourage development around public transportation hubs and dense areas in an effort to save money and preserve rural communities.
One group has become a particular target. Iclei — Local Governments for Sustainability USA<https://www.icleiusa.org/>, an Oakland, Calif.-based nonprofit, sells software and offers advice to communities looking to reduce their carbon footprints. A City Council meeting in Missoula, Mont., in December got out of hand and required police intervention over $1,200 in dues to Iclei.
At a Board of Supervisors meeting in Roanoke in late January, Cher McCoy, a Tea Party member from nearby Lexington, Va., generated sustained applause when she warned: “They get you hooked, and then Agenda 21 takes over. Your rights are stripped one by one.”
Echoing other protesters, Ms. McCoy identified smart meters, devices being installed by utility companies to collect information on energy use, as part of the conspiracy. “The real job of smart meters is to spy on you and control you — when you can and cannot use electrical appliances,” she said.
Ilana Preuss<https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/author/ipreuss/>, vice president of Smart Growth America, a national coalition of nonprofits that supports economic development while conserving open spaces and farmland, said, “The real danger is not that they will get rid of some piece of software from Iclei” but that “people will be too scared to have a conversation about local development. And that is an important conversation to be having.”
In some cases, the protests have not been large, but they are powerful because officials are concerned about the Tea Party.
On the campaign trail, Mr. Gingrich has called Agenda 21 an important issue and has said, “I would explicitly repudiate what Obama has done on Agenda 21.”
The Republican National Committee resolution, passed without fanfare on Jan. 13, declared, “The United Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so-called ‘sustainable development’ views the American way of life of private property ownership, single family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices, and privately owned farms; all as destructive to the environment.”
Other conservatives have welcomed the scrutiny of land-use issues, but they do not agree with the emphasis on Agenda 21.
Jeremy Rabkin, a professor of law at George Mason University specializing in sovereignty issues, said there were “entirely legitimate concerns about international standards that come into American law without formal ratification by the Senate.”
But some local officials argue that the programs that protesters see as part of the conspiracy are entirely created by local governments with the express intent of saving money — the central goal of the Tea Party movement.
Planning groups, several of which said they had never heard of Agenda 21 until protesters burst in, are counterorganizing.
Summer Frederick, the project manager for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission in Charlottesville, Va., which withdrew its dues to Iclei and its support from a national mayors’ agreement on climate change late last year after a campaign by protesters, now conducts seminars on how to deal with Agenda 21 critics. (Among her tips: remove the podium and microphones, which can make it “very easy for a critic to hijack a meeting.”)
Roanoke’s Board of Supervisors voted 3 to 2 to renew its Iclei financing after many residents voiced their support.
“The Tea Party people say they want nonpolluted air and clean water and everything we promote and support, but they also say it’s a communist movement,” said Charlotte Moore, a supervisor who voted yes. “I really don’t understand what they want.
”
02-04-2012, 08:52 AM
Rosa Koire
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Hey, Larry. This is a smear article, can't you tell? Anyone who objects to this project is a 'tea party person' whether they are or not. Did you catch the way the government plans to handle objections in the future? They'll remove the microphone and the podium. The officials are so confused "I just don't understand what they want." This is a containment article. Why, Larry, would you be able to see this clearly if it were about, say, a nuclear plant protest, or a anti-war protest? Please, look at the issues and not the disinformation campaign. The government is fully invested in distracting you from seeing that this is an inventory and control plan with a green veneer.
Rosa Koire
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Larry Robinson:
For a little background on this anti-green movement, you might want to read this well-researched article from the NY Times:
Activists Fight Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot
The New York Times
By LESLIE KAUFMAN and KATE ZERNIKE
Across the country, activists with ties to the Tea Party are railing against all sorts of local and state efforts to control sprawl and conserve energy. They brand government action for things like expanding public transportation routes and preserving open space as part of a United Nations-led conspiracy to deny property rights and herd citizens toward cities.....
”
02-04-2012, 10:06 AM
Dixon
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
I don't intend to get caught up in this contentious discussion. I haven't the time for it. I haven't even read most of the posts, especially the longer ones, and I'm not going to. So what I'm about to say is not particularly well-informed on the specific issues or arguments, and if I make a fool of myself--well, it wouldn't be the first time. But FWIW, I wanna say something about what looks to be the main psychological/social dynamic driving this dispute:
Most people in just about any population are about averagely intelligent. Half of the people in a population are of lower than average intelligence. Even most intelligent people don't have enough expertise in most areas of study to make very wise decisions, whether the area be medicine, fixing our cars, home repairs, or whatever. That's why we have experts to handle these things. Experts have their shortcomings, and some of them are inept or dishonest, but reliance on them is necessary in any society more complex than the Old Stone Age.
Reliance on people with expertise in public planning is more essential than ever in a world beset by huge, urgent, even unprecedented problems. Individual action, which is often shaped by ignorance, false beliefs, narrow self-interest and lack of foresight without the balancing factor of planning expertise is largely responsible for the multiple messes we as a species have created and must, unfortunately, be increasingly controlled in certain ways for the greater good, lest we continue to work at cross purposes and drag ourselves down to ultimate disaster. The American (and to some extent, global) way of life which includes astoundingly wasteful and destructive habits (habits which I need to change too) is simply not sustainable.
Are some rules wrongheaded, needlessly restrictive, even oppressive? Sure, but that doesn't refute the need for educated planning, nor the need for enforcement of the rules in the inevitable cases wherein people will resist. Rules which prevent us from killing each other through extreme levels of pollution (caused by single-family vehicles, spread-out communities, and other factors) are not essentially different from rules which prevent us from killing each other with knives or guns. But the destructiveness of, e.g., lifestyle factors which increase pollution is harder to see than the destructiveness of knives and guns, as is the need for rules to control such behaviors. This is especially true when our vision is blinkered by the distorting influence of narrow self-interest ("my property values will go down"), religious dogma, manipulation of public perceptions by entrenched industries, psychological defense mechanisms including denial, and the natural human inertia that makes it seemingly impossible to change deep-seated habits.
Does the necessary amount of social control increase the power of some factions of government at the expense of some of our freedoms? Yup. Does it increase the profits of some at the expense of others? Yup. Will that be abused in some cases? Yup. But it doesn't logically follow that the policies were primarily motivated by those intentions. If you think it does, your logic is simply fallacious.
When the main argument people make against something seems to be based on the assumption that anything which causes them to lose money or change how they live or experience much discomfort must be wrong, I see what the Critical Thinking community refers to as "egocentric and sociocentric thinking", i.e., self-centeredness. There is no moral or effective response to the huge crises we as a species face that doesn't involve lots of difficulty, lots of restraint (self- or otherwise) and, yes, lots of properties losing financial value. If you have specific criticisms of specific policies, fine, take that up as an issue. But if your position is that society (we as a group) doesn't have the right to enforce upon us necessary restrictions we don't like, it's time for you to evolve a little and look past your "rights" (which may not reasonably even be rights) to see what we need to do to secure a livable world for our grandkids. In other words, let's try to replace narrow self-interest with enlightened self-interest, which sees the common good as good for each individual.
02-04-2012, 11:11 AM
Rosa Koire
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
I guess you won't mind giving up your personal rights and freedom for the common good. After all, in your opinion, 'let's try to replace narrow self-interest with enlightened self-interest, which sees the common good as good for each individual.' Good luck to you. You won't be the one defining what 'enlightened self-interest' will be. But you said it yourself--you haven't read the information and you don't intend to. Congratulations, you'll be led like the rest.
RK
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
I don't intend to get caught up in this contentious discussion. I haven't the time for it. I haven't even read most of the posts, especially the lnger ones, and I'm not going to. So what I'm about to say is not particularly well-informed on the specific issues or arguments, and if I make a fool of myself--well, it wouldn't be the first time. But FWIW, I wanna say something about what looks to be the main psychological/social dynamic driving this dispute:
Most people in just about any population are about averagely intelligent. Half of the people in a population are of lower than average intelligence. Even most intelligent people don't have enough expertise in most areas of study to make very wise decisions, whether the area be medicine, fixing our cars, home repairs, or whatever. That's why we have experts to handle these things. Experts have their shortcomings, and some of them are inept or dishonest, but reliance on them is necessary in any society more complex than the Old Stone Age.
Reliance on people with expertise in public planning is more essential than ever in a world beset by huge, urgent, even unprecedented problems. Individual action, which is often shaped by ignorance, false beliefs, narrow self-interest and lack of foresight without the balancing factor of planning expertise is largely responsible for the multiple messes we as a species have created and must, unfortunately, be increasingly controlled in certain ways for the greater good, lest we continue to work at cross purposes and drag ourselves down to ultimate disaster. The American (and to some extent, global) way of life which includes astoundingly wasteful and destructive habits (habits which I need to change too) is simply not sustainable.
Are some rules wrongheaded, needlessly restrictive, even oppressive? Sure, but that doesn't refute the need for educated planning, nor the need for enforcement of the rules in the inevitable cases wherein people will resist. Rules which prevent us from killing each other through extreme levels of pollution (caused by single-family vehicles, spread-out communities, and other factors) are not essentially different from rules which prevent us from killing each other with knives or guns. But the destructiveness of, e.g., lifestyle factors which increase pollution is harder to see than the destructiveness of knives and guns, as is the need for rules to control such behaviors. This is especially true when our vision is blinkered by the distorting influence of narrow self-interest ("my property values will go down"), religious dogma, manipulation of public perceptions by entrenched industries, psychological defense mechanisms including denial, and the natural human inertia that makes it seemingly impossible to change deep-seated habits.
Does the necessary amount of social control increase the power of some factions of government at the expense of some of our freedoms? Yup. Does it increase the profits of some at the expense of others? Yup. Will that be abused in some cases? Yup. But it doesn't logically follow that the policies were primarily motivated by those intentions. If you think it does, your logic is simply fallacious.
When the main argument people make against something seems to be based on the assumption that anything which causes them to lose money or change how they live or experience much discomfort must be wrong, I see what the Critical Thinking community refers to as "egocentric and sociocentric thinking", i.e., self-centeredness. There is no moral or effective response to the huge crises we as a species face that doesn't involve lots of difficulty, lots of restraint (self- or otherwise) and, yes, lots of properties losing financial value. If you have specific criticisms of specific policies, fine, take that up as an issue. But if your position is that society (we as a group) doesn't have the right to enforce upon us necessary restrictions we don't like, it's time for you to evolve a little and look past your "rights" (which may not reasonably even be rights) to see what we need to do to secure a livable world for our grandkids. In other words, let's try to replace narrow self-interest with enlightened self-interest, which sees the common good as good for each individual.
"Planning groups, several of which said they had never heard of Agenda 21 until protesters burst in, are counterorganizing.
"Summer Frederick, the project manager for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission in Charlottesville, Va., which withdrew its dues to Iclei and its support from a national mayors’ agreement on climate change late last year after a campaign by protesters, now conducts seminars on how to deal with Agenda 21 critics. (Among her tips: remove the podium and microphones, which can make it “very easy for a critic to hijack a meeting.”)
Roanoke’s Board of Supervisors voted 3 to 2 to renew its Iclei financing after many residents voiced their support.
“The Tea Party people say they want non-polluted air and clean water and everything we promote and support, but they also say it’s a communist movement,” said Charlotte Moore, a supervisor who voted yes. “I really don’t understand what they want.”
"Summer Frederick, the project manager for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission in Charlottesville, Va., which withdrew its dues to Iclei and its support from a national mayors’ agreement on climate change late last year after a campaign by protesters, now conducts seminars on how to deal with Agenda 21 critics. (Among her tips: remove the podium and and microphones, which can make it “very easy for a critic to hijack a meeting .”
That's the Delphi Technique in action, in a nutshell. Do you see how Agenda 21 is already being used to polarize people, and herd the sheeples among us into compliance with the stated plans of the power elite?
I noticed, when I attended the first Town Hall Meeting in Sebastopol, in December, how John Jenkel was Delphied, that is, subtly signaled to stop speaking, (& he was being remarkably well-behaved) when he began to tell the assembled Town Hallers that we are all still under MartialLaw. An Inconvenient Truth.
Once more, I think that there should be a Series of plein air debates on this vitally important and contentious topic - of U.N. Agenda 21 - in the civic centers of all of the Towns in Sonoma County.
And, if Rosa Koire is willing to debate any speaker who wishes to promote this Agenda, perhaps the Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy - or some other group, alleged by Ms. Koire to have signed on to One Bay Area, ICLEI, & U.N. Agenda 21, can - as a matter of honor - step up to the plate and provide an informed speaker who feels competent to debate Ms. Koire, in a Public Debate.
-- That is, if you are willing to allow all of the ramifications of ICLEIto be examined in Public, and exposed to Public Scrutiny.
Hey, Larry. This is a smear article, can't you tell? Anyone who objects to this project is a 'tea party person' whether they are or not.
that's the second article on this issue you've categorized as "smear". In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
The PressDemo article wasn't flattering, I'll give you that. However, they made a point of giving names to your critics, as well as using specific quotes from them. Having named critics say uncomplimentary things about you isn't a smear- it puts the critics credibility on the line as well. And you're being overly broad again - just because all dogs are animals, not all animals are dogs! Sure the article talks about what "activists with ties to the tea party" are doing. It's up to you whether you want to claim that role; I haven't seen you talk about the tea party at all, though it certainly seems like you share some of their goals. So?? Is the "tea party" such a fearful thing to be associated with, even if incorrectly?? I wouldn't think so. Where's the smear? If anything, it spends a lot of time outlining the criticisms made by Agenda-21 opponents. Is it just the tone you dislike? What was unfair here?
02-04-2012, 04:09 PM
theindependenteye
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
>>>Hey, Larry. This is a smear article, can't you tell? Anyone who objects to this project is a 'tea party person' whether they are or not. Did you catch the way the government plans to handle objections in the future? They'll remove the microphone and the podium. The officials are so confused "I just don't understand what they want." This is a containment article. Why, Larry, would you be able to see this clearly if it were about, say, a nuclear plant protest, or a anti-war protest? Please, look at the issues and not the disinformation campaign. The government is fully invested in distracting you from seeing that this is an inventory and control plan with a green veneer.
If we are to believe that major environmental initiatives are actually a UN plot coordinated by the masters of the world to enslave us, why should we not believe that the anti-Agenda 21 meme permeating the ether isn't a plot by the funders of Tea Party reactionaries to discredit the environmental initiatives? The "research" touted by various posters here is no more definitive than my "research" — we could all post dozens of links to what we believe to be true. It's just that my logic leads me to a different cast of monsters in the monster movie, and leads me to a different notion of what to do about the monster problem.
But I do appreciate the foes of "communitarianism" for standing up for my right to build my backyard tannery, drain the aquafir for my vineyard, and blow my shit into the atmosphere. [Pardon if this is an exaggeration, but I don't see it as one. What's characterized above as a "disinformation campaign" I just see as common sense.]
-Conrad Bishop
02-04-2012, 04:49 PM
theindependenteye
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
>>>Because if we can't even freely collect the rain that falls all around us, then what, exactly, can we freely do? The rainwater issue highlights a serious overall problem in America today: diminishing freedom and increased government control.
For me this story of the Utah no-rainwater-collection law recalls the attempt by the previous Bolivian government, in cooperation with Bechtel, to privatize the national water supply -- accurately documented in the fictional film Tambien la Lluvia (Even the Rain). The ordinance described here, as I understand it, was on the city or county level, as that's where the case was resolved, so I'm not sure it was quite comparable.
But the article, for me, simply documents one thing: people make stupid laws, and sometimes they're changed. The anti-regulatory movement, however, takes any instance of regulatory over-reach or bureaucratic bumbling that happens anywhere in the country or world and amplifies it into the definitive Epiphany of Leftist Totalitarianism.
I value my private property and freedom to do the stuff I do; I sure do have issues with government policy on all levels; and I think there are some really serious threats to Constitutional freedom in this country. But the anti-Agenda 21 arguments, for me, are in the realm of video games. YM certainly MV.
The capacity of corporations to use bogus "pro-community" arguments to their own ends is nothing new. The Teapot Dome scandal of the 1920's had to do with leasing huge oil deposits on federal land to a favored oil company for drilling, on the basis of a falsely documented claim that other drillers were siphoning the oil and thereby betraying the public trust. Not that different, in my view, from Chevron sponsoring greenie-feel-good commercials on NPR while poisoning whole nations. To the Libertarians, this is an argument that Chevron is hand-in-glove with Environmentalism and that by removing all environmental controls from them we'll frustrate their plot of world domination. To my mind, this is spin worthy of the latest subatomic particle.
Right now, I might be kinda pissed that county regulations don't allow me to put a toilet in my studio without paying a ton of money, but I realize they can make a legitimate argument for that, and in the meantime I don't feel as if I'm living under Pol Pot (no pun intended).
Cheers--
Conrad
02-04-2012, 07:45 PM
podfish
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Quote:
>>>Because if we can't even freely collect the rain that falls all around us, then what, exactly, can we freely do? The rainwater issue highlights a serious overall problem in America today: diminishing freedom and increased government control.<<<<
... the article, for me, simply documents one thing: people make stupid laws,
and like so many things, when you look deeper into it the issue isn't as simple as it sounds. This is another case revealing that the history of settling the west (of settling marginally habitable areas) is the history of the fight over water rights. Just like you can't dam a creek that passes through your property, because of the rights of the people downstream, you can't capture water that otherwise would flow off your property to downhill neighbors - or prevent it from recharging the water table so people's wells don't go dry. I doubt most people would consider their property rights include the right to pump as much water out of "your" well as you'd like. This is oddly enough essentially the same thing.
02-08-2012, 08:45 AM
Rick Spencer
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
I'm a Democrat that is well-informed about UN Agenda 21. *There have been a number of silly arguments made here by people who are not well-informed on the subject, however. *The main point which is often overlooked is that an international effort to govern all people is well underway. *It's been 20 years since the Action Plan was adopted by 178 nations including our own. *At the upcoming Rio+20 Conference this year they are continuing their work to achieve the full plan in 10 more years. *Implementation of Agenda 21 is clearly spelled out.
One of their most cherished goals is to create a giant world-wide data base that has information compiled on everything on earth, both living and inanimate. *Information is being gathered from all sources available to them including satellite data supplied by NASA. *The United States government is a major player and funding source for their efforts at total information and surveillance. *No matter how good all the environmental rhetoric sounds, they are attempting to gain control over all activites that relate to the environment in any way. *That means everything, including people.
Who wants to stop being an American and instead be part of an international community controlled by an international government that includes Russia and China. *China is part of the UN plan and has allegedly been buying votes at the UN. *In the United States we have rights, or we thought we did. *The UN Agenda 21 Sustainable Development plan is a direct threat to our country's sovereignty and the rights of our people. *
The American lifestyle has been deemed unsustainable by UN Agenda 21. *We have too much money, use too much energy, own property and must be reduced to some kind of global average in order for things to be fair. *That is the message and that is why we are on the losing end of the social equity movement. Social equity is one of the three pillars of the UN Agenda 21 plan. *UN Agenda 21 seeks to rectify this "problem" by regulating our rights away. *Private property rights are now under constant attack for instance. *Auto travel is under attack, single-family homes may become obsolete and so on. *Rural property owners should be put on the endangered species list.
The One Bay Area Plan is in full compliance with Agenda 21 Sustainable development goals. *This plan calls for *most if not all new housing to be built next to train stations for the next 25 years. *They don't want people driving to work. *There are various schemes being developed to penalize those who commute by car and reward those who will live in those government subsidized smartgrowth developments next to the trains. *
Sonoma County wants over 80% of their rural roads to fall into ruin. *They voted for this already. *UN Agenda 21 has another plan called the Wildlands Project that is creating vast wilderness areas all over the country. *These areas have people living there now. *They will be moved off their properties until these zones are fully de-populated. *So you can forget about the moving back to the land idea. *It's not in the plan. *What you will end up with is public-private partnerships with giant corporate farmers growing food in a ring around the smartgrowth "sustainable" human habitats, or urban villages. *The go local movement is a joke. *Just the opposite is actually happening. *We are facing a top down corporate/big government planning revolution in which individuals have few rights and must give up their individual rights for the common good. *This is no joke. *Our elected officials are giving us over to the globalist plan and seem to have little concern for the American people. *It's all for the homeland, the collective, the common good. *
It's depressing to know that our government officials and planners have kept this dirty, dark secret out of the public's view for the last 20 years. *They're throwing all of us under the bus. *And if you think that you are one of the good go along to get along people that's all green and good, forget it. *They don't care about you either. *You're just a number in their data base and another person to manage. *World takeover bids always end badly. *It's only a matter of time until the guns come out. *I'm afraid the Occupy movement is causing the guns to come out sooner rather than later. *Take away the microphones and podiums for public comments? *They probably got that idea from the Chinese. *They just shoot people over there if they don't go along. *
We are screwed if we don't stop the globalists from achiving their goals of total world domination. *That's what UN Agenda 21 is really about. *Of course they try to make it sound good. *How else could they have gotten this far without a fight? *Rosa Koire is a local hero in my book, her bravery is clear for all to see. *Who else will also step up to the plate to fight this? *What will you do?
02-08-2012, 09:37 AM
podfish
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Rick Spencer:
... The main point which is often overlooked is that an international effort to govern all people is well underway. ...... Who wants to stop being an American and instead be part of an international community controlled by an international government that includes Russia and China.
the mistake is to think this is somehow unusual, or secretive, or equivalent to a Klingon takeover. A society of people will be "governed". Even pack animals, like lions and wolves, have a rudimentary form of it. The idea that we'll somehow have small pockets that self-govern with no form of "governance" over that is silly. I know you're not saying that explicitly; but just as silly is extrapolating attempts at coordinating human activity over the planet to a all-encompassing "international government that includes Russia and China". All through the history of mankind there has been efforts to find the appropriate balance between the individual, the local/tribe, and the whole population. In such an interconnected world, the definition of "whole population" is literally the whole population. There's no reason to think this will become a settled issue, or that it'll end up with no local control in favor of international overlords.
Quote:
The American lifestyle has been deemed unsustainable by UN Agenda 21. *We have too much money, use too much energy, own property and must be reduced to some kind of global average in order for things to be fair. *
do you want to argue that it is in fact sustainable?? that's a new and different argument. I think it's not one you can win, either.
Lumping together little factoids that don't contradict the core assertion - that an international cabal wants to take us over - isn't the same thing as proving it. For example, the decay of the roads has many causes, to my mind the biggest is inadequate public funding. Creating a chain that attributes ultimate causation to the intentions of the UN may be possible, but isn't particularly convincing. I find it more convincing to build the chain from negligence and short-term thinking; maintenance funding isn't a sexy thing for a politician to fight for, so it gets neglected in favor of anti-tax arguments or its funding gets diverted to short-term needs, again to avoid taxing people to pay for it.
Our political environment isn't directed by the UN; it's much more impacted by co-opting of politicians by far more parochial sources, and by the inability of voters to resist proposals of easy solutions.
02-08-2012, 03:49 PM
Dixon
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Rick Spencer:
Who wants to stop being an American and instead be part of an international community controlled by an international government that includes Russia and China.
Ooh, me, me, me! I actually have considered myself a citizen of the world for years now. One planet, one human race! Separate countries were a natural part of human evolution, but now that we have nearly instantaneous global communication, it really is one integrated organism. Separate nations are little more than criminal gangs, fighting over turf, power and resources. Wouldn't it be better to operate as one unified species fighting against ignorance, disease, war, and, yes, environmental collapse instead of squabbling with each other like pathetic junkies fighting over the last of the heroin? Nationalism is a form of bigotry, like racism and sexism.
Of course in any community the ones with the most power, especially if they're misusing that power rapaciously, don't want to be subject to the rule of law. Criminals like the Crips and the Bloods don't want laws and cops to exist; they want to be "free" to exercise their "rights" to pillage and rape as they desire. Likewise, the ruling class of a rogue empire like the USA doesn't want to be subject to international law. That's why, for instance, Dubya withdrew us from the World Court, so he and his buddies could commit lucrative war crimes with impunity.
Quote:
The UN Agenda 21 Sustainable Development plan is a direct threat to our country's sovereignty and the rights of our people.
The "American lifestyle", as you call it, is a direct threat to the sovereignty of other countries and to the rights of their people. We're the only country big, bad and ruthless enough to invade some helpless little country every few years and slaughter, maim and displace thousands (or millions) of innocent men, women and children for financial and political profit. Another example: citizens of some low-lying island nations have begun evacuating their homelands because the sea level rise caused by global warming is swamping their homes. Per capita, USAmericans like you and me are the biggest cause of that problem, because we're the ones whose profligate lifestyle creates the most global warming (and pollution and waste) per capita. We're a threat to the rest of the world because we refuse to restrain our behavior. So why shouldn't they enact laws and policies to enforce such restraint?
Quote:
The American lifestyle has been deemed unsustainable by UN Agenda 21.
Well, duh! Is it unclear to you that that's true, Rick? If everyone on the planet used as much resources and created as much global warming, pollution and trash as we do, we'd need a couple more earths to sustain everyone. That's called "unsustainable".
Quote:
We have too much money, use too much energy, own property and must be reduced to some kind of global average in order for things to be fair.
Except for the property ownership issue, I'd have to agree with this.
Quote:
That is the message and that is why we are on the losing end of the social equity movement.
When the rule of law is asserted, the biggest crooks have the most to lose. Do you think the USA has a god-given right to own and use (and waste) waaaaay more than its share of the world's resources, even if we have to rob and kill people to get those resources, while others starve, or slave away in totalitarian regimes which we create so the dictators will help us bleed the wealth from those countries? Let's hear it for the American lifestyle!
Quote:
UN Agenda 21 seeks to rectify this "problem" by regulating our rights away. *Private property rights are now under constant attack for instance.
Which rights? And are they really rights, or are they privileges which you think you can't live without?
Quote:
Auto travel is under attack...
Do you not see the good reasons for that, Rick? Are you one of those who thinks anything that's uncomfortable for you must be wrong?
Quote:
...single-family homes may become obsolete...
Yeah, it looks like that's the trend. Do you have a better plan for addressing the post-peak-oil changes--besides denial?
Quote:
Rural property owners should be put on the endangered species list.
News flash: the human race will be on the endangered species list if we don't make some pretty radical and uncomfortable changes pretty quickly.
Quote:
The One Bay Area Plan is in full compliance with Agenda 21 Sustainable development goals. *This plan calls for *most if not all new housing to be built next to train stations for the next 25 years. *They don't want people driving to work. *There are various schemes being developed to penalize those who commute by car and reward those who will live in those government subsidized smartgrowth developments next to the trains.
Good ideas! Or do you have a better plan for addressing the increasingly urgent problems of energy waste, global warming and environmental collapse?
Quote:
We are facing a top down corporate/big government planning revolution in which individuals have few rights and must give up their individual rights for the common good....It's all for the homeland, the collective, the common good.
I don't want to give up any real rights, Rick, but much of what you seem to consider rights simply aren't rights. There is no right to live unsustainably if it destroys the livability of the planet for our (or anyone's!) grandchildren.
Quote:
They're throwing all of us under the bus.
Wake up and smell the exhaust, Rick--we're throwing the entire planet under the (fossil-fueled) bus.
Quote:
World takeover bids always end badly. *It's only a matter of time until the guns come out.
Does this mean you join me in calling for an end to USAmerican imperialism?
One more thing, Rick--you may want to get your keyboard fixed. It's sprinkled your post with more pointless asterisks than there are roaches in a cheap motel.
02-08-2012, 09:07 PM
Joseph Askren
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Let's replace the fears with love. Love always wins in the end and who wants to die scared? Not I . Maybe we should contact the Love choir and sing for peace and love for mankind? Can we die without fear and love the one's who are killing us? Let Love Rule
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
Ooh, me, me, me! I actually have considered myself a citizen of the world for years now. One planet, one human race! Separate countries were a natural part of human evolution, but now that we have nearly instantaneous global communication, it really is one integrated organism. Separate nations are little more than criminal gangs, fighting over turf, power and resources. Wouldn't it be better to operate as one unified species fighting against ignorance, disease, war, and, yes, environmental collapse instead of squabbling with each other like pathetic junkies fighting over the last of the heroin? Nationalism is a form of bigotry, like racism and sexism.
Of course in any community the ones with the most power, especially if they're misusing that power rapaciously, don't want to be subject to the rule of law. Criminals like the Crips and the Bloods don't want laws and cops to exist; they want to be "free" to exercise their "rights" to pillage and rape as they desire. Likewise, the ruling class of a rogue empire like the USA doesn't want to be subject to international law. That's why, for instance, Dubya withdrew us from the World Court, so he and his buddies could commit lucrative war crimes with impunity.
The "American lifestyle", as you call it, is a direct threat to the sovereignty of other countries and to the rights of their people. We're the only country big, bad and ruthless enough to invade some helpless little country every few years and slaughter, maim and displace thousands (or millions) of innocent men, women and children for financial and political profit. Another example: citizens of some low-lying island nations have begun evacuating their homelands because the sea level rise caused by global warming is swamping their homes. Per capita, USAmericans like you and me are the biggest cause of that problem, because we're the ones whose profligate lifestyle creates the most global warming (and pollution and waste) per capita. We're a threat to the rest of the world because we refuse to restrain our behavior. So why shouldn't they enact laws and policies to enforce such restraint?
Well, duh! Is it unclear to you that that's true, Rick? If everyone on the planet used as much resources and created as much global warming, pollution and trash as we do, we'd need a couple more earths to sustain everyone. That's called "unsustainable".
Except for the property ownership issue, I'd have to agree with this.
When the rule of law is asserted, the biggest crooks have the most to lose. Do you think the USA has a god-given right to own and use (and waste) waaaaay more than its share of the world's resources, even if we have to rob and kill people to get those resources, while others starve, or slave away in totalitarian regimes which we create so the dictators will help us bleed the wealth from those countries? Let's hear it for the American lifestyle!
Which rights? And are they really rights, or are they privileges which you think you can't live without?
Do you not see the good reasons for that, Rick? Are you one of those who thinks anything that's uncomfortable for you must be wrong?
Yeah, it looks like that's the trend. Do you have a better plan for addressing the post-peak-oil changes--besides denial?
News flash: the human race will be on the endangered species list if we don't make some pretty radical and uncomfortable changes pretty quickly.
Good ideas! Or do you have a better plan for addressing the increasingly urgent problems of energy waste, global warming and environmental collapse?
I don't want to give up any real rights, Rick, but much of what you seem to consider rights simply aren't rights. There is no right to live unsustainably if it destroys the livability of the planet for our (or anyone's!) grandchildren.
Wake up and smell the exhaust, Rick--we're throwing the entire planet under the (fossil-fueled) bus.
Does this mean you join me in calling for an end to USAmerican imperialism?
One more thing, Rick--you may want to get your keyboard fixed. It's sprinkled your post with more pointless asterisks than there are roaches in a cheap motel.
When you spin & type the word “conspiracy” into the Google Search box, no matter what subject you may be researching, you are going to get a smaller set of hits than when you simply type the “Generic Subject” itself {in quotation marks, if it is a phrase} into the box.
People who do this - who habitually place the word ”conspiracy” in the mix when they Google a subject – whatever it is; be it “chemtrails” or “U.N. Agenda 21,” will find, when the Results come up, that they are always going to get a smaller set of hits. A smaller set of hits, forced through the filter that eliminates every source that does not contain the word “conspiracy.”
For some people, this has become a habitual way of researching, dealing with, sifting, processing, and presenting political data. They are always looking for, and willing to go the distance to expose “conspiracy theorists,” in a manner very similar to the way the H.U.A.C. used to go after “commies” and "fellow travelers." In fact, it is quite clear, and obvious, if you step out of your body, and take a look at the political landscape of the present, that the new outlaws - the new outré - are folks who either are, or have, or hold (or are presumed to hold - or are rumored to hold) any positions in common with others who are deemed to be “right-wing conspiracy theorists.”
It’s all done byguilt-by-association; and hacks like Chip Berlet, lead the pack and are the worst offenders in promulgating this new species of thought-form; which, I have to say, is very prevalent these days in Green and New Left circles ...
Shunning “conspiracy theories” has become the new Shibboleth, and litmus of “political correctness” in current New Left & Green circles. As an old-left Paleo-progressive, I consider this form of New Left “progressivism”{there are pockets of it also in New Age} to be a kind of political Pseudomorph. I perceive it as a kind of new-left McCarthyism.
As an old leftPaleo-progressive, {in Politics, radical; in Economics, socialist; in Social Theory, libertarian; but Culturally, conservative} I reserve the right to be wary of any & all directives that come down from the Olympian heights of the central committee @ the United Nations. I also remember what Lenin said about the old League of Nations; that it was a “British Imperialists’ Den of Thieves.”
Although I am not a Marxist-Leninist, I concur with Lenin on this particular point; since the League of Nations –and its successor, the post-WWII United Nations - are boththe projects / products of the Rhodes Trust, i.e., the Round Table; Chatham House, in London, a very real { not imaginary } group of wicked, racist, oligarchs & Malthusian, genocidal maniacs, if there ever was one. In truth, it is quite accurate to describe the United Nations as the soft cop of Anglo-Americanglobal imperialism.
As an old leftPaleo-progressive , I do not forget the class war. Because, as the father used to tell his son, in E.L. Doctorow’s very great work, The Book of Daniel, “It’s still going on, Denny.”
Chip Berlet is a well known and respected researcher with a Leftist political affiliation. He's been doing it since the early seventies. He's my Facebook friend and provides well documented assessments about various groups and individuals from across the political spectrum, with a focus on the Right. Here's his organizations website.
02-10-2012, 09:08 AM
Rick Spencer
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
"The removal of the obvious anti-communist underpinnings assisted left wing conspiracists in creating a parody of the fundamentalist/libertarian conspiracist critiques. Left wing conspiracists strip away the underlying religious fundamentalism, antisemitism, and economic social Darwinism, and peddle the repackaged product like carnival snake oil salesmen to unsuspecting sectors of the left. "
Chip Berlet
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Mad" Miles;147580][SIZE=3][FONT=times new roman]
Chip Berlet is a well known and respected researcher with a Leftist political affiliation. He's been doing it since the early seventies. He's my Facebook friend and provides well documented assessments about various groups and individuals from across the political spectrum, with a focus on the Right. [URL="https://www.publiceye.org/:
Here's his organizations website[/URL].[/FONT][/SIZE]
“… Paranoid conspiracism takes many forms: the belief that U.N. troops are poised to invade the U.S.; closed AMTRAK stations have been transformed into concentration camps; supermarket bar codes are emblems of the Satanic "mark of the beast" that will usher in the New World Order; menacing "black helicopters" are everywhere; or that undocumented workers, African Americans and women "are stealing our jobs". All are danger signs that a mean-spirited white backlash has slipped over into racist scapegoating -- and violence. As absurd as such theories appear on the surface, these are the core values that lead to dictatorships, pogroms and genocide. In many respects, we are witnessing the birth of an armed fascist nucleus throughout North America. Is a mass movement of home-grown Brownshirts "only a demagogue away," as one researcher writing in the current issue of Covert Action Quarterly suggests?
For many followers of the movement, Jews are the controlling agents behind the "conspiracy" who operate through a number of front organizations such as the United Nations, the Trilateral Commission, the Council On Foreign Relations, the Federal Reserve Bank, etc. Christian Identity, the "religion" of white supremacists and neo-Nazis, has been able to expand its outreach and actively recruit from the social layer attracted to the Patriot movement…”
[2] CHRISTIAN IDENTITY, SURVIVALISM & THE POSSE COMITATUS
“…"Aryan" or "White" as used by Identity ostensibly refers to persons of Nordic, Anglo-Saxon or Germanic stock, or at the very least, persons stemming from Northern or Middle European ancestors. The Identity definition of "Aryan" is more closely related to mythological or operatic reality rather than any scientific or anthropological definition of Indo-European peoples. Aryan actually is a term used by linguists to trace the common roots of the Indo-European languages.
Christian Identity borrows paranoid conspiratorial beliefs from reactionary groups such as the John Birch Society. Birchers claim that secret cabals run most world governments under orders from wealthy elites such as theRockefeller family acting through groups such as the Trilateralist Commission, the Bilderberger banking conference, the Council on Foreign Relations, and officials of the Federal Reserve Bank...”
[3] Clinton, Conspiracism, and the Continuing Culture War : The Conspiracist Worldview
“… Within the hard right and the far right, a considerable amount of the information being circulated is undocumented rumor and apocalyptic conspiracist theory. Right-wing conspiracist movements in the US grow from a belief that common citizens are held down by a small network of secret elites who manipulate a vast legion of corrupt politicians, mendacious journalists, propagandizing schoolteachers, and nefarious bankers. This conspiracist subculture has a long historical pedigree and periodically appears on the US political scene, usually accompanying a right-wing populist upsurge such as we are currently experiencing. Conspiracism is not merely a marginal "extremist" phenomenon, but is deeply imbedded in our culture.
An alarming number of our fellow citizens saw symptoms of secret conspiracies afoot during the 1990s. These symptoms include restrictions on gun ownership, government abuse of power, federal health and safety regulations, abortion, homosexuality, the feminist movement, sex education, new age spirituality, modern educational curricula, environmentalism, and rock or rap music, to name just a few. The conspirators are many: politicians and law enforcement officials above county level, game wardens, internal revenue agents, judges, lawyers, bankers, journalists, unionists, leftists, the Rockefellers, the UN, the Trilateralist Commission, the Bilderberger banking discussion group, the Council on Foreign Relations, Federal Reserve bank officials, Jews, Blacks, Latinos, Arabs, and Asians...”
This is the litany, repeated over and over again by Chip Berlet, and his colleagues at public eye, & his friends on facebook : Neo-Nazis, Racists, anti-Semites, Posse Comitati, & even your garden variety “hard” or “far-right” critic of Bill Clinton, are delusional “conspiracy theorists” who “claim that secret cabals run most world governments under orders from wealthy elites such as theRockefeller family acting through groups such as the Trilateralist [sic] Commission, the Bilderberger banking conference, the Council on Foreign Relations, and officials of the Federal Reserve Bank.” So Watch Out !
The subliminal message is this : if you want to be “politically correct” and not be associated in any way with that which is not PC, then lay off “… theRockefeller family, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Federal Reserve Bank .“
Another corollary to this, is: Anyone who questions the intentions of the Rockefeller family, or any of these Institutions: the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Federal Reserve Bank, is in danger of being associated with the mindset of Neo-Nazis, Racists, anti-Semites, Posse Comatati, as well as your everyday run-of-the-mill garden variety “hard & far right” conspiracy theorist wackos.
This form of diatribe / polemic – which is the ” modus operandus” of Chip Berlet, and his “facebook friends” - is McCarthyism, pure and simple. It is guilt-by-association; it is the McCarthyism of the New Left; a pseudomorph that stands in the ruins of the authentic, old Left. The Paleo-progressive tendency of the old Left was informed about the reality of the Class War, and able to discern the nuances of the many & varied Machiavellian tactics & techniques of the Ruling class.
The "New Left" – which includes, today, various “Green” tendencies, is a Pseudomorph of the old, authentic Left, inasmuch as it was spawned originally, from a grant of ten million dollars from Jimmy {James Paul} Warburg {on the Board of Directors of the Chase-Manhattan Bank } to Marcus Raskin, Saul Landau, and Richard Barnet, to form the Institute for Policy Studies, in 1962, on Du Pont Circle in Washington, D.C.
The I.P.S., which became the mother-ship for the whole gamut of New Left tendencies in the 1960’s, is the kept left; hooked into a big boodle of Tax-exempt Foundation grant money from the Ford and Singer Foundations, and in the pay of the Chase Manhattan Bank <- the Stillman/ Rockefeller Bank.
In the early 1970’s, David Rockefeller himself, the Chairman of the Board of the Chase-Manhattan Bank, bestowed a similar grant of ten million dollars upon the N.C.L.C, the National Caucus of Labor Committees {a faction within the Rump S.D.S.} – who are known today as “the LaRouche group.” This can be documented. As of today, February 10, 2012, there are at least two people / witnesses that I am aware of, who are still alive, who can attest to this.
Nor should anyone be surprised at the amazing variety of political tendencies among all the projects upon which the Chase-Manhattan Bank has bestowed its monetary largesse, over the years. The oligarchy / power elite / plutocracy / 1% do this all the time. It is part and parcel of their“modus operandi":
Spread the money out; buy a whole mess of tendencies. Divide and Rule.
{ This is what is known, colloquially, historically, as "the Venetian method" }
"The removal of the obvious anti-communist underpinnings assisted left wing conspiracists in creating a parody of the fundamentalist / libertarian conspiracist critiques. Left wing conspiracists strip away the underlying religious fundamentalism, antisemitism, and economic social Darwinism, and peddle the repackaged product like carnival snake oil salesmen to unsuspecting sectors of the left. "
Chip Berlet
Well, i guess that nails me. Only thing is, with me, it's not a matter of a "repackaged product." I learned about the class waras a child, from my beautiful, wise, socialist, Jewish grandmother, Edith Fleischer Liggett, from Flatbush.She taught me a whole lot, for which I will always be grateful. Bless her.
Mark Walter Evans
02-10-2012, 06:58 PM
podfish
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Iolchan:
... Neo-Nazis, Racists, anti-Semites, Posse Comitati, & even your garden variety “hard” or “far-right” critic of Bill Clinton, are delusional “conspiracy theorists” who “claim that secret cabals run most world governments under orders from wealthy elites such as theRockefeller family acting through groups such as the Trilateralist [sic] Commission, the Bilderberger banking conference, the Council on Foreign Relations, and officials of the Federal Reserve Bank.”
uh, I think -you- added the part about racists, anti-Semites and garden-variety critics. I don't think it's very much of a reach to claim neo-Nazis, Posse Comitati, and the other organizations he mentions (Christian Identity, the John Birch Society) do refer to secret cabals running things from behind the scene.
So sure, if someone does think the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, or the Fed is a malevolent influence on our societies, they have some rough company. For that matter, I've got some friends who count as rough company too. Sometimes I may get lumped in with them, whether or not I share their ideas. But attacks on them aren't attacks on me; for that matter, descriptions of them aren't descriptions of me.
Do you dispute his characterizations of those organizations? If the whole package doesn't fit, why not help highlight the separation? Just like you aren't a Marxist if you support taxing the wealthy more than we do, you're not a racist skinhead because you do believe the Trilateral Commission is pulling the strings behind our government.
One reason I come back to these threads is that despite the wildly divergent opinions about the forces underlying our political scene, there's a big commonality in the feeling that it's been hijacked and it's not serving any of us well.
02-11-2012, 10:09 PM
Jim Bennett
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
My friend Rosa and a couple folks told me about the site. The Agenda 21 topic was my motivation for getting on. Actually A21 resistance motivates much of my waking life now.
Those close to me will ask; 'are you doing more political stuff again?'
Now my response is; "you mean this humanity stuff'?'
As many are realizing, that Left/Right, Democrat/Republican paradigm is distraction and charade.
ALL-ALL-ALL (three's a charm) that is wrong with our whole world and our Countries history can be connected to the hundreds that make up this dark cabal and their complete plan for complete control; Agenda 21 Sustainable Development. It seems that somewhere along the line of their uninterrupted lineage they decided that the world is their oyster.
It's resources, it's land, and it's people.
They manipulate the entire landscape to a relationship of their profit, their control, and our oppression.
The way they include our community in their sphere of influence is largely through ICLEI, a 'charter' that our public officials secretly belong to.
They are accountable to, take directive from; International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives or Local Governments for Sustainability as they are now referred to, I guess international was a little too telling.
They provide software, training, the planner's bible; a complete municipal template of oppression. All under the 'green guise'.
Top down, bottom up, most effectively inside out. The inordinate empowerment given to our planners is enough to decimate property rights and neuter small business in and of itself.
They provide measurable, chronological goals.
Much based on the biggest lie of the 21st century, contrived as an instrument of our oppression; that our activities are causing the atmosphere to warm.
They socially engineer our decline; fiscally, civilly, deliberately crashing our coffers, restructuring our traditional incentivizing and funding mechanisms. Crash the old, usher in the new (world order).
These globalists employ the same carrot and stick extortion with Greece as Cotati.
There are more 'events' coming our way, not the least of which will likely be the crash of the dollar (guess who?). Right now is the time, we are the ones.
It's time for real information, real goods, real resources and real community.
Not some collective, 'greater good', 'social equity' 'ism'. Real accountable old fashioned community.
If there is an achilles heal to their 'Plan', it is local implementation.
My purpose in life is to purge our community of this municipal cancer.
We are spearheading a movement coming to be known as THE QUESTION.
The ICLEI question. Many questions actually.
It is being posed to our public officials, and to ourselves.
What is the public's benefit to our secret allegiance with this globalist NGO?
Will they do like several other communities have done, and drop their membership?
The question we have to ask ourselves is about love. Yes love.
Do we love each other enough?
Do we love what we had enough?
Do we love the kids enough?
Do we love and trust ourselves enough to stand up for our freedoms and our ongoing? Are we worthy?
Or will we be stuck in the constrictive, paralyzed place that oppressors thrive in...fear?
We didn't come here to be impoverished serfs.
Join us on Valentine's day (how fitting) in front of Santa Rosa's City Hall at 3:00 as we demonstrate our resolve for our request that this be an item on the Council's Agenda.
This is not about civil unrest.
It is an intervention.
To understand this huge multi-faceted socially engineered oppression is to understand why things are so screwed up.
Time to produce our own movie...unless you like their script.
Jim Bennett Public Relations Director; Santa Rosa Neighborhood Coalition
Democrats Against UN Agenda 21
02-12-2012, 06:26 PM
theindependenteye
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
>>>My friend Rosa and a couple folks told me about the site. The Agenda 21 topic was my motivation for getting on. Actually A21 resistance motivates much of my waking life now.
Jim, I don't question your motives or your dedication. I just wish there was a little more originality in the arguments posed by the swarm of anti-government libertarian deregulators who've been descending on this website. Friday, driving to Arcata for a performance, I heard the same terms, the same citations, the same talking points on a right-wing Evangelical radio talk-show -- the only difference being that they brought God into the picture and warned us that the Agenda 21 guys were putting Mother Nature ahead of God, concerned that this was hoodwinking even some well-meaning Evangelicals who were struggling with the notion of "good stewardship."
In my view, the manufacturers of this intellectual meme seem to have packaged it in multiple languages. Use Gaia vs. God for the Fundies, use Power Elite Conspiracy on the liberal sites, use Marxist/Soros to the reactionaries -- and then say "It's not about party politics or Left vs. Right any more." But the bottom line, as far as I can tell, is the vehement desire to turn the clock back to 1890 so that we all can assert our liberty to be raped by Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Agro, Big Buggery, along with the Earth that's the only precious mama we've got. I remember the horrible scene in the Italian film Two Women, where mother and daughter are raped together.
I wish I could believe you, or I wish you could believe me, but neither seems to be happening. So I hope you've got some other good stuff to motivate your waking life.
This is the litany, repeated over and over again by Chip Berlet, and his colleagues at public eye, & his friends on facebook : Neo-Nazis, Racists, anti-Semites, Posse Comitati, & even your garden variety “hard” or “far-right” critic of Bill Clinton, are delusional “conspiracy theorists” who “claim that secret cabals run most world governments under orders from wealthy elites such as theRockefeller family acting through groups such as the Trilateralist [sic] Commission, the Bilderberger banking conference, the Council on Foreign Relations, and officials of the Federal Reserve Bank.”
uh, I think -you- added the part about racists, anti-Semites and garden-variety critics.
I don't think it's very much of a reach to claim neo-Nazis, Posse Comitati, and the other organizations he mentions (Christian Identity, the John Birch Society) do refer to secret cabals running things from behind the scene.
So sure, if someone does think the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, or the Fed is a malevolent influence on our societies, they have some rough company. For that matter, I've got some friends who count as rough company too. Sometimes I may get lumped in with them, whether or not I share their ideas. But attacks on them aren't attacks on me; for that matter, descriptions of them aren't descriptions of me.
Do you dispute his characterizations of those organizations? If the whole package doesn't fit, why not help highlight the separation? Just like you aren't a Marxist if you support taxing the wealthy more than we do, you're not a racist skinhead because you do believe the Trilateral Commission is pulling the strings behind our government.
One reason I come back to these threads is that despite the wildly divergent opinions about the forces underlying our political scene, there's a big commonality in the feeling that it's been hijacked and it's not serving any of us well.
Go back and read the selections from public eye that I have enclosed in the boxed text. You will find that I have made an accurate distillation & rendition of the meaning and drift intended by the authors of those passages.
As to the veracity of the typification of the litany of such groups, as the Aryan Nations, the Birchers, “Patriot” networks, Militia groups” etc., as promoting such a cast of Institutions as “the enemy,” yes, it is quite so; they do. That is theirmodus operandi…
I simply contend that all such groups are subsidized – usually in a covert manner - by money from the bond-holding class { i.e., the class cronies of Rockefeller & Co., } for whom the C.F.R. and the Trilateral Commission are the big guns, and for whom the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the chief holding company, & means of doing business.
I also contend that all of those entities, i.e., the Rockefeller family, the Council on Foreign Relations {the New York wing of the Rhodes Trust & the Royal Institute of International Affairs,} the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, and the Federal Reserve Bank are quite legitimate targets and objects of analysis from the old Left standpoint of a classical “class analysis.”
The power elite sponsor All of the anti-Semitic, white supremacist, and other hate group tendencies listed in the litany Chip Berlet is continually prating about. The ruling class (i.e., families like the Rockefeller family ) use cracker hate groups as shills in order to discredit All of their critics, and in order to protect their class interests, that are vested in the institutions Chip always mentions: , i.e., the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderbergers, theTrilateral Commission, and theFederal Reserve Bank. For such Institutions, the fact that odious hate groups like that rant about them as the enemy, is a form of protection - another moat around their castle & keep. Capishe?
This whole scenario is a very elaborate Kabuki Theatre of sorts, complete with Sound & Gongs. The prime example of your “controlled dialectic.” An inside/outside job –involving the financing of groups all across the political spectrum in order that the oligarchy / plutocracy /power elite / 1% can continue their game of Divide & Rule from their perch “above it all”, in their offices on the top floors of Bankers’ Trust, the Waldorf Astoria Towers & the Rockefeller Center.
From their seat "above it all" on the top floors of the Rockefeller Center, the 1% effectively control the dialectic; and they generally get what they want.
They are the Wise Men. Get wise yourselves, folks... Don't drink their Globalist cool-aid.
Mark Walter Evans
02-14-2012, 12:34 AM
geomancer
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Jim, what you take as evils (sustainability, green planning) I take as social goods necessitated by the excessive numbers of people now living in California and on the planet. Misused for sure at times by corporations and developers, but better than nothing, especially when there is community input.
The gulf between your fear-based world view and my own (relaxed and rather sardonic) perspective is so profound that there is no purpose in extended dialogue. Since I don't share your fears, and nothing I say can calm them, I'm not going to waste your time or mine trying to put lipstick on that pig (does no good and really annoys the pig).
BTW, I'm continually amazed and troubled by the extraordinarily high level of ambient fear that clouds the minds of many of the more energetic posters to WACCO exhibit - chemtrails, Agenda 21, vaccinations, smart meters, and now the Marxist (sic) Illuminati! Crap, kick over a rock and a really boring 911 truther likely will leap up from beneath. Oy.
You fearful people seriously need to chill. Perhaps a close shave with Occam's Razor is in order.
Richard
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Jim Bennett:
My friend Rosa and a couple folks told me about the site. The Agenda 21 topic was my motivation for getting on. Actually A21 resistance motivates much of my waking life now.
Those close to me will ask; 'are you doing more political stuff again?'
Now my response is; "you mean this humanity stuff'?'
As many are realizing, that Left/Right, Democrat/Republican paradigm is distraction and charade.
ALL-ALL-ALL (three's a charm) that is wrong with our whole world and our Countries history can be connected to the hundreds that make up this dark cabal and their complete plan for complete control; Agenda 21 Sustainable Development. It seems that somewhere along the line of their uninterrupted lineage they decided that the world is their oyster.
It's resources, it's land, and it's people.
They manipulate the entire landscape to a relationship of their profit, their control, and our oppression.
The way they include our community in their sphere of influence is largely through ICLEI, a 'charter' that our public officials secretly belong to.
They are accountable to, take directive from; International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives or Local Governments for Sustainability as they are now referred to, I guess international was a little too telling.
They provide software, training, the planner's bible; a complete municipal template of oppression. All under the 'green guise'.
Top down, bottom up, most effectively inside out. The inordinate empowerment given to our planners is enough to decimate property rights and neuter small business in and of itself.
They provide measurable, chronological goals.
Much based on the biggest lie of the 21st century, contrived as an instrument of our oppression; that our activities are causing the atmosphere to warm.
They socially engineer our decline; fiscally, civilly, deliberately crashing our coffers, restructuring our traditional incentivizing and funding mechanisms. Crash the old, usher in the new (world order).
These globalists employ the same carrot and stick extortion with Greece as Cotati.
There are more 'events' coming our way, not the least of which will likely be the crash of the dollar (guess who?). Right now is the time, we are the ones.
It's time for real information, real goods, real resources and real community.
Not some collective, 'greater good', 'social equity' 'ism'. Real accountable old fashioned community.
If there is an achilles heal to their 'Plan', it is local implementation.
My purpose in life is to purge our community of this municipal cancer.
We are spearheading a movement coming to be known as THE QUESTION.
The ICLEI question. Many questions actually.
It is being posed to our public officials, and to ourselves.
What is the public's benefit to our secret allegiance with this globalist NGO?
Will they do like several other communities have done, and drop their membership?
The question we have to ask ourselves is about love. Yes love.
Do we love each other enough?
Do we love what we had enough?
Do we love the kids enough?
Do we love and trust ourselves enough to stand up for our freedoms and our ongoing? Are we worthy?
Or will we be stuck in the constrictive, paralyzed place that oppressors thrive in...fear?
We didn't come here to be impoverished serfs.
Join us on Valentine's day (how fitting) in front of Santa Rosa's City Hall at 3:00 as we demonstrate our resolve for our request that this be an item on the Council's Agenda.
This is not about civil unrest.
It is an intervention.
To understand this huge multi-faceted socially engineered oppression is to understand why things are so screwed up.
Time to produce our own movie...unless you like their script.
Jim Bennett Public Relations Director; Santa Rosa Neighborhood Coalition
Democrats Against UN Agenda 21
The C.I.A. dealt with their perceived problem of containingpublic awareness about the assassination of John Kennedy {after the cat was out of the bag, & a significant number of Citizens began to realize that the Warren Commission Report was a cover-up} by starting a little cottage industry of their own, churning out one conspiracy pot-boiler after another; paperback after paperback. All of the massive C.I.A. - generated disinformation about who killed J.F.K. held scraps of validity, but, in the aggregate, it was all wrong, and off the mark. The purpose was to generate confusion. It was black propaganda.
Then the C.I.A. coined a handy little phrase. It caught on. They said: "Oh, that's just another conspiracy theory." That, to my knowledge, is the authentic, historical etiology of the phrase "Conspiracy Theory." If it is not the precise origin of the term, it most certainly is the point at which the phrase entered History with a vengeance.
It's still going on. One of the more clever ways that the Company continues to "cover up" issues that they wish to contain - like the U.N. Agenda 21, 9/11, or chemtrails, or the various covert applications & uses of their new generation of microwave beam weapons - is by generating a plethora of disinformation and black propaganda on the subject in question, in order to muddy the water. Then, the whole subject - the whole field - can be neatly dismissed with a single phrase: "That's just another conspiracy theory."
In this specific case - of U.N. Agenda 21 - it is being dismissed as a "libertarian conspiracy theory" by the psychologically dis-empowered Greens. Critters fighting for scraps of empowerment under the table of the Duopoly.Mair Divide and Rule.
I'm trying to find a companion aphorism for "even paranoids have enemies"; however, most that they identify as such, aren't.
So what's the aphorism here? "not all conspiracies are imaginary"? however, most that are identified as such, aren't.
02-22-2012, 09:18 PM
Iolchan
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Questioning the Beneficence of U.N. Agenda 21 & I.C.L.E.I.
Last Friday night I attended the showing of the film “THE BATTLE OF SEATTLE” at the Arlene Francis Center in Santa Rosa. Besides seeing a good film, the realization was borne home to me that, even in recent years, the Left has sometimes been spectacularly correct about certain institutions that are dressed up as “Liberal” or “Progressive” and garnish protective coloring precisely because they are part of the apparatus of the supposedly “liberal”United Nations.
The Left was correct in 1994 through 1996, when they got behind Global Exchange’s Fifty Years is Enough campaign, in an attempt to pull the plug of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund– a two-horned beast, {head-quartered in Geneva} that serves the interests of the oligarchy even while it enjoys “liberal cover” as a part and parcel of the working machinery of the United Nations.
The Left was correct, in 1999, to discern that the World Trade Organization { W.T.O. - a Globalist Institution under the panoply of the United Nations } is - in Reality - a front for the multinational cartels and multinational corporations, who operate, collectively, out of the corporate Shangri-La of Geneva, Switzerland.
And then, in 2000, the Left was correct again when they got behind the movement – started by a group of South African churchmen - to call for the Year 2000 to be a Year of Jubilee, for the repudiation and elimination of all International Debt. This was a natural and logical progression of thought from the Fifty Years is Enough campaign, inasmuch as Debt servicing is done, on a global level, by the Institution known as the International Monetary Fund, a front for the Prime Banks of the G-7 Nations; said to be the “capital pool” of the World Bank & I.M.F.
So I ask you, why is it, in this benighted, awful, and dangerous Year of 2012, that the Left – or what remains of it - is preparing to embrace as some wonderful, cuddly, green stuffed toy animal, the imposition of the principals of “Global governance” {again, from Geneva,} over our very lives, homes, & neighborhoods – through U.N. Agenda 21 & I.C.L.E.I.???
Now there’s a Mystery for you; deep, dark, and truly magnificent & terrible.
O, I know how it's done; Really, it's Simple: the manipulators of the dialectic just tar the opposition as "conspiracy theorists."
Mark Walter Evans
02-26-2012, 04:37 PM
Barry
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Iolchan:
O, I know how it's done; Really, it's Simple: the manipulators of the dialectic just tar the opposition as "conspiracy theorists."
That Cartoon/Photo & its legend are not apropos to the current situation that we [plural] find ourselves in, and to this one, i.e., myself – and for several reasons:
A) I, personally, don’t have a problem with either the shepherd or the sheep-dog, or with the institution of shepherding & keeping sheep...
B) I, personally, do not consider myself a “sheep.” Instead, I am the sheep-dog in the picture. The Shepherd is my personal friend and master. And yes, the dog and the man work together; and it is a good thing, too. There are predators in the woods, and the sheep need to be in the sheep-cote at night.
C) The Real problem is off-camera; it is wolves. In this case – as in every case concerning which I have weighed-in as a poster on this website, & have warned all you sheeples - the wolves are busy, engaged in class war; either as the “Masters of War” {plutocrats,} or as their henchmen.
D) The Class War is not a “conspiracy theory” kids. Instead it is the one, sure, diamond Truth that one may still salvage from the wreckage of Marxism; a keeper.
E) There are currently several fronts in the class war that you sheep have a hard time recognizing as battle-zones {fronts} on which the troops {& planes} of the plutes are advancing:
F) ”Debt Collection” – whether done by theI.M.F. for the World Bank, or by the I.R.S., for theFederal Reserve Bank, is one Front. This is not a conspiracy theory, kids, it is Systemic. It is the systemic looting of the People/ Sheeples by the bond-holding class of your hard-earned cash & energy.
G) “Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-engineering,” aka, “chemtrails” is another Front upon which the People at large are being assaulted. On this Front, the plutes seem to be winning – since you Sheeples refuse to believe that any organized group of people could be so technically clever - or wicked - as to utilize the magnetosphere of the planet to influence your very thoughts. Also, you are in denial that anyone could possibly want you Dead,or regard you as “useless eaters.”
I suggest – just suggest - that you all read Rosa Koire’s book, and then weigh in on the real issue of this here thread = U.N. Agenda 21 = before you all gang up and ostracize me. On the other hand, I'm plenty tough; so go ahead - if it makes you feel any better...
"We have to stand and fight for private property rights, for personal rights, civil rights, human rights. The real rights, not the ones that are manipulated and manufactured by the smooth talking directors of 'our common future.' Communitarianism is that international law that says that you can't hold any land or water as an individual because it is inequitable. Any private ownership is inequitable. This is an incremental movement away from private land holdings.
"We may be old enough to finish our lives without seeing the complete end of it, but 2050 is the drop dead date, and it is actually slated for 2035. I wish that I was making this up. Ownership of property includes that of your own person. This is the truly terrifying element of this plan, and is exemplified by the increased surveillance and acculturation toward invasive technology. Look how easy it is to monitor every exchange we have now."
"Awareness is the first step in the Resistance.
Thanks for the note. Glad to have the discussion. "
I just finished reading Rosa Koire's book, "Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21" - which is available, for $16, postage included, from the website: www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com.
I recommend it, highly. Well worth the money - to stay informed. Good, old-fashioned muckraking. A very important, timely, well researched, and well written book.
Labeled as “tin foil” conspiracy theorists, called crazy and lambasted for the inclusion of Tea Party property rights activists and repeatedly told that they were imagining things, California property rights advocates may not be so crazy after all. The continual maligning of opponents who have exposed the ongoing implementation of Agenda 21 sustainability, smart growth, ICLEI, stack & pack housing, non-human habitat zoning and the effective end to property rights, are and have been right all along.
Conspiracy [theories] are theories only so long as you have no facts, only assumptions. Having facts to back up your suspicions does not lessen the conspiratorial act. It simply affirms the fact that the conspiracy does exist and this group of activists has that proof.
In the case of the attempts by UN Agenda 21 supporters and promoters who had for years successfully painted anyone who opposed their intentions to surrender portions of California (and the entire US) to UN Agenda 21 stack & pack housing and the ending of rural property rights, these characterizations mentioned above were quite successful. Those who opposed handing any portion of the state over to UN controlled regionalism were [tin foil hat conspiracy theorists]. They were simply right-wing extremists, violent liberals (depending on which side of the political spectrum was under fire at the moment), wing nuts, and a host of other commonly used metaphors to describe anyone who does not voluntarily submit and comply to the United Nations plan to deconstruct the United States.
According to promoters of Agenda 21, the 1992 agreement signed by Bush 1, did not mean anything. These same promoters claimed that Agenda 21 was an [old] obscure document and that efforts to highlight the link between this insidious agreement and the current trend of forcing rural/agricultural property owners off their land, particularly in Northern California was simply not true.
Heather Gass did a little searching of her own and came across this curious tax return for the 510c3 non-profit for ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments). Not only did she locate the 1997 ABAG tax returns but also policy statements from 1997 showing a Federal grant in the amount of 1,704,537 funneled into UN Agenda 21, ICLEI planning and initiatives and this has been in effect and carried forward since that year. And, with this funded initiative has come the continual attacks against property rights hidden behind ridiculous arguments over salmon populations, wild lands and biodiversity programs and other so-called [environmental] concerns. The UN hides its most despised programs behind contrived environmental concerns.
The attacks on property rights are facilitated by dangerous changes to land use codes and zoning, rending many property owners unable to enjoy the full use of the land they are paying taxes on. The object is to make land ownership so untenable, so useless to the individual, that the idea of property ownership will be out of the question.
According to Heather Gass: The ICLEI Tax return (1997) clearly states on page two that it is involved with Local Agenda 21 and specifies the budget for it. I also included a copy of the ICLEI Local Agenda21 Planning guide front cover.
The ABAG joined the Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development in 1997. This doc is off of their website https://www.bayareaalliance.org/compact.pdf It states that this Alliance and it’s members adopted the UN’s definition of Sustainable Development. This all happened in 1997. Why do they keep lying to us and telling us that One Bay Area and all of this is NOT part of the UN, ICLEI, Agenda 21 and that this plan is a result of a law from 2008 SB375?
And lie they do! Even when confronted with the facts, proponents of Agenda 21 and their non-stop efforts to end property rights continue to deny any connection to this unconstitutional agreement. Sustainability, Smart growth, Smart Cities, Biodiversity, non-human habitat zones, land use codes, Going Green, and other assorted buzzwords and catch phrases all come from UN Agenda 21 and are used liberally by those who are promoting this overthrow of private and individual land ownership and control. Consider it a form of conditioning to facilitate peaceful compliance to the surrender of all US land to control of the United Nations.
These claims that opponents are tin foil hat conspiracy theorists are a bit harder to maintain in light of this CSPAN video documentation of the 1992 meeting of the US House of Representatives c-spanvideo.org, found by another of those tin foil hat wearing activists:
Make sure and slide the player control to the 11:43:30 mark and watch until the 11:51:48 mark…H.C.Res. 353: A bill expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should assume a strong leadership role in implementing the decisions made at the Earth Summit by developing a national strategy to implement Agenda Twenty-One and other Earth Summit agreements through domestic policy and foreign policy, by cooperating with all countries to identify and initiate further agreements to protect the global environment, and by supporting and participating in a high-level United Nations Sustainable Development Commission. (CSPAN video located by Darin Moser)
The plan for One Bay Area is ground zero for the implementation of the first United Nations Region within the United States. The UN divided the country into 10 mega regions under Bush 1, and our own government under Obama, established the Council of Governors by Executive Order.
This Council is intended to eventually supersede local and state governments although it currently is supposed to be only the conduit for Homeland Security interference within the states.
Key to all of the efforts to render privately owned rural lands as unusable by the current owners, is the interference, harassment and intimidation of ranchers and farmers by the US Forestry Service the BLM, the EPA, and even NOAA. The focus of their efforts is to make rural land ownership so untenable that farmers and ranchers will leave voluntarily after many have been deprived of the full use of their own land by restrictive land use codes, arbitrary Federal regulations and rules and the intentional destruction of the rural economy.
Neutralizing the power of the Sheriff’s offices
Before any federal agency/agent can conduct any investigation or trespass onto private property, coordination with the county sheriff’s office must be conducted. The sheriff has the power and authority to deny the federal agency access. In most states and in most cases the sheriffs fail to act to protect property owners from federal harassment. In fact, most sheriffs across the nation willfully ignore the rights of their county residents and pander to the federal agencies.
In California……….not so much!
There can be no doubt the recent public statements from Sheriff Jon Lopey, Sheriff Gil Gilbertson, Sheriff Palmer (southern Oregon) and five other sheriffs, to the effect that they would defend the Constitutions, both state and federal, and by extension, the rights of property owners in their counties, upset the federal apple cart. So use to violating property rights without interference and so accustomed to having it presumed they were the highest and final authority when they showed up, it must have come as a shock to see these sheriffs honoring their oaths. After all, how many public officials do that these days?
In an effort to neutralize the authority and power of the county sheriffs, this MOU/MOA is being quietly schlepped around behind the scenes in California counties and communities. Reading this [agreement], you would never know these communities had a sheriff’s office or that the sheriff already has the power and authority to coordinate with federal agencies. In fact, the sheriff is never mentioned or even acknowledged.
It is agreed that with the implementation of this MOA;
A. The governing body of each county that chooses to participate in this MOA shall
designate a county contact for the USFS and BLM. This contact can be a
“position” such as “County Planner,” rather than a specific individual.
This agreement is only in effect for counties that choose to participate by officially
designating a county contact.
[The counties already have a contact “person”.......they call him [sheriff]!]
B. For each participating county, the USFS Regional Forester shall designate a USFS contact from each forest that contains land within that county. This contact can be a “position” rather than a specific individual.
[This is an obvious attempt to make sure that whomever this [contact person] is, will be some hack carefully placed into position to throw the doors wide open to the feds.]
C. For each participating county, the BLM State Director shall designate a BLM contact from each field office that contains land within that county. This contact can be a “position” rather than a specific individual.
Again…….they already have a person of contact…the sheriff. This document is an attempt to coerce counties into dis-empowering the sheriff, the rightful and lawful agent to engage in coordination with federal agencies, and to give that authority to a carefully selected and appointed individual or office. This is nothing more than an unlawful attempt override the authority of the elected office of sheriff.
There is no doubt northern California, along with parts of Oregon and other western states are under attack from foreign agents. The United Nations is a foreign agent that is attempting to sequester and hold off-limits major portions of valuable lands, much of which is privately owned at this time and they are being helped and facilitated by federal agencies and politicians. It is unfortunate that not only are residents and activists having to fight the plans of the UN, but more so that they are faced with battling other US citizens who have aligned themselves with dangerous and malicious federal agencies and who work against their own communities in efforts to implement these unconstitutional plans.
In my opinion, any community leader, commissioner, planner or whatever title an individual holds, that signs onto this agreement should be removed from office immediately. Secondly, consider revoking any corporate contracts with federal agencies and then proceed to take your land back under eminent domain.
The federal government has no business owning, managing or controlling lands within the geographical boundaries of any state. It is time the states took back what rightfully belongs to them.
Re: One Bay Area....California’s adoption of UN Agenda 21 regionalism
neutralizing Sheriffs! that sounds bad!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by ubaru:
One Bay Area…….California’s adoption of UN Agenda 21 regionalism and the attempts to neutralize County Sheriffs ... Labeled as “tin foil” conspiracy theorists, called crazy and lambasted for the inclusion of Tea Party property rights activists and repeatedly told that they were imagining things,... The continual maligning of opponents who have exposed the ongoing implementation of Agenda 21 ....
....... Those who opposed handing any portion of the state over to UN controlled regionalism were [tin foil hat conspiracy theorists]. They were simply right-wing extremists, violent liberals ... wing nuts,
ok, victimhood established. Now for the big buildup:
Quote:
Heather Gass.. came across this curious tax return for the 510c3 non-profit for ABAG ... Not only did she locate the 1997 ABAG tax returns...The UN hides its most despised programs behind contrived environmental concerns. ...The attacks on property rights are facilitated by dangerous changes to land use codes and zoning, rending many property owners unable to enjoy the full use of the land they are paying taxes on. The object is to make land ownership so untenable, so useless to the individual, that the idea of property ownership will be out of the question. ...
and lots more verbiage. Now the big reveal!
Quote:
According to Heather Gass: The ICLEI Tax return (1997) clearly states on page two that it is involved with Local Agenda 21 and specifies the budget for it...
and some more equally incendiary stuff like that.
Sorry, but really this is only compelling to those already committed. If you already feel that the crusades around opposition to Agenda 21 and ICLEIAOU are way overblown (as I do) there's not a thing here that challenges that impression. The 'connections' between the UN and local policy here are still weak and incidental; they're no stronger than the connection ABAG has to Kevin Bacon.
03-07-2012, 05:09 PM
Dixon
Re: One Bay Area....California’s adoption of UN Agenda 21 regionalism
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
The 'connections' between the UN and local policy here are still weak and incidental; they're no stronger than the connection ABAG has to Kevin Bacon.
Aha! I thought Kevin Bacon was behind this plot to take away our property rights! This proves it!
03-07-2012, 05:36 PM
ubaru
Re: One Bay Area....California’s adoption of UN Agenda 21 regionalism
Podfish,
I've seen you take partial parts of people's quotes multiple times to derail or take the power out of the message. I'm not enjoying it and your arguments lose my respect by taking this underhanded approach. How about not using that tactic any more?
This is the full text, with the important parts you left out...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by ubaru:
Labeled as “tin foil” conspiracy theorists, called crazy and lambasted for the inclusion of Tea Party property rights activists and repeatedly told that they were imagining things, California property rights advocates may not be so crazy after all. The continual maligning of opponents who have exposed the ongoing implementation of Agenda 21 sustainability, smart growth, ICLEI, stack & pack housing, non-human habitat zoning and the effective end to property rights, are and have been right all along.
Conspiracy [theories] are theories only so long as you have no facts, only assumptions. Having facts to back up your suspicions does not lessen the conspiratorial act. It simply affirms the fact that the conspiracy does exist and this group of activists has that proof.
03-07-2012, 06:45 PM
theindependenteye
Re: One Bay Area....California’s adoption of UN Agenda 21 regionalism
>>>I've seen you take partial parts of people's quotes multiple times to derail or take the power out of the message. I'm not enjoying it and your arguments lose my respect by taking this underhanded approach. How about not using that tactic any more? This is the full text, with the important parts you left out...
The problem for me with the conspiracy you and others have posited here is that the relation between the facts you put forth don't, in my mind, hold. Here's a fact, there's a fact, and the UN published a paper some time ago, and that PROVES that my problem with some Sonoma County building code is part of a global plot to enslave us -- well, cling to the belief if you must, but I wish you wouldn't force us to defend ourselves from the charge of being mindless sheep by charging *you* with being mindless sheep.
Rather than succumb to that, I guess I'd just better admit, yes, I'm a mindless sheep that has to ignore the incontrovertible evidence presented in order to drag my ass thru the day. You've convinced me: I'm dumb. I had a hard enough time with Kant & Hegel, but your logical acuity is way beyond that.
Cheers--
Conrad
03-07-2012, 10:35 PM
podfish
Re: One Bay Area....California’s adoption of UN Agenda 21 regionalism
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by ubaru:
Podfish,
I've seen you take partial parts of people's quotes multiple times to derail or take the power out of the message. I'm not enjoying it and your arguments lose my respect by taking this underhanded approach. How about not using that tactic any more?
This is the full text, with the important parts you left out...
sorry you don't like it, but it's not an "underhanded approach". In a BBS format you can't even really claim it's out-of-context quoting. Unlike other forms of media, the verbose version is right there for reference. It never occurred to me that it "takes the power out of a message"; in fact my point was that the message itself lacks power - that small observations are being pumped up as if they were major discoveries. I think my analysis of the structure of that post was accurate, and the parts I excerpted were intended to show the source of my conclusions. There's a good dramatic structure to the post, but it's not an argument intended to convince anyone who's not already in that camp.
The problem for me with the conspiracy you and others have posited here is that the relation between the facts you put forth don't, in my mind, hold. Here's a fact, there's a fact, and the UN published a paper some time ago, and that PROVES that my problem with some Sonoma County building code is part of a global plot to enslave us -- well, cling to the belief if you must, but I wish you wouldn't force us to defend ourselves from the charge of being mindless sheep by charging *you* with being mindless sheep.
Rather than succumb to that, I guess I'd just better admit, yes, I'm a mindless sheep that has to ignore the incontrovertible evidence presented in order to drag my ass thru the day. You've convinced me: I'm dumb. I had a hard enough time with Kant & Hegel, but your logical acuity is way beyond that.
Conrad, I don't consider U.N. Agenda 21 to be a "conspiracy." Rather, it is only part and parcel - and symptomatic - of the various kinds of directives that descend down to the commons from the lofty heights of Geneva, Switzerland - the home of the World Bank / I.M.F., and the headquarters of every multinational cartel and multinational corporation on the planet. Is Geneva itself a "conspiracy?" Hardly. It is merely a center where business is done, Globally. It is one nerve center of a System - end game capitalism.
Again, I suggest - just suggest - that, rather than engage in name-calling, [i.e., "mindless sheep", "conspiracy theorists", etc.; or calling yourself "dumb"] how about doing a little reading?
That way we can have an intelligent dialog, with a little more input of data...
As I wrote, "I just finished reading Rosa Koire's book, "Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21" - which is available, for $16, postage included, from the website: www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com.
I recommend it, highly. Well worth the money - to stay informed. Good, old-fashioned muckraking. A very important, timely, well researched, and well written book."
- Mark
03-08-2012, 03:49 AM
ubaru
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
I actually have considered myself a citizen of the world for years now. One planet, one human race!
That sounds so good, so happy, maybe in a utopian world, but the ruling elite are not folks you'd want ruling our one human race. Here are some examples of how you lose your property rights under UN Agenda 21. Remember, your property is also your body.
Communitarianism: Balancing your individual rights with the ‘rights of
the community.’ Defined now as the ‘global community.’ This is being
pitched to you as the new enlightened form of political discourse.
You are ‘selfish’ if you insist on your individual rights and
freedoms. This is the justification for UN Agenda 21/Sustainable
Development. For the good of the planet. For everyone’s security.
For your health. To protect your children. To limit workplace
violence. To stop bullying. To protect the ‘rights’ of those in the
future.
All of these are laudable ideas but somehow they always result in more
restrictive laws that affect everyone. They criminalize everyone. In
many towns simple ordinances have been criminalized. What does that
mean? If you don’t mow your lawn it’s a violation.
Will your child have a criminal record if he calls another kid a
'queer?' Will you be held responsible if your employee shoots someone
and you knew he was upset over a breakup with his wife? Will your 15
year old daughter be strip-searched at the airport? Will you lose
custody of your 10 year old because he is obese?
Will you be evicted from your apartment because you smoked on your
balcony in violation of a local ordinance? Will you be taxed for
driving 15 miles to work instead of riding your bike? Will you be
fined for watering your vegetable garden? Will your Smart Meter be
used to tell advertisers what to sell you? Will your Smart vehicle
with remote shut off capability be shut down by someone in your state
capitol while you're driving?
Will your neighbor report you to the Community Oriented Policing Unit
of your local police department because you seemed to be acting
strangely? Will you be denied the right to use the water in your
well? Will you be required to pay triple your original electricity
rates because your town has decided to go into the power business
(Community Aggregate Power Generation)? Will you be required to
donate acres of your ranchland for county open space before you can
put a house on it? Will you pay years of property tax without
receiving any services for it because Redevelopment debt has crippled
your city? Will you be required to do your mandatory volunteering
before you can get your child into Little League?
Will you be accused of not caring about the planet if you question
Sustainable Development?
Your rights have been balanced. Welcome to the New World Order of the
Twenty-first Century.
--
Rosa Koire, Behind the Green Mask p. 10, 11
03-08-2012, 03:49 PM
Dixon
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Liz, even though you're almost mind-numbingly cute, I can't allow you your lapses in logic.
The fact that we can cite lots of examples of stupid, repressive laws and rules doesn't mean there should be no laws or rules, and, even if all the examples cited by you are real, citing bad aspects of a particular social program doesn't necessarily invalidate that program. The anti-drug laws are bad, so should we repeal the laws against robbery, rape or murder? Duh.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by ubaru:
Communitarianism: Balancing your individual rights with the ‘rights of the community.’ Defined now as the ‘global community.’
Here's a little reality orientation for you, Liz: the community is global whether or not you or anybody is comfortable with that. How we live--especially we USAmericans, whose piggish, wasteful lifestyle is per capita the least sustainable on the planet--has huge effects on everyone planetwide. Low-lying island nations are disappearing under the waves, and Canada's forests are dying from acid rain, largely because you and I exercise our "right" to pollute freely. People in other countries are being slaughtered, maimed, tortured and displaced because we're exercising our "right" to their resources, which we "need" largely because so many of us think we have a "right" to drive gas-guzzling private vehicles unrestrainedly. Your continual harping on your "rights" is myopic; it's blind to the ways in which your exercising your "rights" violates the rights of others. Focusing on your presumed rights to the exclusion of the rights of others whom you hurt by your actions is self-centered thinking.
Quote:
This is being pitched to you as the new enlightened form of political discourse. You are ‘selfish’ if you insist on your individual rights and freedoms.
If these "...individual rights and freedoms" you cite include your presumed right to live unsustainably even if that substantially destroys other people's lives, then truly your position is selfish. Are you willing to look at that honestly?
Quote:
Will you be evicted from your apartment because you smoked on your balcony in violation of a local ordinance?
I sure hope so! Or do you think you have a right to poison others against their will with tobacco smoke in public places, thus taking away their right to decide for themselves whether or not to smoke?
Quote:
Will you be taxed for driving 15 miles to work instead of riding your bike?
I would be quite willing to pay that tax, because I see good reason for it. This is a maturity issue, Liz--the fact that something is unpleasant for us doesn't make it wrong.
Quote:
Will you be fined for watering your vegetable garden?... Will you be denied the right to use the water in your well?
Hopefully not--unless you're a big business that's sucking up way more than your share of water, thus depriving others who live over that water table. We do not have a right to all of the water we can suck up at the expense of others--do we?
Quote:
Will you be required to pay triple your original electricity rates because your town has decided to go into the power business (Community Aggregate Power Generation)? Will you be required to donate acres of your ranchland for county open space before you can put a house on it?
These sound like pretty good ideas to me.
Quote:
Will you be accused of not caring about the planet if you question Sustainable Development?
Yes, by me! :nod:
In short, here's where I have problems with your basic rap about this stuff:
1. You focus myopically on your own (presumed) rights, while being blind to the rights of others whom you may be stepping on by exercising your own "rights".
2. You seem to feel that if something is bad for you (i.e., expensive, inconvenient, contrary to your wishes, etc.), it's wrong. There's no apparent recognition that there may be good reasons to expect us to put up with things we don't like, including restrictions on our freedoms, for a greater good.
I would file both of these habits of thinking under "immature", "unenlightened", and "self-centered". Just sayin'. :2cents:
03-08-2012, 05:41 PM
Marty M
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Well said, Dixon.
Marty
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
Liz, even though you're almost mind-numbingly cute, I can't allow you your lapses in logic....
In short, here's where I have problems with your basic rap about this stuff:
1. You focus myopically on your own (presumed) rights, while being blind to the rights of others whom you may be stepping on by exercising your own "rights".
2. You seem to feel that if something is bad for you (i.e., expensive, inconvenient, contrary to your wishes, etc.), it's wrong. There's no apparent recognition that there may be good reasons to expect us to put up with things we don't like, including restrictions on our freedoms, for a greater good.
I would file both of these habits of thinking under "immature", "unenlightened", and "self-centered". Just sayin'. :2cents:
Dixon, my impression of Liz's "basic rap" is that she merely adheres to old school thought on the "Rights of Man." That's the school of thought promoted by Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, & Thomas Paine, at the beginning of the American Revolution in 1776. In was a big hit on the Continent also, in 1789, the first year of ye olde French Revolution. This thesis posits the Rights of all people - including yours, Dixon; not just "cute" little ol' Liz.
And what do you mean by this, Dixon: "There's no apparent recognition that there may be good reasons to expect us to put up with things we don't like, including restrictions on our freedoms, for a greater good."??
Are you suggesting a change injurisprudence,en route towards the coming "Great Leap Forward?" Or that, in the glorious future of One World, we should consider it a necessary privilege to voluntarily abrogate, individually and collectively, some of the current, excessive baggage of archaic "Rights" left over from the age of the dumb old Enlightenment?
And, by the way, Dixon, who's gonna be the arbiters or judges - in this Brave New World that you envision - of which "freedoms" {of ours} require "restrictions" =OR= what constitutes the "greater good" ??? - The multinational capitalist scum who are the current scions of the stern old Calvinist Burghers of Geneva?
Just wondering,
- Mark
03-10-2012, 01:21 AM
Dixon
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Iolchan:
Dixon, my impression of Liz's "basic rap" is that she merely adheres to old school thought on the "Rights of Man." That's the school of thought promoted by Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson...
How ironically appropriate, in this context, that you cite a couple of genocidal slave-owners as exemplars of the rights of "man"! :hilarious:
Quote:
This thesis posits the Rights of all people...
That's what I've been talking about, Mark--the rights of all people, including the rights of people around the world (not to mention our own progeny) not to be killed nor have their quality of life destroyed by the pollution, resource depletion, global warming and resource wars caused by the USA's greedy, wasteful lifestyle. I shouldn't have to repeat this stuff to you; I've already said it clearly.
Quote:
And what do you mean by this, Dixon:
Quote:
"There's no apparent recognition that there may be good reasons to expect us to put up with things we don't like, including restrictions on our freedoms, for a greater good."
Mark (and anyone else who disagrees with me on this stuff), let's cut through the bullshit and establish some basic truths. Here are some facts that I want you to acknowledge the truth of before this silly-ass discussion goes any further (and they're not rhetorical questions; I want you to address them specifically):
1. Our current lifestyle in the USA, even more than in other countries, is unsustainable. That is, the amount of resource depletion, pollution, global warming, desertification, etc. caused by our profligate lifestyle is too much for the carrying capacity of our ecosphere, so that continuing this way will create an increasingly unlivable world for our children and grandchildren.
2. The consequences are not just in the future; we're seeing terrible consequences already: record droughts that are killing people in Africa, loss of island nations to rising sea levels, murderous resource wars, etc.
3. We don't have a right to, for instance, run internal combustion engines or use electricity as much as we'd like if that means suffering and even death for others--and it does!
4. Since we're getting a very late start on even acknowledging and addressing these issues, and since most of us are, to varying degrees, too self-centered, short-sighted, undisciplined and habit-bound to make sufficient changes sufficiently quickly, public policies will have to be made and enforced.
5. The fact that such changes may be unpleasant, inconvenient or expensive for you or me is irrelevant to whether they should occur.
Quote:
And, by the way, Dixon, who's gonna be the arbiter and judge...of which "freedoms" {of ours} require "restrictions" =OR= what constitutes the "greater good" ??? - The multinational capitalist scum...?
The same people who enforce laws against, e.g., murder, theft and rape are obviously the only ones who are in the position to enforce the needed environmental policies. Of course, they're corrupt to the core, but that doesn't mean everything they do is bad (see, for instance, their enforcement of the reasonable laws I just mentioned).Bottom line: what's your alternative plan for dealing with our severe environmental crisis--denial?(And that's another question I want you to answer, instead of just evading it as you've done thus far.)
03-10-2012, 08:38 AM
podfish
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
... let's cut through the bullshit and establish some basic truths. Here are some facts that I want you to acknowledge the truth of
that's not gonna work. You're establishing postulates and creating what your opponents will see as straw man arguments. I agree with your perspective and conclusions, by the way, but I'm not sold by your argument. (sorry for the use of my traditional underhanded approach, but I'm going to edit the quotes to keep it short).
Quote:
1. Our current lifestyle.. is unsustainable. ... global warming, desertification, etc. caused by our profligate lifestyle....
oops. That cause is unproven! and I bet there's pages of links saying so.
Quote:
2. The consequences are not just in the future;
the link isn't established; you can't safely apply the word "consequences" to the events.
Quote:
3. We don't have a right to.. run internal combustion engines or use electricity .. if that means suffering and even death for others--and it does!
global warming's a hoax; so no connection to the use of ICE and electricity exists. Besides, that, the argument applies to diamond jewelry too; just because an industry is inhumane must the products be rejected? (a good question, actually, but a different one...)
Quote:
4.... we're getting a very late start on ... addressing these issues, and since most of us are,.. too self-centered, short-sighted, undisciplined and habit-bound ... public policies will have to be made and enforced.
government is ineffective and never actually solves problems; involving them just makes things worse.
Quote:
5. The fact that such changes may be unpleasant, inconvenient or expensive for you or me is irrelevant to whether they should occur.
tempting as it is, I'll leave that alone. But I bet that's not universally accepted, judging by public discourse these days!
03-10-2012, 10:32 AM
Hotspring 44
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Without a planetary bill of rights for everyone ({that} also includes a doable comprehensive environmental preservation scheme) which includes rights to; have, shelter, food, reasonably clean and safe drinking water, inalienable property rights (enough to have a reasonable ability to realize all the other rights I mention here), reasonable amount of education for all individuals to be equipped with the knowledge so as to be able and reasonably willing to practice a sustainable birth rate and have the ability to be functional as individual human, and also to have the ability to work and function in the environment that they live in locally, and the right to mobility out of places that can’t or do not accomplish those bare-bone basics and actual access to (the) “policing” (of) actively and doing (the) enforcement of those rights; otherwise, the continued corruption on a massive scale like as what is happening now will only either increase or at least (that) would merely maintain the corruption within the ranks of the status-quo that we all seem to more-less agree exists (in excess) at an increasing level and are so complaining about.
Consensus on what to do to curb that excessive abuse of power of the status-quo?.... ....HA!!!... ...That is another one of those societal conundrums; isn’t it?
As far as I can tell “Agenda 21” is being used by several high-powered, competing interests that have agendas of their own. I think that at this point, regardless of the original intent of the genuine original authors of whatever started “Agenda 21”; it (“Agenda 21”) is now functioning as a smoke-screen emitting from multiple sources which ultimately further serves the purpose of maintaining the power structures for the entrenched select few.
This thread is another example of the sidetracking that takes place when major shifts in power are a real possibility.
How ironically appropriate, in this context, that you cite a couple of genocidal slave-owners as exemplars of the rights of "man"! :hilarious:
Genocidal ? That's a little excessive, if you ask me. Please show us which genocide Thomas Jefferson & Patrick Henry were guilty of, Please, before you bandy serious adjectives like "genocidal" around. True, they both owned slaves. They were both born into Virginia plantation-owning families which owned slaves. And, it is true, Jefferson did not manumit all of the slaves he "owned" when he died - as Washington did. Patrick Henry, poor by comparison to most of the Virginia plantation owners, had only eight slaves, and manumitted some of them in his Will - I do not know the exact number.
I'm personally very aware of - and well read up on - the Hypocrisy of the Founding Fathers; of even Thomas Paine himself, the pen-for-hire who wrote very eloquently about the Rights of Man. Does their hypocrisy justify a rejection of the high ideals which they proclaimed? - of the sovereignty of the individual, and the Rights of Man? Where's the Logic in that, Dixon?
I'm also aware that the French Revolution took a negative turn, with the Terror. None of that really matters, nor does it negate the fact, Dixon - the absolute historical fact, that the Declaration of Independence was a revolutionary document and that both the Language and the Ideas in it were extraordinarily Radical for their day.
The Idea of Freedom - and the Rights of Man had a life of their own and they went on to change history, and they went around the world. The Declaration of the Rights of Man, drafted into a document by the National Assembly in France, entered into the minds of Black colonial slaves, & went on to cause a slave revolt and a Revolution down in Haiti.
Google Advanced Search: Haiti ,"Rights of Man" ,"Toussaint Louverture" - airport
Even today, Africans and Black folks, in the former colonies of the European powers, and still smarting from the lash of Colonialism, mindful of the lessons of history, and informed by the thinking of the revolutionary black psychiatrist, Frantz Fanon, are far more aware than the Caucasian, liberal, self-identified "Green" - ideated posters on this particular internet bulletin board, of the Neo-Colonial nature of Globalism, and the danger of internalizing the oppression that Globalism imposes upon People - All People...
Google Advanced Search: internalize, oppression "Frantz Fanon" , Globalism
And, while I'm @ it, this is for you, Conrad, and may answer some of your questions; so pay attention :
Google Advanced Search: Agenda 21 , I.C.L.E.I. , Globalism ,
As far as answering your five points, Dixon, I will, and soon; when you have addressed these questions that I have already posed, in full:
Are you suggesting a change injurisprudence,en route towards the coming "Great Leap Forward?" Or that, in the glorious future of One World, we should consider it a necessary privilege to voluntarily abrogate, individually and collectively, some of the current, excessive baggage of archaic "Rights" left over from the age of the dumb old Enlightenment?
And, by the way, Dixon, who's gonna be the arbiters or judges - in this Brave New World that you envision - of which "freedoms" {of ours} require "restrictions" =OR= what constitutes the "greater good" ??? - The multinational capitalist scum who are the current scions of the stern old Calvinist Burghers of Geneva?
And while you're @ it, Dixon, do the Google Advanced Search:I.C.L.E.I., Agenda 21, Geneva, Switzerland, and spend a few hours studying the issue, willya? There is a problem here. It's the old elephant / rhinoceros in the living room syndrome.
The paradigm of Freedom, and the Rights of Man, a vestige from the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century, even today - especially today - is way more radical than what you are espousing when you write: "There's no apparent recognition that there may be good reasons to expect us to put up with things we don't like, including restrictions on our freedoms, for a greater good."
I'll gladly address the following questions you posed me, after you have addressed the former ones I posed you. I won't allow your own "lapse of logic" - or breakdown of correspondence in this dialog to pass without a few honest answers from you.
Quote:
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Dixon wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/image...post-right.png
1. Our current lifestyle in the USA, even more than in other countries, is unsustainable. That is, the amount of resource depletion, pollution, global warming, desertification, etc. caused by our profligate lifestyle is too much for the carrying capacity of our ecosphere, so that continuing this way will create an increasingly unlivable world for our children and grandchildren.
2. The consequences are not just in the future; we're seeing terrible consequences already: record droughts that are killing people in Africa, loss of island nations to rising sea levels, murderous resource wars, etc.
3. We don't have a right to, for instance, run internal combustion engines or use electricity as much as we'd like if that means suffering and even death for others--and it does!
4. Since we're getting a very late start on even acknowledging and addressing these issues, and since most of us are, to varying degrees, too self-centered, short-sighted, undisciplined and habit-bound to make sufficient changes sufficiently quickly, public policies will have to be made and enforced.
5. The fact that such changes may be unpleasant, inconvenient or expensive for you or me is irrelevant to whether they should occur.
- Mark
03-10-2012, 01:15 PM
Braggi
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
that's not gonna work. You're establishing postulates and creating what your opponents will see as straw man arguments. I agree with your perspective and conclusions, by the way, but I'm not sold by your argument. (sorry for the use of my traditional underhanded approach, but I'm going to edit the quotes to keep it short).
oops. That cause is unproven! and I bet there's pages of links saying so. the link isn't established ... !
Wow podfish, you have swallowed some of the biggest lies of the corporate controlled right wing and can spew them forth word for word as though the mighty Rush Limbaugh himself was posting here.
Amazing.
-Jeff
03-10-2012, 01:41 PM
podfish
Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Braggi:
Wow podfish, you have swallowed some of the biggest lies
am I overly subtle or is irony easier to miss on the weekends?
