A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

[Jim Bennett]

You guys are lucky to have 'ubaru' on here.
You have a journalist quality writer speaking truth on your blog, talk about gratitude, very cool.

'CSummer's post reminds me that aside from speaking the truth about our civil dynamic (darkness),
it's also important to fixate on where we DO want to go (light).
Because what we think about-comes about.
When we're skiing, driving, riding our bike-we don't want to be afraid of, stare at the tree.
We want to look at where we're going, even visualize it.
I am mindful of what's going on, I want to speak the truth, but I don't want to be a dark worker.
I'd rather be a light worker.
I'm workin' on it.

I'd love to know just which human rights, property rights, and ownership over your body people who see UN Agenda 21 as their planetary savior are willing to give up?

Are you digging being groped at the airports? Are you getting used to it? Are you psychologically now more conditioned for increased searches, seizures, and "your papers please?" Because these are now being expanded to trains, buses, and highways.

Are you fine with the possibility that you can't use the fluoride-free water in your well, or that the rain that falls on your property isn't yours? Wait, I thought rain barrels were good conservation practice.

Or that the global government will redefine obesity in conjunction with new food rationing austerity laws and if your child falls in that category they will be taken from you? Or that you will be denied food, water, or medicine unless you obey? With nano chips inserted into your food, water, and medicine, this kind of monitoring is possible.

Or that if your child gets cancer and you don't want to treat him/her with chemo and radiation that you'll have to go into hiding like this family did? Ditto for vaccinations. But where will you hide in the future with drones that can fly in and out of your windows?

Or that your back yard garden is heading for a clash with the law because you want to water it?

Or that kids can no longer have lemonade stands?

Or that medical marijuana just got thrown under the bus?

Are you willing to give up responsible camping because wilderness areas have become off-limit protected zones?

Are you willing to give up your dream of getting back to the land with your friends, or even buying a house anywhere outside of the Redevelopment Zones because there are just too many fees, regulations, and red tape?

Do you want to buy your food from thousands of miles away because the local farmers can't make it with the new laws?

UN Agenda 21 is the toxic mimic of environmentalism. True environmentalism has been highjacked.

'Communitarianism' is the toxic mimic of the kind of community that you and I really want.

UN Agenda 21 uses Orwellian language that appeals to our sense of concern about the planet, but means the opposite. Smart meters are smart for the corporations who want to spy on you so they can know better what to sell you, but for the people they're really a dumb idea that isn't 'green' at all.

"One of the elements of a new rule of law is the creation of a new language to go with it. Called 'jargon,' this new vocabulary has a different meaning for those in the know from what you would understand from just seeing or hearing those words. Nearly every profession has its jargon, but the implementers of UN Agenda 21 rely on the obscurity of their definitions to keep you from becoming alarmed.

Livable. Walkable. Vibrant. Bikeable. Consensus. Conversation. Progressive. Community. Diversity. Carbon Footprint. Smart. Vision. Green. Stakeholders. Regional. Sustainable. Buzz words and slogans are used as tags to manipulate you. When you hear jargon words like this you are being conditioned to support and accept the project or plan they're attached to without questioning it. These words, by their regular usage in the media and implied acceptance by your peers , tell you that something is popular. They are designer buzz words. Jargon that has been created to help you feel that you belong to the masses, that you are doing something positive and good, and that you'll gain acceptance by participating. The best public relations people in the world are working on these terms, just for you.

The new definition for consensus is the neutralization of expressed opposition."

"And just a note regarding Totalitarianism and Fascism--because that's what we are talking about here. Every totalitarian state is based on these five elements:

• Total information on inhabitants and resources
• Total control of movement, speech, labor unions, universities, churches, production, and markets
• Terror
• Vision of a glorious future
• Spartan control of the present, scarcity

Fascism differs in that it allows for corporate controls and private ownership with government subsidies (public private partnerships) and is essentially government controlled by big business. The rest of the elements are the same."

Rosa Koire Behind the Green Mask p. 23,24,109

By the way, this is a very well researched book on the subject, and if you're in this discussion for more than just the exercise in debate, and you think your future is important enough to research this agenda, then I recommend you check it out. And also this video in which Rosa does an excellent job of following the money.

UN Agenda 21 talks about preserving the future for our children, when what this really means is that by 2050, or 2035 if they can pull it off, the state will have total control of your property which includes your body. What kind of future is that for our children? Slavery and neo-feudalism. Russia and China are examples of this.

I question man made climate change. It never felt right to me because of the fear I saw being used to indoctrinate our children and the money to be made by it. Climate change is happening, yes, but apparently it's also happening on every planet in our solar system where there are no SUV's, factories, and farting cows.

Cap & trade, carbon tax, geo-engineering, eugenics and population control will not stop global warming, because warming happens throughout the solar system. So follow the money. Who gains by promoting this spin?

From the point of view of the ruling elite, the propaganda formula that works is problem, reaction, solution. So if you want to be a global power control freak, as they are, manufacture a global problem. Put in your paid team of "scientists" to say it's true. Manufacture the reaction with Al Gore's "A Convenient Lie." Indoctrinate your children with the neurotic idea that they are bad for the planet. Present a global "solution" that puts a lot of money in your pocket, ultimately by making you their slave partly by making you give up your work for the state, in what they call mandatory "volunteerism," and by taxing and fining the bejeezus out of you, or making you do time in one of their prisons, and make it seem politically incorrect unless you goose step to the green beat. Ta Da!! Totalitarian globalism well on it's way.

It's really time to wake up.

At the end of the day this is KEY: Totalitarianism and democracy can be differentiated by things that are Mandatory with fines, fees, taxes, and imprisonment vs. using persuasion and upholding Choice. In a democracy people have the latter and are allowed a fair and just trial. Now we have NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act; imprisonment without trial.

The thousands of new laws are keeping the prison industrial complex fed and happy, which is one example of the new slavery.

So which laws are you willing to be subjected to? Which human rights, property rights, and control of your own person are you willing to give up? This is a literal question, so let me hear from you.

When I first saw an older version of this 'Ordering Pizza in the Future' video many years ago I thought, this is scary, may that never happen. But since then they've rolled out mandatory smart meters, obligatory Obamacare, which includes total government knowledge of your health history, and government databases on your every action, and now this scenario is entirely possible.

Maybe it's time to dust off your copy of 1984, and recognize that you're being sold a bill of goods. Only this time, with the gross misuse of technology, the totalitarianism is on steroids.

And now I ask, what are you going to do about it?

Liz

[The A Team]

OK, I know this has been a big picture discussion so far.( I have read UN agenda 21) and see it in a totally different light.
A similar "fear of government" plan played out locally also lead by some of the same.
I know that in our neighborhood, which was a part of the Gateways project & was slated for a part of the 100 million dollars of federal rehabilitation funds.
People who didn't live in the neighborhood came in with a fear of emminant domain, ( city government claiming and buying property for a project). Which, after talking with city planners it turns out has happened one time in 50 years in Santa Rosa. They took petitions to immigrant families and told them the government was going to take their homes away from them.This ploy successfully removed our downtown neighborhood from desperately needed funding, which included new spaces for small businesses and affordable housing.
There was a large citizens committee that would have decided how to spend the funds and work with city planning,
We are still hurting from this misguided derailment.

Now

Rosa talks about the history of UN Agenda 21 in her book, Behind the Green Mask, on p. 21

I'm a heck of a lot more concerned about getting caught up in a globalist elite power schism than yours or mine.

Liz

[theindependenteye]

.>>>I hear the babies from Whole Foods aren't organic. And they may be contaminated with GMOs. I'd suggest hunting your own, or recycle roadkills.

Dixon, with your logical mind, I'm surprised that you're resorting to the same old FEAR tactics that have been denounced so forcefully on this thread. "Organic"? "GMOs"? Don't you realize this was exactly the tactic used by the anti-cigarette conspiracy — "Cancer, cancer, cancer!" — in collusion with the vast multitudes of scientific researchers making their reputations by the old demonology of possession-by-smoke-inhalation? They forced vast regulation on the ignorant populace, pushing smokers out on the street where they could easily be frostbitten or picked off by snipers, broke the bonds of true community formed traditionally by breathing each others' smoke, and interfered with people's most intimate lives by forcing them to invent other things to do after sex. What's the result? People live longer, thus raising long-term medical costs, unemployment, depletion of natural resources, you name it.

Your proposals do the same. The Constitution contains nothing restricting our rights to eat any baby we want, so long as it's legally ours by birth, purchase, or finders-keepers. Follow the money: your proposal would support the gun industry, state-controlled hunting licenses, and the gas-guzzling SUVs required for optimal roadkill, besides promoting the Fear Agenda explicitly endorsed by the United Nations and adopted by such multinational organizations as the Sebastopol City Council (if that seems an exaggeration, look at the list of so-called "sister cities" posted at the city limits).

No restrictions on our food supply, say I, so long as we clean our plates.

Cheery-bye—
Conrad

[geomancer]

Here is a link to the Big Bad Sacry Agenda 21 home page (I also put the whole table of contents, with hot links, up on Wacco Reader).

https://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/...nda21_00.shtml

[Dixon]

You are so right, Comrade--er, I mean Conrad. At the very least, we must resist the oppressive depredations of the one-worlders' U. N. Agenda 21 by asserting our right to eat our own babies. This is a property rights issue, and as we all know, property rights trump every other concern.

[Dixon]

Sorry about this, but apropos of our current tangent, I can't resist sharing this link I just serendipitously stumbled upon:
https://gizmodo.com/5892584/creepy-b...-birthday-cake

[ubaru]

Agenda 21 on Steroids

March 14, 2012 by onephoenix

Debbie Coffey

Copyright 2012 All Rights Reserved.

____________________________________________________________

The Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development is Agenda 21 on steroids. If you take the word “Environment” out of the title (which seems to be thrown in to placate you), and call this the International Covenant on Development, you will more clearly see the intent of this manifesto.

The Covenant is intended to become a binding Global Treaty and the template for international law. International attorneys have been hammering this out for about 16 years. The 4th draft was issued in 2010.

The Covenant is about control of development, and social engineering, by the United Nations. Remember, the United Nations is a trade organization funded by money from corporations, organizations and associations funded by corporations, and foreign governments.

The Covenant states it focuses on “social and economic pillars.”

In the Covenant’s footnotes, it refers to the constitutions of Brazil, India, Namibia, and even the Islamic Republic of Iran. But this manifesto doesn’t adhere to the U.S. Constitution. If the Covenant is adapted by the United States, it will be the end of our Constitution and our rights.

The Covenant has 79 Articles.

The Covenant claims control of “areas beyond national jurisdiction, high seas and outer space.” (Article 3) The stated reasoning for this declaration of control of everything is because the global environment is a “common concern.”

The Covenant demands laws and regulations that “integrate” international law for ALL forms of physical planning. (Article 41) This includes town and country planning, ALL infrastructure (including highways, railways, waterways, dams, harbors, etc.), aquifers, drainage basins, coastal and marine areas and “any other areas constituting biological units.” It covers allocation of municipal, agricultural, grazing, forestry and other uses. It even “encourages” parties to limit their subsidization of private enterprises, including agricultural subsidies.

The Covenant covers everything.

In Article 34, “TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT,” (the operative word being trade), “sets out the duty to cooperate and establish and maintain an international economic system” with global rules of trade. The Covenant defines “duty” as a legal obligation. What do you think an “international economic system” is?

The Covenant is issued by the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) and the ICEL (International Council on Environmental Law).

The IUCN
On the IUCN website, it states: “IUCN links its Mission to the paramount goals of the international community on environment and sustainable development, in particular Agenda 21…”

Agenda 21, the United Nations action plan, is cited throughout the Covenant. Agenda 21’s OBJECTIVE is communally and collectively owned and managed land. This is communism.

U.S. agencies that are members of IUCN are: U.S. Departments of State, Commerce, Agriculture (Forest Service), the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These agencies are also on the White House Rural Council.

The Covenant
1) The Covenant is to remain a “living document” until it is adapted. (A “living document” can change at any time.)
2) The Covenant is intended to be a MINIMUM set of obligations.(Article 64)
3) The Covenant states “No reservations may be made to this covenant.”
(Article 76) (This means you can’t opt out of anything.)
4) The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall be the Depository of this treaty (Article 78) (So who do you think will be running this show?)

Also in the Covenant:

Article 11 – This is about eradication of poverty. Sounds nice, but when this document, or Agenda 21 (which it cites) brings up “equity” or directing social and economic needs in an “equitable manner,” this is communism.

Article 16 – This is about consumption and production patterns (think Smart Meters being installed on your homes and offices) and the “importance and power” of multilateral development banks and “regional” economic integration organizations. This ties into Article 28, which requires surveillance (again, think Smart Meters being installed on your homes and offices), and management of processes and activities, but as of yet, “no specific rules to identify or evaluate” this. (Hold your breath for the 5th Draft.)

Article 29 – Is about “harmonization” and anything that can “help eliminate non-tariff barriers to trade.”

Article 30 (p.99) – Humans are defined as “organisms,” and as if this weren’t funny enough, it is followed by “Control” should “involve limiting the increase in numbers and spread of the organism by appropriate elimination, removal or other measures.”

Article 33 – This is about providing for long term resettlement and estimating the “carrying capacity” of the environment.

Article 36 – This is about Military and Hostile Activities. (Does the US have to ask permission from the UN to declare war?)

Article 39 – This is about management plans for harvestable transboundary biological resources, which would establish quotas and seasons for permissible taking. (Who gives this permission?)

Part VIII. – IMPLEMENTATION AND COOPERATION – stresses the importance of implementation of ALL obligations of the Covenant and the principal of general international law, including procedural obligations.

These “procedural obligations” are:

Article 67 – Parties submit periodic reports to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the measures they have adopted, progress made, and difficulties encountered in implementing their obligations under this Covenant.
(Like from pesky Americans who fight for their Constitution.)

Article 69 – Settlement of disputes – to be submitted to either an arbitral tribunal, including the Permanent Court of Arbitration, or to judicial settlement, including the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

Article 70 – Review Conference. Secretary-General of the UN convenes a conference every 5 years to review implementation of the Covenant.

Article 71 – If you want to amend any part of this Covenant, you have to submit it to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
(What about our Congress? Will there be anything left for them to do? Will they lose their jobs?)

Article 43 – This obligates parties to cooperate in the formulation of international rules and standards, which is called “harmonization.”

Article 48 – This is about biotechnology, and requires sharing the “benefits,” defined as research and development results, royalties, access and transfer of technologies.

Article 63 – Parties are encouraged to become parties of treaties furthering the objective of this Covenant. (This means the UN is going to shove the Covenant down your throats one way or another.)

Who wrote the Covenant?

The Covenant was launched at the UN Congress on Public International Law in 1995. The Second Edition was presented to UN Member States at the 54th UN General Assembly. The Third Edition was presented to UN Member states at the 59th UN General Assembly. The 4th Edition (this one) was presented to UN member states at the 65th UN General Assembly.

The United States of America is a UN Member State.

Contributors to (writers of) the Covenant include the “Secretariat,” many international lawyers and U.S. professors from: Cornell University, Princeton, Pace University, Middlebury College, George Washington University Law School, Bucknell University, University of Indiana, University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point, Meadville Theological School, and University of the Pacific.
Also, Daniel B. Magraw, who was Assoc. General Council for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In 2006, Mr. McGraw was listed as President and CEO of the Center for Environmental Law (one of the organizations issuing this Covenant), as a past Director of the International Law Office of the EPA (1992-2001), as Director of Lightbridge Corp., a provider of nuclear energy, and as a new member of the Board of Directors of Thorium Power, a nuclear energy company.

Other contributors were Nicholas Yost of the big international law firm Sonnenshein, Nath & Rosenthal (which represents WalMart, Sears, and Sony, to name a few), the Hastings Center and Arthur Westing of Westing Associates in Environment, Security and Education.

Since these contributors are professors and lawyers, you’d assume they’ve read our Constitution and might’ve noticed how the Covenant conflicts with our Constitution and our rights.

After 4 drafts, all of the words and ideas in the Covenant have been very carefully crafted. The words “must” and “shall” are directives. The Covenant uses terms like exclusive economic zones, buffer zones, interconnected corridors, and the word regional. Pay attention to the words region, regionalism and ecoregion. Regionalism is one way Agenda 21 is already being implemented in this country. Regionalism separates you from city, county and state government, where you (for now) still have a voice in your government.

RIO + 20

In June 2012, there will be a United Nations Conference called Rio + 20. We must make sure our government doesn’t become a party to, or “partner” or participate in any way, with the implementation of the Draft Environmental Covenant on Environment and Development.

Authors note: Many thanks to excellent researcher/writer Nicole Johnson for bringing the Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development to our attention.

To learn more:
www.democratsagainstunagenda21.org www.morphcity.com the PPJ Gazette
SOURCES:
The Covenant: https://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/inde...&nr=83&menu=45
or https://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/EPLP-031-rev3.pdf
Agenda 21: https://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
https://www.un.org/en/members/
https://people.forbes.com/profile/daniel-b-magraw/79742
https://www.caprep.com/b1006011.htm
https://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/index.html
https://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/memberstates.html
https://www.iucn.org/about/work/prog...licy/sp_about/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administr...ouncil/members

[geomancer]

https://www.alternet.org/story/15455...ge?page=entire

SPLC's Hate Watch / By Ryan Lenz

UN's Agenda 21: The Main Target In The Right's Fight To Deny Climate Change

How an obscure UN smart-growth plan became the biggest rightwing rage target since Obama's birth certificate

March 14, 2012 |

Photo Credit: tommjonzz

LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

In the last several years, an obscure United Nations accord called Agenda 21 has emerged as something of a unified field theory for the antigovernment movement. On its face, Agenda 21 does nothing but provide countries and communities with a set of principles to grow smartly –– a plan, in short, to fight overpopulation, pollution, poverty and resource depletion.

But for a far-flung network of antigovernment extremists who have risen up to attack it, the nonbinding document that was approved 20 years ago at the UN’s Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro is not really about preserving the planet at all. Between the lines, they argue, lies a blueprint for the “New World Order.”

In his final days on Fox News, Glenn Beck passionately argued that by agreeing to follow Agenda 21, the U.S. government had colluded with internationalists to undermine its own sovereignty and turn the nation into an environmental refuge where nature would take precedence over people.

“Those pushing … government control on a global level have mastered the art of hiding it in plain sight, and then just dismissing it as a joke,” Beck told his viewers, holding up the 294-page document. He cautioned: “Once [internationalists] put their fangs into our communities and suck all the blood out of it, we will not be able to survive.”

The irony is that Agenda 21 is all about survival. It was intended to offer a strategic plan to scale down the use of natural resources to levels that meet “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations.” (The 21 stands for the 21st century.) One hundred and seventy-eight world leaders, including President George H.W. Bush, signed on to the agreement in 1992.

While there is some opposition to Agenda 21 from the left –– from groups like Democrats Against Agenda 21 –– it’s on the radical right that the UN plan has become a touchstone of a larger theme that equates environmentalism with totalitarianism and the loss of individual freedom. For a growing cast of far-right hardliners, Agenda 21 is a sort of Trojan horse, a totalitarian scheme with a green environmental mask, lying in wait to destroy America as we know it.

How such an arcane UN document that defines the concept of “smart growth” and environmental sustainability became so controversial, even though it gives the UN no enforcement powers, has a lot to do with the work of a tight cadre of antigovernment “Patriot” activists whose fears are rooted in right-wing lore about a New World Order, a kind of authoritarian one-world government. Figures such as Tom DeWeese, head of the American Policy Center, Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the anti-feminist Eagle Forum, and John Bush, with Texans for Accountable Government, have in recent years crisscrossed the country to put on seminars and conferences that strike terror into those inclined to believe conspiracy theories about powerful global elites plotting to install a socialistic global government. The John Birch Society, an archconservative group formed during the Red Scare of the 1950s, regularly assails Agenda 21 with the fervor it once reserved for communists.

Under Agenda 21, these activists argue, the expansive American way of life, in which everyone can aspire to the dream of owning a house with a big yard and two cars in the driveway, will be replaced by one in which increasing numbers are crammed into urbanized “pack ’em and stack ’em” apartment complexes, and forced to use mass transportation and live according to a collectivist ethos. Once the UN’s radical utopia is achieved, gun ownership will be forbidden and the UN will raise an army intent on terrorizing the populace in the name of social order and equality, sustainability and smart growth –– all words that anti-Agenda 21 activists believe signal the true intent of the UN’s plan.

Armed with suspicions and “research,” activists have disrupted meetings from Oklahoma to Ohio, where a Facebook group called Ohio Agenda 21 Watch keeps tabs on “the many socialist groups working in Ohio whose aim is take away our sovereignty and incorporate Ohio into UN control.” In Maine, the Tea Party-backed governor canceled plans to ease congestion along a busy road in response to anti-Agenda 21 protests, The New York Times reported.

In Edmond, Okla., protestors shut down a community workshop held to gather public input on environmental sustainability. After 20 minutes, police were called to disrupt the melee, and the backlash to the city’s decision to follow Agenda 21 ultimately prompted officials to stop coordinating with the UN. Shannon Entz, a community development manager in Edmond who helped organize the workshop in December 2010, told the Intelligence Report that a group called Govern Edmond Locally had enraged the audience with fliers vilifying the UN.

“I can understand how people, in some cases, may be fearful of government,” Entz said. “[But] where it loses steam is they give cities and government a little too much credit. … We certainly don’t have the money or the political will to hurt, or harm, or take private property [to protect the environment].”

In Colorado, Patriots have fiercely resisted environmental initiatives proposed by the U.S. Forest Service. Some are convinced the UN is cutting off access to national forests to leverage natural treasures against foreign debt, or worse, to build prison camps for U.S. citizens. The Tenth Amendment Center and the Oath Keepers have launched propaganda campaigns to curb the supposed UN advance. Even the League of the South (LOS), a neo-Confederate group that advocates a second Southern succession, has gotten involved. Those attending the grand opening in January of the LOS compound in Wetumpka, Ala., had to wipe their shoes on a UN flag before entering the building.

During a speech in late 2010 to the City Council in Austin, Texas, where he lives, John Bush of Texans for Accountable Government summarized the global plot that these activists believed they have unmasked. He had come to challenge a local resolution designed to make the city more energy efficient.

“Before carbon was thought of as the most evil thing in the world,” Bush said, “there were … internationalists hashing out a plan to further their scheme for world government through the means of excessive environmentalism.”

Experts who study conspiracy theories attribute the rise of Agenda 21 fears to distrust of the UN that existed long before the document was drafted and approved at the Earth Summit. “Any time you get some sort of UN program that suggests any kind of change in the way people live, even if it seems outwardly benign and even voluntary, it’s going to be taken up by people of a conspiracist bent,” Michael Barkun, a political science professor at Syracuse University, told the Report.

The fact is that Americans on the extreme right have harbored wild fears about global control, and the loss of national and local power, for at least a century, going back to the League of Nations and even before. Much more recently, in 1991, President George H.W. Bush deepened suspicions about the designs of global elites when he used the term “new world order” during a speech to Congress following the Gulf War — an utterance that, in retrospect, has been interpreted as a revealing slip of the tongue. The signing of Agenda 21 came the next year.

Now, with the resurgence of the Patriot movement since President Obama’s election, Agenda 21 has moved to the top echelon of radical-right fears and has become a mainstream issue as well. The Republican Party this January adopted a resolution opposing Agenda 21, characterizing it as “destructive and insidious.”

Just as it did with communism, the John Birch Society has done as much or more than any other group on the radical right to drum up panic and outrage. It has held more than a dozen conferences across of the nation in the last six months to sound the alarm. “It boils down to control,” spokesman Bill Hahn told The Missoulianafter a protest in Missoula, Mont.

“Do we allow an international organization to implement its extreme environmental agenda through innocuous names of sustainability, smart growth, etc., or do we retain the sovereignty that allows us to govern ourselves and decide locally what is best?”

There seems to be an even better question: Is there something real to fear in Agenda 21 — or is it just another bogeyman of the politically paranoid?

Arthur Goldwag contributed to this report.

[Iolchan]

*

Left, Right, Left, Right, Left...

Even in recent years, the Left has sometimes been spectacularly correct about discerning the plutocratic origins & intentions of 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 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 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.


Homework :

Google Advanced Search: ICLEI, "Agenda 21" , "Geneva, Switzerland"

Google Advanced Search:"Agenda 21", Baccalaureate,"Geneva, Switzerland"

Link : "ONE MAN -Wendell Wilkie" by C. Nelson Sparks, Republican Mayor of Akron, Oh

Link : "Tragedy and Hope - A History of the World In Our Time," by Carroll Quigley; Bill Clinton's professor & mentor at Georgetown University.

Link : "The Anglo-American Establishment," by Carroll Quigley

Read -=- Study

...Connect the dots...

[ubaru]

"If I Wanted America to Fail"




"If I Wanted to Save America"