Sustainability is Malthusianism for the 21st Century

Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both
governments and individuals and an unprecedented
redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
of every human action be integrated into individual and
collective decision-making at every level.

– UN Agenda 21

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
– Maurice Strong Rio+20 Earth Summit 1992,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Rio+20 Earth Summit, 1992.

Screen Shot 2014-01-28 at , January 28, 12.01.12 pm

At the 1992 Rio +20 Earth Summit, the international community adopted Agenda 21, an unprecedented global plan of action for sustainable development.

Agenda 21 aka ICLEI, set in motion the global environmental and sustainable development goals that replace freedom with servitude, capitalism with socialism and property rights with “sustainable development.”

Sustainable development lies at the heart of the United Nations’ crooked ideology to extend the powers of government, raise taxes, weaken the capitalist system, curtail personal freedoms and “redistribute the world’s income through climate policy“.

Nick Cater on the dogma of sustainability that is polluting the Australian school curriculum:

…Thus the corporate sector has surrendered to the dispiriting dogma of sustainability, the heresy that took hold among the hippies in the late 1960s and mutated into a misanthropic, deep green movement in the 70s.

Today it wears a pinstriped suit and sits in the boardroom signing off on the most egregious muddle-headed nonsense in the name of corporate responsibility.

Sustainability may present itself as harmless mumbo-jumbo that helps build a brand, but its underlying philosophy is antithetical to freedom and to enterprise.

“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow,” Ayn Rand wrote in 1972. “They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other until one day they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

Four decades later, her prophecy has been fulfilled. Sustainability is one of the three priority themes in the new Australian curriculum, polluting everything from algebra to zoology.

The sustainability priority is futures-oriented, focusing on protecting environments and creating a more ecologically and socially just world through informed action,” the curriculum says.

Students are encouraged to consider “that unlimited growth is unsustainable; sustainability – that biological systems need to remain diverse and productive over time; and rights of nature – recognition that humans and their natural environment are closely interrelated”.

Sustainability is Malthusianism for the 21st century: the fallacy that population is growing faster than the available resources and that ruination is just around the corner.

The world viewed through the prism of sustainability is a deeply depressing place in which dreams are discouraged, imagination is restricted and the spirit of progress frowned upon.

Sustainability means never having to say sorry. In 1990 the World Hunger Project calculated that the ecosystem could sustainably support six billion people, and then only if they lived on a vegetarian diet.

More than two decades later, with 7.1 billion people living on the planet, global beef production has increased by 5 per cent per capita, pork by 17 per cent and chicken by 82 per cent, and that’s not counting the eggs.

The World Food Programme estimates that there are 170 million fewer malnourished people than there were in 1990.

The inconvenient prosperous truth is that the human beings have, since the dawn of time, created more than they used on average over the course of a lifetime.

The happy by-product of an expanding population ever more interconnected is that the sum total of human knowledge grows exponentially.

The energy crisis, the one that is supposed to lie just around the corner, has been creating anxiety since the 1600s when Britain began to run out of firewood. Scarcity spurred the development of coal. The great whale oil crisis of the 1840s stimulated the search for oil. Time after time the coming catastrophe is postponed through abundance, and the inherent dishonesty of sustainability is exposed.

Human ingenuity is an infinitely renewable resource. Prosperity comes from seizing the elements of nature and rearranging their form.

“Wealth does not exists as a fixed, static quantity,” wrote Rand. “It is the creation of a dynamic, boundless mind. And it has no inherent limitation.”

Bitten by the dispiriting dogma of sustainability | The Australian

(Climatism links added)

•••

See also : “In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” | CACA

•••

UN Agenda 21 and ICLEI Sustainability :

UN Agenda 21 and ICLEI Sustainability Operations in Australia:

United Nations Related :

CACA Hot Links :

Quote source – The Green Agenda

Advertisements

Sleepwalking to extinction, or maybe communism?

The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe
.
– 
emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization
and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global
community will inevitably have multiple political consequences.
Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change
in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must
assume some aspects of a world government.

– Mikhail Gorbachev,
State of the World Forum

We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis
…”
– David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member

The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man
.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

•••

Post by Joanne Nova discussing eco-nut Richard Smith’s latest Marxist musing. A piece that demonstrates the poisonous ideology and misanthropic zeal that lies at the very heart of the “climate change” debate.

green-agenda

via JoanneNova.com.au

Sleepwalking to extinction, or maybe communism?

From Sleepwalking to Extinction. Climate Madness is coming, and to save us Richard Smith says we need an eco-socialist civilization! Jo Nova thinks we need people who can add up numbers.

Capitalism and the destruction of life and earth

Super Typhoon Haiyan has sent a chill through the global nervous system. Thousands dead. Weather scientists in shock. Lives destroyed. The greatest typhoon to touch land in recorded history brings with it more than total destruction. It ups the level of urgency for a new economic paradigm … one that puts the planet first. Radical economist Richard Smith shows us a way out of the “climate madness” about to descend everywhere.

Haiyan was the worst typhoon, — apart from all the worse ones. (Like 1912 ,  1898,  1882 etc etc and those were just the ones in the Philippines.)

So long as we live under this corporate capitalist system we have little choice but to go along in this destruction, to keep pouring on the gas instead of slamming on the brakes, and that the only alternative — impossible as this may seem right now — is to overthrow this global economic system and all of the governments of the 1% that prop it up and replace them with a global economic democracy, a radical bottom-up political democracy, an eco-socialist civilization.

What’s a radical bottom up political democracy if not the kind where every citizen can vote? Is that where cats dogs and chickens vote too? Or is it where everyone votes, but they can only pick a government Richard Smith wants?

In this parallel universe we are all deniers – even Obama

Hansen, McKibben, Obama — and most of us really — don’t want to face up to the economic implications of the need to put the brakes on growth and fossil fuel-based overconsumption. We all “need” to live in denial, and believe in delusions that carbon taxes or some tech fix will save us because we all know that capitalism has to grow or we’ll all be out of work. And the thought of replacing capitalism seems so impossible, especially given the powers arrayed against change. But what’s the alternative? In the not-so-distant future, this is all going to come to a screeching halt one way or another — either we seize hold of this out-of-control locomotive, or we ride this train right off the cliff to collapse.

At least he recognises the carbon taxes and fake free market is not the answer. Too bad he wants to throw out the real free-market too. I guess it’ll have to be state-run — what could possibly go wrong? Bring in the politburo!

The answer is always totalitarian

Emergency Contraction or Global Ecological Collapse?

If there’s no market mechanism to stop plundering the planet then, again, what alternative is there but to impose an emergency contraction on resource consumption?

(How about we wait until we get models that work, and scientists that predict things. Then we could try out some “bottom up democracy”?)

The good news is that Smith says that while we need to impose a martial law on resource consumption (like oil, coal, bricks, mining and metal) it doesn’t mean that we have to go without anything important.

This doesn’t mean we would have to de-industrialize and go back to riding horses and living in log cabins. But it does mean that we would have to abandon the “consumer economy” — shut down all kinds of unnecessary, wasteful and polluting industries from junkfood to cruise ships, disposable Pampers to disposable H&M clothes, disposable IKEA furniture, endless new model cars, phones, electronic games, the lot.

Somehow your house will be warmed, your old car will keep running, your old phone will turn up (and work), and furniture will appear in your group-share apartment. You will learn to like true retro-rusty-chrome chairs salvaged from 1965.

And who needs Pampers? Richard Smith will come to your house to help wash the nappies, right?

H/t Tom Nelson

•••

UPDATE

Spot-on comment via Soylent Siberia

Jay said…

Funny, every Marxist country I had the (mis)fortune to travel through back in the 80’s to early 90’s was an environmental shithole. Staring at the noontime sun in a cloudless sky through a thick fog of coal smoke that every building was burning for heat in Beijing, green wiggly things coming out of the water tap in Shanghi, fields where nothing could be grown due to heavy metal sludge in Poland, and let’s not forget the Marxist environmental masterpiece of Chernobyl. Yes, we need the Marxists to step in and destroy the environment to save the environment. Much like they step in and destroy people to save people.

Moral of the story ~ The greatest driver of environmental health is economic prosperity. If you want a healthy environment, you need a healthy economy first.

For more on that see this :

•••

Related :

Quote Source – The Green Agenda


United Nations Agenda 21 : The Death Knell of Liberty

Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both
governments and individuals and an unprecedented
redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
of every human action be integrated into individual and
collective decision-making at every level.

– UN Agenda 21

Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.” From the 1976 report UN’s Habitat I Conference.

The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man
.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.

is

Re-pressed via Gulag Bound :

At the U.N. Summit at Rio in 1992, the Conference Secretary-General, Maurice Strong, said “Isn’t the only hope for this planet that the industrialized civilization collapse?  Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

–  G u l a g  –  B o u n d  –

“The common enemy of humanity is man.  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. […] The real enemy then is humanity itself.

– From the Club of Rome’s “The First Global Revolution” p. 75 1993

“Therefore, send not to know for whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee.”
– John Donne (1572-1631)

The death knell for freedom has been tolling for some time, and only now are people starting to hear it.  It started tolling faintly, decades back, and has slowly progressed in volume, until today its tolling is impossible to ignore.

The United States of America — that “shining city on a hill” — had a good run of it, and made a gallant effort at establishing liberty for all.  But as the old saw would have it, all good things must come to an end.

Liberty, after all, is an aberration in mankind’s history — a light that has flared here and there over the centuries, only to dissolve back into the darkness.

America is barreling towards becoming a bit player on the world’s stage, and its vaunted middle class — once the envy of the world — is on the verge of being eliminated.  For the good of the planet, for the good of Gaia. for the good of the collective — freedom is being replaced by servitude, capitalism by socialism, and property rights by “sustainable development.”

I’m not talking about something we need to be on guard against.  It is all already in place.  It has been going on for quite some time, and it will continue to go on, at a greatly accelerated pace.  We are at the “end game” point.

And the Globalists know it.  Why do you think the Democratic (and many Republican) political hacks on Capitol Hill are so dismissive of the American people?  They are essentially putting on a “dog and pony show” for public consumption, while the final pieces for America’s defeat are slid into place.

To a great extent the Globalists own the mass media, the entertainment industry, and the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches of government.

Why should they worry?

Already, several generations have been indoctrinated, via our school systems, to value globalization and “social justice,” over personal responsibility and free enterprise.  They have been repeatedly sold the idea that they should,  “Think globally, act locally.”

God has been demeaned, marginalized, and eradicated, at every turn.  Our religions are, in many cases, a watered down and diluted mimicry of true spirituality.

The Globalists have come out from the closets, the woodwork, and from under rocks.  They know that their time of hiding is at long last over.  They are brazen about, and proud of,  their anti-American/pro-global stance.  Their arrogance and hubris is palpable.

Call them Communists, Marxists, Fascists, or Globalists — call them what you will, they are collectivists who despise America’s middle class, capitalism, and free enterprise.

They have been duplicitous, Machavellian, clever, and patient.  And it has paid off — the trap has been sprung.  How did this happen?  America got hit high, and America got hit low.  We suffered sudden catastrophic sneak attacks from without, and insidious long-term betrayal from within.

We were hit low by Alinskyesque “community organizers” in our streets, and propagandists in our schools.  We were hit high by “think tanks” like the Trilateral Commission, the CoR (Club of Rome), and the CFR (Council for Foreign Relations).

They have divided us with special interest groups, vociferous “talking point” attacks, and identity politics.  They have infiltrated our schools, and indoctrinated our children.

They have opened floodgates using the Cloward-Piven Strategy — overwhelming our judicial system, banking establishment, and border security.  They have encouraged corruption and greed at the lowest, to the highest, levels of government.  They have twisted and perverted the U.S. Constitution.

They have promoted and encouraged anything and everything that would help bring America down.

They intend on taking over the planet, but first they need to destabilize, and then destroy, the United States of America.  Because we are a powerful bulwark of freedom, we have to go first.  And to a large extent, go we have.

The Club of Rome (CoR) was founded 1968, in Italy, by Aurelio Peccei, an Italian scholar and industrialist, and Alexander King, a Scottish scientist.

Over the years the list of its members has included ex-presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens, diplomats, and billionaires.  Its membership roster reads like a “who’s who” of the world’s “movers and shakers.”  It includes U.N. bureaucrats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe

After its inception, it split into two additional branches: The CoB (Club of Budapest), and the CoM (Club of Madrid).  The CoB focuses mainly on social and philosophical/religious issues, while the CoM concentrates more on political issues.  In addition, there are over thirty affiliated organizations in other countries — such as the USACoR in the United States.

The CoR first garnered public attention with its 1972 report “The Limits to Growth,” which went on to become the best selling environmentalist book of all time.  Simply stated, its main thesis is that economic growth cannot continue indefinitely, because of the limited availability of natural resources, particularly oil.  It’s sort of an industrialized version of a Malthusian nightmare.

Diagram from The First Global Revolution

Twenty years later, the CoR published The First Global Revolution — a quote from the book appears at the start of this article.  This book also made a big splash, and helped to re-energize and expand the whole environmentalist movement.

Another quote from the book worth keeping in mind is, “It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary… sucha motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the purpose….”

“One invented for the purpose.”  Enter global warming and greenhouse gases.  But something even more important happened the year before The First Global Revolution came out.

At the instigation of the CoR, and their ilk, in 1992 the United Nations held the Conference on Environment and Development — informally known as the Earth Summit — in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

At the Earth Summit, 178 nations signed an agreement called Agenda 21 — so called because it dealt with the United Nation’s agenda for the 21st century.

It consists of numerous chapters detailing the role that different parts of society should play in implementing “sustainable development.”  There are chapters for central governments, local governments, businesses, and community organizations.

Ideological model for planned and enforced sustainable development

George Bush senior, then President of the United States, flew down and committed the United States to the U.N. FCCC (Framework Convention on Climate Change) agenda.

Ever since then, the Executive Branch — Republican and Democrat — has been bypassing Congress, and passing “soft laws” foisting Agenda 21 on the American public.

Check out the U.S. Department of Energy website.

Check out the U.S. Department of Agriculture website.

Check out the U.S. Department of the Interior website.

No matter where you go, environmentalism permeates the U.S. Government bureaucracy.  Sometimes it’s blatant and out front; other times you may need to dig a little — but it is always there.

The Agenda 21 Globalists wine and dine each other, and hold conventions and conferences around the world.  They give each other praise, pats on the back, and prestigious awards.  The Norwegian Globalists just gave Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, and for the same reason that they gave one to Al Gore — promoting globalization and Agenda 21.

Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” also received an Oscar from the Hollywood elite.  These honors have been bestowed on Gore, not for exposing the truth — for “An Inconvenient Truth” is merely a slickly packaged lie — but because the film spreads the falsehoods of Agenda 21 so well.

It can only be shown to school children in the U.K. if accompanied by a disclaimer.  The U.K.‘s “The Daily Mail” reports that “…teachers will have to warn pupils that there are other opinions on global warming, and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film.”

The Daily Mail also noted that the lawyer who successfully sued to have the disclaimer attached, said it did not go far enough.  “He said ‘no amount of turgid guidance’ could change the fact that the film is unfit for consumption in the classroom.”  Yet American students see it over, and over.  With no disclaimer.

In June of 2009, NASA said that global warming is caused by solar cycles — i.e. the sun.  Unsaid was the fact that the greenhouse gas theory is full of holes.  Actually it’s a fairy tale, a convenient lie to force the world to bend to the will of the globalists.

Under pressure from the Obama Administration NASA now teaches that global warming is caused by the greenhouse effect, and “bad” gases like CO2 — which we humans unfortunately emit each time we breathe.  Bad humans!

Al Gore, the CoR, the U.N., and all of the environmental organizations and their adherents, don’t care what the truth is.  They could care less about what causes global warming.  They have their “outside enemy… invented for the purpose,”  and they are not about to let go of it.

The Globalists actually tried Global Cooling first, but for various reasons it didn’t fly.  Look at page 22 in the 1974 Annual Rockefeller Report, and you’ll find the mention of a conference called to investigate “…the future implications of the global cooling trend now underway….”  Things sure warmed up in a hurry.

So what is the “purpose?”  What’s really behind all the global warming hoopla?  Power.  It’s the same old Marxist/Communist/Fascist collectivist schtick, dressed up in new clothes.

Global warming is all about a power grab by a wealthy elite and their collectivist sycophants — using the U.N. as a cover and tool.

Merely a conceptual work of art, “Power Pyramid” at AdamDodson.org

As always, there are numerous “useful idiots” who swallow the party line whole.  Some of them are simply misguided idealists, and some of them are nuts — dangerously nuts.

Behind it all, is a relatively small group of people who are manipulating the world for their own sick, narcissistic ends.  It’s a perfect cover.  Think about it — who doesn’t feel that fresh air, clean water, and healthy environments are admirable ends to work towards?  Any sane person supports such ideals.  But hidden in back of the admirable goals are some diabolical designs.

Video, “Michael Shaw Agenda 21

Don’t take my word for it, and don’t dismiss me without research.  We all need to know what’s headed our way shortly.  If you aren’t aware of these facts already, then educate yourself on the internet.  At least check out Green-Agenda.com.

What have we seen since the Obama Administration took over?  The brainiacs in charge of America’s finances have been ignoring our debts, and eagerly proposing ways to sink us deeper into the quagmire.  A lot deeper.

At first I thought that they were simply corrupt, venal, self-serving idiots — all of which is undoubtedly true, but they’re also destroying America’s financial foundation, cleverly and intentionally.

They want the American dollar replaced by a new global currency.  They want America’s middle class to hang in the wind, and die on the vine.  They’re Globalists, and they want America to fail.  It’s so easy to see, once you realize what’s going on. (See “Chart: IMF Calls For New Global Currency To Replace Dollar.”)

Why else would they add trillions to an already staggering debt?  Why else would they try to rush through a Cap and Trade bill that will, in Obama’s words, make electricity prices “skyrocket.”  Why else would they jam ObamaCare down America’s throat?  Why else would Obama say he’d bankrupt anybody who built a new coal plant?

Video, “Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket

Once you grasp Agenda 21 and the sly machinations of the United Nations, and globalizing NGOs like the CoR, it all makes sense.

It’s “The Plan.”  Ruin America’s economy, destroy her middle class, and put a stranglehold on her energy grid.

At the U.N. Summit at Rio in 1992, the Conference Secretary-General, Maurice Strong, said “Isn’t the only hope for this planet that the industrialized civilization collapse?  Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” (See, “Maurice Strong and the Collapse of Industrialized Civilizations.”)

He also said, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable.”

Club of Rome member, multi-billionaire George Soros [Gulag Bound link] echoed Strong’s statement last fall, when he told an Australian newspaper, “America, as the center of the globalized financial markets, was sucking up the savings of the world.  This is now over. The game is out,’ he said, adding that the time has come for ‘a very serious adjustment’ in American’s consumption habits.” (See, “Soros Sees End of US-led Globalized Market System.”)

Forced to cut back on fossil fuel consumption.  Forced to cut back on water usage.  Forced to give up our property.  Forced to eat less.  Forced to warm or cool our homes less.  Forced to give up driving.  Forced to give up these, and many other things that we currently take for granted.  It’s “The Plan” — you had better believe it.

Look at what’s happening to California’s Central Valley — once “the world’s breadbasket,” and now a dust bowl.  All due to Agenda 21.  (See “A Storm Brews over Food, Water, & Power.”)

I assure you that the globalists will not help the farmers.  As the saying goes, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.”  The globalists want the land unplowed.  They want it to go “back to nature.” They want to increase the price of food.  They want to ruin the middle class farming community.  It’s all part of “The Plan.”

It is not just America this is happening to, of course.  Australia, Great Britain, Japan, Canada, Germany…  Every country is on the verge of being converted into a vassal state—part of a global hegemony run by the U.N and a power elite.

All this will be more easily accomplished with a greatly reduced population.  Did I mention population reduction and control?

Behind all the warm and fuzzy terminology about “smart growth,” “sustainable development,” and “think green,” lies a very chilling fact.  The Agenda 21 folks want to reduce the earth’s population—substantially.

In 1996, Club of Rome member and CNN founder, Ted Turner, told Audubon magazine, “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”  A 95% reduction!  Recently he has said that getting rid of a mere two thirds of the world’s population would suffice.  Getting mellow in his old age no doubt.  (See, “Ted Turner: World Needs a ‘Voluntary’ One-Child Policy for the Next Hundred Years.”)

The hard-core environmentalists are all bio-centrists.  That is, they believe that humanity is no more important than any other species on this planet.  In fact, to hear them tell it, the world would be much better off without any people at all.

Anthropologist and anarchist David Graber put it like this in an L.A. Times book review, “Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet.  … We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth.  … Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”

At any rate, because these Globalists are bio-centrists, most of them don’t believe in a divine spark in man, or unalienable rights, or God for that matter.  In short, they don’t have many qualms about killing people.  Something else to keep in mind.

You know the sardonic comment “Well excuse me for breathing?”  These people take that statement literally — and probably won’t excuse you.  After all, you’re adding to the earth’s carbon dioxide level every time you breath out.

ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability — I know, don’t ask) even has a personal Co2 calculator you can use.  ICLEI (pronounced “ick-lee”) believes you should know, and of course want to know, the amount of “your yearly direct personal carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.”  To which I say, directly and personally, “Get lost,” or words to that effect.  (See “United Nations ICLEI and The City of Spokane.”)

My favorite eco-friendly slogan is “Save the Planet — Kill Yourself.”

There’s something deeply disturbed, and disturbing, about too many of these folks, if you ask me.  For example, Yale professor and eco-nut, Lamont Cole, is of the opinion that “To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.”

You should do yourself a favor and peruse the quotes on Free Republic’s “So you’re an environmentalist…” web-page.  If you don’t come away convinced that most of these folks are nuttier than a Payday candy bar, then I don’t know what to tell you.

Many of these “useful idiots” may be crazy and harmless, but they can also be crazy and deadly.  Behind them, pulling the strings, and waiting to take over, are the Global Elite and their one world government.

Whether or not America will last as a free republic until the 2012 presidential elections is debatable.  Iran’s leadership is aching to nuke Israel, and Israel’s only going to wait so long before taking preemptive measures — and there goes a large chunk of America’s oil supply.  And what happens if Egypt comes under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood, and they decide to close the vital Suez Canal?  Remember that Obama’s drilling ban, declared unconstitutional, is still in effect.  (See “Judge Holds Interior in Contempt over Drilling Ban.”)

Long lines for gas — if you can get any at all; America’s power grid will flicker and intermittently fail.  Time for the Globalists to make their final moves.

So America, freedom, and Western civilization goes down the drain on our watch.  It’s nothing to be proud of, that is for sure.

Is there no hope then?  If there are still enough patriotic Americans who value personal integrity and freedom — there’s a chance we can still turn this thing around, but it won’t be easy.  Far from it.

But make no mistake, if we lose this one, America and the world will sink into an abyss of Godless tyranny for a very, very long time.

Laus Deo.

First published October 12, 2009 Canada Free Press.  Revised for Gulag Bound, February 6, 2011.

Gulag Notes:

For more on Agenda 21, see the tag of the same name:
http://gulagbound.com/tag/agenda-21

Please get the word out and face up politicians with this — including at the local and state levels.


Born in June of 1951 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Jim O’Neill proudly served in the U.S. Navy from 1970-1974 in both UDT-21 (Underwater Demolition Team) and SEAL Team Two.  A member of MENSA, he worked as a commercial diver in the waters off Scotland, India, and the United States. In 1998 while attending the University of South Florida as a journalism student, O’Neill won “First Place” in the “Carol Burnett/University of Hawaii AEJMC Research in Journalism Ethics Award.”  The annual contest was set up by Carol Burnett with the money she won from successfully suing the National Enquirer for libel.

This article is an update of Jim O’Neill’s “Agenda 21 and the Death Knell of Liberty,” published at Canada Free Press and Gulag Bound.

Images added by Gulag Bound

The Plan, Agenda 21: The Death Knell of Liberty.

•••

Related Articles :

United Nations’ Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 Essentials :

UN Agenda 21, ICLEI and Sustainability Operations in Australia:

Quote source – The Green Agenda


Shock News : UN Wants To Ban Private Property And Create “Human Habitat Settlement Zones”

The common enemy of humanity is man.
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
.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both
governments and individuals and an unprecedented
redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
of every human action be integrated into individual and
collective decision-making at every level.

– UN Agenda 21

Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.” Report of the UN conference on Human Habitat Settlements 1976.

The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man
.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.

•••

is

The United Nations, in line with their misanthropic Malthusian beliefs, assume that human beings are poor stewards of land, and that “Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.”

Democrats Against U.N. Agenda 21 write:

“In a nutshell, the plan calls for governments to take control of all land use and not leave any of the decision making in the hands of private property owners. It is assumed that people are not good stewards of their land and the government will do a better job if they are in control. Individual rights in general are to give way to the needs of communities as determined by the governing body. Moreover, people should be rounded up off the land and packed into human settlements, or islands of human habitation, close to employment centres and transportation.

•••

According to the misanthropic views of the Club of Romepremier environmental and de-population think-tank and consultants to the United NationsThe Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”

How to deal with this “cancer” ?

Create a blueprint for ‘Human Habitat Settlement Zones’ :

Screen Shot 2013-11-09 at , November 9, 2.07.37 PM

Agenda 21 – Promoting Sustainable Human Settlement Development – United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

•••

UPDATE 13/Feb/2015 :

The UN didn’t like people reading the above document titled “Agenda 21 – Promoting Sustainable Human Settlement Development – United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), so they deleted it from the record :

Screen Shot 2015-02-13 at , February 13, 10.11.59 pm

UPDATE

UNEP Document “Agenda 21 – Promoting Sustainable Human Settlement Development – United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)is back online.

•••

UPDATE

U.N. OFFICIAL ADMITS: We Redistribute World’s Wealth By Climate Policy

•••

UPDATE

UN Climate Chief Says Communism Is Best To Fight Global Warming

•••

UPDATE

“In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming”

•••

Climatism Related :

United Nations’ Sustainable Development and Agenda 21:

UN Agenda 21, ICLEI and Sustainability Operations in Australia:

Climatism Links:

Quote source – The Green Agenda


Help, there’s an ICLEI in my backyard! (Part Two)

Climatism comment : The UN’s un-mandated power and influence at the local Government level through ICLEI (aka Agenda 21) is at best highly deceptive, at worst extremely dangerous to societal freedoms.

More need to be aware of their vastly overreaching ‘sustainability’ agenda and overall globalist intentions.

Great read. TQ.

Will add Parts 1 & 2 to my Agenda 21 Links page

FAUXGREEN

IMG_4211

The wolf in sheep’s clothing in Ontario

In Part One we tried to understand why useless and destructive industrial wind turbines continue to be forced on unwilling communities in rural Ontario. The Government of Ontario seems to be in the grip of powerful unelected, unaccountable interests that makes it care little for the democratic process, the welfare of the people or the health of the economy.

We discussed how Agenda 21/Sustainable Development, devised by the United Nations, is a plan to inventory and control everything and everyoneon the planet. The rationale for the plan is the phoney prognostication of catastrophic climate change brought about by supposed man-made global warming. The leading promoter of this massive doom-and-gloom scenario is the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). As James Delingpole put it in his must-read book Watermelons:

the ‘evidence’ that has been provided for us by the sources of…

View original post 2,092 more words


One Of The More Illuminating Articles You May Ever Read On Global Warming

The common enemy of humanity is man.
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
.
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man
.”
– Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

•••

Having read one of the most influential and eye-opening books of my life, “Watermelons: How Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing your Children’s Future“, it was refreshing to stumble across the featured article in this post, penned by the same author James Delingpole, out of the Daily Telegraph.

Delingpole is a writer whose work border’s on literary genius, a grand master of elucidation. A staunch climate sceptic, who’s views and opinions, while rational, measured and considered, sizzle with humour and sarcasm to drive his message home.

He confidently boasts; I’m right about everything“. When you follow his stuff, you realise that this has nothing to do with ego!

Most importantly, his writing stands in strident defence of our freedoms. A position taken for granted by so many today, yet the most basic right, one we must fiercely protect with constant vigilance.

If you haven’t read Watermelons, make sure you do. It is a true masterpiece that will educate you on issues which are about as critical and important as any, in our lives today.

In the meantime, try to read the below article line-by-line, for the words unlock the true story behind man-made global warming hysteria. A living constant that toys with people’s everyday lives and indeed threatens our “children’s future” much more than any theorised climate event.

•••

via The Telegraph (UK)

Earth does not have a cancer; the cancer is not man

By 

Last updated: April 5th, 2011

chris-packham-460 (1)

Chris Packham, ‘wildlife expert’ (Photo: Paul Grover)

Any minute now I’m going to lay off blogging for a while, for health reasons. But I can’t pretend I’m going to find going cold turkey easy, especially not when there are stories like this around.

It concerns “wildlife expert” Chris Packham – presenter of some of the BBC’s most popular nature programmes including Springwatch and a new series called The Animal’s Guide To British Wildlife – and some deeply unpleasant remarks he made in the course of an interview with the Radio Times.

“There’s no point bleating about the future of pandas, polar bears and tigers when we’re not addressing the one single factor that’s putting more pressure on the ecosystem than any other – namely the ever-increasing size of the world’s population. I read the other day that, by 2020, there are going to be 70 million people in Britain. Let’s face it, that’s too many.”

So what does he suggest we do about it? Get people to stop having children?

“Yes. Absolutely. I wouldn’t actually penalise people for having too many children, as I think the carrot always works better than the stick. But what I would offer them tax breaks for having small families: say, 10 per cent off your tax bill if you decide to stick with just one child. And an even bigger financial incentive if you choose not to have a family at all.”

What frightens me almost more than these remarks – whose loathsomeness I shall gloss in a moment – is the response of the Daily Mail’s readership. All right, perhaps the Mail’s online audience is not representative of the entire country, but I do think they’re probably close to embodying what the reasonable other person from Middle England thinks, and in this case what they seem to think is frankly bloody terrifying.

All right, so I don’t imagine many of us here would quibble with the most popular comment so far, with 1300 plus positive votes:

How about offering people nothing for not having children as well as not giving them anything when they have ten children? Let them pay for their offspring with their own money for a change. That might make a few people consider the population even if it’s the one in their own home.

This is in line with the very sensible remarks that once got Howard Flight into such trouble. And of course the Tory peer was quite right: it’s absurd to have a situation where the most feckless, unproductive sector of the economy is subsidised by the state to have children they would otherwise be unable to afford.

But here are the second and third most popular comments, with well over 1000 positive votes each:

He is quite right you know, the most eco friendly thing you can do is not breed.

Well done Chris I couldn’t have said it better myself. That is the main problem with this planet — too many people. We require a massive birth control programme, never mind growing more food and building more houses — cut back on breeding is the only answer.

There are so many things wrong with this attitude I don’t know where to begin. But why not let’s start with the plight of only children? Almost everyone I know who was brought up without a brother or sister wishes it could have been otherwise. I myself grew up in a family of seven, and while it’s true that I have never quite forgiven one of them for voting for Caroline Lucas in the last election I count the friendship and kinship of my wonderful brothers and sisters one of the greatest joys of my existence. I know there are many in China who feel much the same way: the tyrannical one-child policy, it is now being recognised, has not only led to much unnecessary unhappiness but is also leading to potentially disastrous economic consequences (especially in its battle for economic supremacy with India, where no such restrictions have applied).

Yet such is the misery that Chris Packham wishes to import to Britain. And to be fair, he is far from the only high profile figure who thinks this way. Very much of the same view is that famously nice, caring natural history TV presenter David Attenborough, concerned environmentalist the Hon Sir Jonathon Porritt, actress Susan Hampshire, Gaia theory inventor James Lovelock, ex UN apparatchik Sir Crispin Tickell (the man who – briefly – persuaded Margaret Thatcher of the imminent perils of Man Made Global Warming) and chimp expert Jane Goodall. All of these luminaries are – with Packham – patrons of the Optimum Population Trust, an organisation which believes that the world’s growing population is “unsustainable” and which is dedicated to finding ways of reducing it.

The problem with the Optimum Population Trust – one of them anyway – is that its very existence is predicated on a vilely misanthropic view of the human species: that there are too many of us, that we do more harm than good.

And yes, superficially, this view of the world makes a kind of sense. It’s what I call an “I reckon” argument: the sort of argument you’d make in a pub, after a few beers, based on information you’ve established from a gut feeling so strong it doesn’t need any awkward details like facts getting in the way of your opinion. I mean obviously more people means less space, and more demand on “scarce resources”, so the more people there are the more trouble we’re in. Stands to reason dunnit?

This is exactly the kind of wrong thinking I address in my new book Watermelons. You’ll forgive me if I don’t come up with all the counterarguments here. (Read the bloody book!). But in a nutshell, it’s that this Neo-Malthusian pessimism – as warped and wrongheaded today as it was in the era of doom-monger Thomas Malthus (1766 to 1834) – is based on fundamental misconceptions about the ingenuity of the human species and about the nature of economic growth.

Sure if all populations did as they grew and grew was use up more finite “stuff”, then we would indeed have cause to worry. But they don’t: as populations increase in size, so they learn to specialise and adapt and find ever more ingenious ways of making more with less. That’s why, for example, the mass starvation predicted by Paul Ehrlich in his Sixties bestseller The Population Bomb never happened: because thanks to Norman Borlaug’s Green Revolution, crop yields dramatically increased while the area of land under cultivation remained unchanged. If you want to read more about this, I recommend not just my book, but also Matt Ridley’s superb The Rational Optimist or anything by Julian Simon (known as the Doomslayer because of the way he constantly confounded Neo Malthusian pessimism and  junk science).

The reason I have become so obsessed with “global warming” in the last few years is not because I’m particularly interested in the “how many drowning polar bears can dance on the head of a pin” non-argument which hysterical sites like RealClimate and bloggers like Joe Romm are striving so desperately to keep on a life support machine. It’s because unlike some I’ve read widely enough to see the bigger picture.

One thing I’ve learned in this wide reading is how obsessed so many of the key thinkers in the green movement are with the notion of “overpopulation.” As one of their favourite think tanks, the Club of Rome, puts it: “Earth has a cancer and the cancer is man.” This belief explains, inter alia, why the “science” behind AGW is so dodgy: because the science didn’t come first. What came first was the notion that mankind was a problem and was doing harm to the planet. The “science” was then simply tortured until it fitted in with this notion. [Climatism Bolded] 

I do not share this view. Indeed, though I believe that while people like Chris Packham (and Prince Charles; George Monbiot; Al Gore; David Attenborough; Robert Redford; Mikhail Gorbachev; Ted Turner; et al) may believe what they do for the noblest of reasons, their ecological philosophy is fundamentally evil. And I do mean evil. Any philosophy which has, as its core tenet, the belief that mankind is the problem not the solution cannot possibly be one that pertains to good, can it?

This is why I have been fighting this Climate War so hard for so long. And why I have no compunction whatsoever in calling the people who promote that repellant philosophy by the names they deserve. The ideological struggle that is being fought now over the issue of “Climate Change” (and related, quasi-Marxist weasel concepts such as Sustainability) may not yet involve the bloodshed caused in the wars against Nazism and Stalinism, but the threat it poses to individual freedom and economic security is every bit as great. But there aren’t enough of us fighting this war on the right side – and I’m knackered.

Continue Reading »

•••

Read more of James Delingpole’s cracking work here – James Delingpole – Telegraph Blogs

•••

Club Of Rome quotes via The Green Agenda :

The greatest hope for the Earth lies in religionists and
scientists uniting to awaken the world to its near fatal predicament
and then leading mankind out of the bewildering maze of
international crises into the future Utopia of humanist hope.

– Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind

In Nature organic growth proceeds according
to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a ‘master plan’ is
missing from the process of growth and development of
the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for
sustainable growth and world development based on global
allocation of all resources and a new global economic system.
Ten or twenty years form today it will probably be too late.”

– Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and
it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely.
Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well 
suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature
of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected
representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.

– Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution

A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that
fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order
and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income.
Perhaps only a new and enlightened humanism
can permit mankind to negotiate this transition.

– Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence
more than 500 million but less than one billion
.”
– Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind

•••

UPDATE

via wattsupwiththat

Extract from :

IPCC Climate: A Product of Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics Built On Inadequate Data

Posted on October 2, 2013 by 

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

The climate debate cannot be separated from environmental politics. Global warming became the central theme of the claim humans are destroying the planet promoted by the Club of Rome. Their book, Limits to Growth did two major things both removing understanding and creating a false sense of authority and accuracy. First, was the simplistic application of statistics beyond an average in the form of a straight-line trend analysis: Second, predictions were given awesome, but unjustified status, as the output of computer models. They wanted to show we were heading for disaster and selected the statistics and process to that end. This became the method and philosophy of the IPCC. Initially, we had climate averages. Then in the 1970s, with the cooling from 1940, trends became the fashion. Of course, the cooling trend did not last and was replaced in the 1980s by an equally simplistic warming trend. Now they are trying to ignore another cooling trend. Continue Reading »

•••

Club Of Rome Related:

Beware the eco-friendly buzzword “Sustainability”:

Climatism Links:


Help, there’s an ICLEI in my backyard! (Part One)

FAUXGREEN

IMG_4292

The cause of the Ontario Liberal government’s industrial wind turbine madness

Why, against all that is rational, ethical, and in the best interests of the people, is the Ontario Liberal government continuing to impose thousands more of the useless, destructive, dangerous, costly, un-green, landscape-blighting industrial wind turbines on large swaths of rural Ontario? The premiers McGunity/Wynne apparently did not do their homework on the efficacy of their green ambitions, which have proven to be economically, environmentally and socially ruinous.  And yet Premier Wynne, successor to resigned-in-disgrace McGuinty, is undeterred, charging full blast into further unmitigated disaster, all the while making platitudinous, clichéd promises: ‘My responsibility is to make sure that going forward, we have a better process in place, and that’s what we’re doing.’ It’s a heartless, bullying process of the cruelest sort when you consider the absolute uselessness of it all. All industrial wind…

View original post 1,538 more words