A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

[ubaru]

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

[Dixon]

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

Will you be accused of not caring about the planet if you question Sustainable Development?

Yes, by me!

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'.

[Marty M]

Well said, Dixon.
Marty

Liz, even though you're almost mind-numbingly cute, I can't allow you your lapses in logic....

[Iolchan]

Dixon wrote:

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'.

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 in jurisprudence, 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

[Dixon]

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"!

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.

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."

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.

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.)

[podfish]

... 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).

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.

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.

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...)

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.

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!

[Hotspring 44]

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.

[Iolchan]

Dixon wrote:

How ironically appropriate, in this context, that you cite a couple of genocidal slave-owners as exemplars of the rights of "man"!

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:

iolchan wrote:

Are you suggesting a change in jurisprudence, 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.

Dixon wrote:

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

[Braggi]

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

[podfish]

Wow podfish, you have swallowed some of the biggest lies

am I overly subtle or is irony easier to miss on the weekends?

[Jim Bennett]

I'm glad to see this subject which is central to ALL that is wrong with our society (civally and fiscally) is still alive on the blog and on waccobb's radar, regardless of our willingness to accept it as truth, yet.
Human nature takes comfort with a 'belief set' over time and it's hard to let go of that cozy blanket of explanation to our reality.
One thing we should be able to agree on-in our heart of hearts we know something is terribly wrong, that a bona fide effort is not being set forth toward our well being and freedoms.
In an open forum like a town hall meeting (a suggestion?), or a lengthy presentation the existence/goals/manifestation of this socially engineered oppression could presented beyond refute.
From mounds of documented proof to Nancy Pelosi actually pitching this tyranny to Congress in the early 90s on video.
That's why the clandestine denial chapter lasted so long.
My purpose in submitting a second post on this subject isn't to contest anyone's belief set or to 'stir the pot', I just want to say this;
this oppression/Agenda is not about 'green', it is not about the environment, or conserving resources.
That is just the guise, the excuse, the vehicle.
The first of the three components that make up the Hegelian Dialectic which has been utilized to great effect throughout the 21st century by oppressors.
PROBLEM; 'global warming', 'terrorists', lack, shortages or 'peak oil' which are contrived as an instrument.
REACTION; can't replace good old fashioned fear. The physiological changes it evokes and the way it circumvents our reason.
SOLUTION; in the wake of having synthesized the first two, the third component of the dynamic invariably necessitates our control
( the Patriot Act comes to mind).
The globalists that ARE Agenda 21 Sustainable Development are/were associated with the Gulf disaster, GMO foods, fluoridating the water supply and spraying us with tons of crap from the sky, turning Iraq into a nuclear wasteland forever etc., these tyrants DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT.
How ironic, how evil that they would cite the people's activities as being at 'fault' for same
(like having 'spare the air' days after extensive arial spraying).
They have horded technology that would negate our need for oil, they have horded much information that would help mankind immensely in favor of a landscape that serves them, their control and their profit.

So please, can we toss out the 'divide and conquer' page from the oppressors playbook, which has served as distraction over and over?
Not allow another imposed polarity; most all of us love and are grateful for our beautiful planet.

Some major 'events' are going to come down this year (guess who?) that will require real community.
Common-Unity, nothing with an 'ism' at the end.

Let me frame the importance of our recognition and resistance of the Agenda like this.
Understanding that these people leave little to chance, they obviously deemed our demographic and consciousness here as being leaders.
If they can impose this model here-they can do it anywhere. So.
If America is the beacon of hope and admiration to the Free World.
If Northern California was chosen as the template, the example of this oppression for America.
What will become of humanity's freedom if we allow this tyranny to stand here. Now.
Instead let us together ask THE QUESTION of our time to our public officials.
The same question being asked of Leon Panetta in Congress this week as he tried to tell them he doesn't need Congressional OK to go to war again,
he says he takes his orders from the UN/NATO.
Some righteous Constitutional congressman with a spine are reminded him that saying so is an act of high treason for him and Obama-impeachable.
Unlike our local city councils and BOS, at least he recognizes/admits who he really works for.
Our local Government with their ICLEI membership have taken the liberty (literally) of signing us up for an ideology that is FUNDAMENTALLY opposed to the Constitution.
Instead of our basic rights and property rights being unalienable, inherantly ours.
Our rights are granted by the government, reconciled through ideology that extends same through what THEY deem 'the greater good'.
A communitarian postulate in direct opposition to the law of the land.
This paves the way to totalitarian tyranny, as it is now doing with the incremental decimation of our Constitution, and subsequently with some of the mind blowing draconian laws being passed on an almost weekly basis.

THIS is the issue of our time.

Loving the Earth and our freedoms are NOT mutually exclusive is the jist of what I'd like to share.

So here's to choosing love over fear in what will prove to be the most significant year, ever. Promise. -Jim Bennett

[geomancer]

---global warming's a hoax--

Really? So I'm a liar and so are 99% of the earth scientists on the planet.

Pardon me if I speak from authority, but I have been Earth science student, teacher or professional since 1958 when I started college, and I have paid attention to the climate change debate as it developed, watching the evidence roll in. There is no question in my mind that global climate change (mostly heating) is real, accelerating, and largely driven by the waste products of human civilization.

My age and experience give me a long view of where the trends are leading, and they are not pretty. I have had it with all the uninformed, ignorant crap and disinformation being circulated about humanity’s role in climate change.

At this point, the scientific evidence is so clear that anyone who denies humanity’s responsibility for the mess this planet is in is, take your pick, a fool, naïve dupe, contrarian crank, religious fanatic, liar, willfully ignorant or the paid henchman of sociopathic corporate powers. So deniers, take your pick - wherever the shoe fits, be my effing guest.

The "scientists" paid to shill for these corporate planetary parasites are of the same type who argued for decades that cigarettes did not cause cancer. These fools and liars are complicit in the sixth mass extinction in geologic history and will have the blood of whole ecosystems on their hands.

There is a tendency in the Earth science community to downplay what we really think, because the situation is so dire that we fear we would be discounted as alarmist, or plunge people into paralytic despair. Candidly, sadly, if the accelerating buildup of atmospheric and oceanic CO2 continues, in the latter half of this century it will be game-over for the low latitudes and a very rough time in the north, with huge migrations of climate refugees from the south and from low-lying coastal regions, along with a cascading planetary-scale extinction event. The oceans will be acidified, coral reefs largely dead, and most of the large, fertile river deltas will be under water. There is so much inertia in the global economic juggernaut that there is no stopping the CO2 buildup at this point unless there is a huge die-off of the human race. That surely will come, but much too late for the biosphere.

What can we do? Learn to live simply because the fat times are ending. Civilization itself is threatened by the end of cheap energy and the loss of arable land. We may be headed for a time when the salvage of knowledge and the rescue of organisms from the ruins of the biosphere will require major efforts. Perhaps we will not repeat the huge cultural losses that took place when Christianity destroyed Classical civilization.

Richard

[kpage9]

Richard,

Remember the song "Four Eyes"? Your and Braggi's reactions to Podfish's post remind me of my reaction to that song when I first heard it--totally appalled that making fun of someone had been elevated to such popularity--and by people I liked!

I'm surprised that sophisticated you took Podfish's exasperated irony seriously.

kathy

[geomancer]

If he was being ironic, I'm sorry, but it wasn't obvious, and you know how ironic humor fails on email.

In any event, the rant stands as is. If the shoe fits...

Perhaps Mr Fish can enlighten us on his views on climate change?

Richard

Richard,

Remember the song "Four Eyes"? Your and Braggi's reactions to Podfish's post remind me of my reaction to that song when I first heard it--totally appalled that making fun of someone had been elevated to such popularity--and by people I liked!

I'm surprised that sophisticated you took Podfish's exasperated irony seriously.

kathy

[Braggi]

I'm surprised that sophisticated you took Podfish's exasperated irony seriously.

kathy

Oh damn. I hate it when that happens.

Obviously I'm not caught up on my Wacco reading.

In the immortal word of Rick Perry: "oops."

-Jeff

[theindependenteye]

>>>Remember the song "Four Eyes"? Your and Braggi's reactions to Podfish's post remind me of my reaction to that song when I first heard it--totally appalled that making fun of someone had been elevated to such popularity--and by people I liked! I'm surprised that sophisticated you took Podfish's exasperated irony seriously.

Count me in as another reader who missed the irony. Easy to do when there have been so many similar-sounding screeds on this forum, and you start to skim this stuff pretty fast if you have any kind of outside life. With that in mind, I'll keep my own irony (normally my best friend) under a tighter leash.

That said, I don't feel Richard's post is in the category of "making fun of someone." I'd call it an all-out, profound blast of rage from an otherwise gentle man, and fully deserved by the fools, dupes and shills — and the well-meaners, too — of the vast Denial Community.

-Conrad

[podfish]

If he was being ironic, I'm sorry, but it wasn't obvious, and you know how ironic humor fails on email.
In any event, the rant stands as is. If the shoe fits...
Perhaps Mr Fish can enlighten us on his views on climate change?
Richard

no problem with the rant- independent of whether the triggering event was well chosen, it was a good rant. Nothing inappropriate about it!
since you ask, I'll point out that within the post itself I mentioned that I agreed with Dixon's perspective - I was only pointing out how his post would be taken by those who didn't share his views.

One thing, though - I'm no longer planning to offer my recipes for tasty Irish baby stew on Wacco. Your guys' loss...

[Hotspring 44]

Regarding a post here, I received a private email that said:

"Hotspring 44, This post leaves me confused as to which part of this thread you consider to be sidetracking, the ones who see UN Agenda 21 as a threat or as a savior?"

At least; both...

...It, whatever it may be, (by far, not just this thread's topic) that has a real chance of making real changes to the power structures of the (shall I say) elite gets noticed by the ones that stand to "loose" their "Super-Power" of whatever authority they seem to act like (believe) that which authority is an inherited "right" that (is) they inherited (it) directly from "God" and things such as the best of intentioned, accurate, and well thought, attempts to educate and put forward whatever it may be regardless of how beneficial to the vast majority of people and in the case of the original thoughts that went into the “UN Agenda 21” more often than not, end-up getting either character assassinated and/or co-opted:...

... hence, the inevitable "wedge issue" based "sidetracking" ensues and here we are on this thread with very little or without any real say-so about the changes that would enhance the real wealth potential for us and others, locally, as a human in a world with 7 billion people to feed, house, and in one way or another weather we like it or not, relate with on some level.

When some people here in "waccoland" mention the US Constitution in the most selfish of contexts and they don't appear to give any glimmer of consideration of the predicaments of others; that in itself says (in a subliminal way), a lot about their intent (in some cases agenda) to me.

Please understand, I am not trying to pick on or criticize anyone here in particular (I don't necessarily read all of everyone’s various postings except mine {to proof read}) , I am saying that in most part, as a generality.

Like I stated on my first post to this thread:...

"Without a planetary bill of rights for everyone"

... ...etc.

...UN Agenda 21 is a co-opted regime but originally, before it became "UN Agenda 21", it was intended to be a world-wide bill of rights.

Another way to state one point that I am saying is that any one; group, individual, or public, could own an amoeba, or even trillions of them but I don’t believe anyone can actually "own" (the) species amoeba.

What I am trying to get at is that some people believe they "own" everything that they can worm (or force) their way into weather it be; midea, politics, military contracts, multibillion dollar mining operations, oil wells, stock market futures, real estate, opinions, or whatever else you can note; which is major causes of the "inevitable sidetracking" that goes on; including but not limited to this thread.

In other words,; between the reluctance to letting-up from the death-grip on some egotistical opinions and the sacred realm of ("God given") "property rights"; which in my observation almost always is the primary reason for the "death-grip" onto those aforementioned “egotistical opinions”...
...there are a lot of issues of concern about how someone can abuse their "power" by way of how they use or not use their supposed "property".
Those concerns regarding the abuse of power by way of "ownership" are legitimate and some of them have a great deal of merit.

["Mad" Miles]

Yep, that ol' Irony Impairment Virus (IIV) has been making the rounds again. Must be something to do with the times.

"Happy" Fukushima Daiichi 1-6 Day!!! Whoo hooo.....

The IIV seems to even be striking those who are Irony-abled and who usually display high levels of resistance.

In a private communication with one of my favorite Wacoons (among many) they shared this Dark Prophecy from The Master of the Ironic Arts. It speaks volumes. May it be your inoculation for a renewed resistance to IIV.

Crap, the Anti-Vacc'sers will now have a new bone to chew on!!! When will it ever, ever, ever end??????

(Cue whimpering and gnashing of teeth. Garment rend at will.)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FzM...&feature=share

[Iolchan]

We could use...

Hotspring44 wrote:

...a planetary bill of rights for everyone ( that also includes a doable comprehensive environmental preservation scheme) which includes rights to have shelter, food, ...clean and safe drinking water, inalienable property rights... education for all individuals ...the ability to be functional as individual human... to work and function in the environment that they live in locally, and the right to mobility...

Amen,
Aumen,
Aum
...

But,
{however}

U.N. Agenda 21

just ain't it.


Ergo,


Omega.



Occupy -- the -- Highlands
{ The former Commons }
=The Once & Future Commons=

[Braggi]

One thing, though - I'm no longer planning to offer my recipes for tasty Irish baby stew on Wacco. Your guys' loss...

So, where do you get the tasty Irish babies?

-Jeff

[Braggi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FzM...&feature=share

Even that lovely video doesn't capture how amazingly good he is live.

If you ever get the chance to see him, go for it.

Leonard Cohen rocks.

-Jeff

[Hotspring 44]

...

But,
{however}

U.N. Agenda 21

just ain't it;

As I have in essence mentioned on my previous posting, #108 IE:

"What I stated on my first post to this thread:

"Without a planetary bill of rights for everyone"
... ...etc.

...UN Agenda 21 is a co-opted regime but originally, before it became "UN Agenda 21", it was intended to be a world-wide bill of rights."

(Note: emphasis added using bold and colored type + margin and spacing changes on above original quote).

I remember hearing about the discussions of a world wide bill of rights being talked about in the late 1960's and then later, in the 1970's it being considered more seriously by colleges as a topic for development into what now is referred to as "UN Agenda 21".

I was rather young in 1960's and I at that time was not aware of the possibilities or details of the UN Charter and all that but I always believed that an equality of all human rights world wide is essential for there to be a real chance to have true freedom and liberty because, otherwise, we get caught-up in our own or get manipulated into being sidetracked into various schisms.

[Hotspring 44]

Are “Irish Babies” any thing like Spectacular, easy, & delicious: Big Dutch Babies* ?

So, where do you get the tasty Irish babies?

-Jeff

["Mad" Miles]

With regard to Agenda 21 being a Global Bill of Rights, or not. All that comes to mind is:

There's always a critic.

No good deed goes unpunished.


A little earlier I told my neighbor I want to play with their baby. I sure hope they don't get word that I'm participating in this discussion!

[theindependenteye]

>>>>So, where do you get the tasty Irish babies?

Special order from Whole Foods. But you can probably get a better deal if you buy local.

-Conrad

[ubaru]

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

[CSummer]

Just for a change, I'd like to try imagining that there are some things we all want. I'd like to believe that if we could focus together on those things instead of on what we don't want, we might have a better chance of creating the kind of society, economy and world we truly desire.

We want to be free to choose the way we live, where we live and with whom we associate.
We want to have the widest range of options to choose from in terms of products and services, especially those that are healthy for us and the earth.
We want to offer our gifts to others - and to humanity.
We want to be empowered to create with others a healthy, peaceful, joyful, sustainable way of life - and a society/economy to support that way of life.
We want mutually caring and supportive connections with our fellow humans.
We want to share resources, power and responsibility with others in managing our collective affairs.
We want everyone to have access to what they need to meet at least their basic human needs.
We want to resolve conflicts peacefully - without resorting to violence or giving up our power to others.
We want everyone to have access to their own local natural resources for their own use and to trade.
We want everyone to live without fear of military invasion, political repression or economic deprivation.

(If there's anything that needs to be added to this list, please let me know.)

Only when we let go of our positions and arguments and find a common ground to meet each other can we find opportunities to work together to create the kind of world we really want. As long as we fail to do that, those addicted to power will rush in to fill the power vacuum and manage our affairs for us - as they have done for centuries.

I do not see fear as a useful organizing emotion. It doesn't free the flow of creative energies or the sense of personal power that giving birth to a new social order will require. This is why I want us to focus on what we want, rather than on what we're afraid might happen (and arguing endlessly over that). Fear tends to keep us stuck in powerlessness and arguing becomes just another distraction.

Turning our attention to what we want - including how we want to feel about ourselves, our lives and our world - enables us to find a place where we can meet in mutual support. From that place, we can begin building connections with each other that free our life energy for the huge task of re-creating human society.

C Summer

[ubaru]

I remember hearing about the discussions of a world wide bill of rights being talked about in the late 1960's and then later, in the 1970's it being considered more seriously by colleges as a topic for development into what now is referred to as "UN Agenda 21".

I was rather young in 1960's and I at that time was not aware of the possibilities or details of the UN Charter and all that but I always believed that an equality of all human rights world wide is essential for there to be a real chance to have true freedom and liberty because, otherwise, we get caught-up in our own or get manipulated into being sidetracked into various schisms.

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

[Dixon]

>>>>So, where do you get the tasty Irish babies?

Special order from Whole Foods. But you can probably get a better deal if you buy local.

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.