Foia – Agenda 21

There are some things that you look at, and just say to yourself:
“No Way. That’s Crazy Talk.” and ignore.

That had been my attitude toward “Agenda 21″. When I first ran into it, and took a glance. Yet Another UN Nutty Committee with Yet Another Crazy Agenda. So what?
Just some “feel good crap” folks were mumbling at each other in the UN.

From that point forward, as folks would bring it up, I’d think “I’m not going to get involved in running after Crazy Talk and be painted as a believer in Conspiracy Theories.

But when you find that folks in position of influence and power are, in fact, following Agenda 21, promoting it, working to it’s goals, and, dare I say it, to its “agenda”…

At some point you have to recognize that it is a real threat. Not a small one, either. It looks to do no less than enforce a global order of mass urbanization and depopulation of the countryside. The removal of personal property rights. The establishment of a kind of collectivization not seen since the Third Reich, Stalin’s Russian, and Red China of Mao. (That’s why I’d just written it off as “Crazy talk”…) Yet there is real evidence of folks working to pursue Agenda 21.

It has a pernicious infective attribute to it. A “train the trainer” kind of viral aspect. It works to influence “from global to local” so metastasizes into millions of local chapters, each under it’s own banner, so not seen as part of a whole. We see that in the Emails, too. Like terrorist cells, each cell is to pursue The Agenda in the local area. Find new recruits. Expand and control. Again, “Crazy Talk”. Yet we find one of them working to influence in the emails. How many times must something be seen to believe it real?

Some (very small) intro to Agenda 21

This video is interesting to me. It only had a bit over 4,000 hits when I watched it. It is a local meeting at a place near me of folks opposed to the Agenda 21 goals. Santa Cruz is just ‘over the hill’ and I’ve been there often. I’m modestly aware of goings on there. In particular, I know that what is said about the freeway and the train is true. I know that attempts to grow are strongly suppressed. I’d figured it was just Santa Cruz (home of the hopelessly whacky rabidly progressive University of California at Santa Cruz campus) manifesting the inevitable result of too many progressive loose screws in a small space. Well, there may be SOME of that, in that they have critical mass to endorse such things as Agenda 21… but so do other small groups. We will see that, too in the emails.

With that, here is a small video of a local group, faced with a Global Agenda. This is just the kind of video that I had thought was just Right Wing Conspiracy Theory stuff. As of now, I have to reassess that evaluation. Agenda 21 is real. People in power are pushing it. People at local levels are following it (as the “top down push” works). And we have evidence for this influence inside “The Climate Community” and inside UEA in particular. So watch the video, then we’ll see the emails. (Eventually, I’ll need to learn a whole lot more about the corrupting influence of the UN Agenda 21; but for now, I’m just starting the learning curve, and this is as good a place as any…)

FWIW, the wiki on Agenda 21 basically does say it is intended to do many of the things stated in the video, it just omits the ones that would be most inflammatory and wraps the others in Greenwash Happy talk. For example, the infiltration of education is readily admitted. It even has it’s own wike page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_for_sustainable_development

I got to that link FROM the Agenda 21 wiki, so it’s not any kind of ‘leap’…

The U.S. Partnership for Education for Sustainable Development (USPESD) consists of individuals, organizations and institutions in the United States dedicated to education for sustainable development (ESD). It acts as a convener, catalyst, and communicator working across all sectors of American society.

The U.S. Partnership was conceived at a November 2003 “Open Space” gathering held in Washington, DC that included almost 100 participants from a diverse range of sectors including K-12 and higher education, science and research organizations, conservation and environmental NGOs, faith communities, living institutions, youth advocacy organizations, government agencies and others. Convened by the National Council on Science and the Environment and University Leaders for a Sustainable Future, the group met to respond to the call by the UN General Assembly for a Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005 through 2014) and to consider specifically:

So just WHY is the UN calling the shots, through NGO’s and ‘government agencies’ in how our children ought to be educated? How does math or English require a UN or Government wash to be taught? In order to meet the goals of Agenda 21.

Where you do see statements of “local goals” and “local customizing”, what they are saying is “Start the temperature under the Frog at a suitable local setting to not startle the frog”… The end goal stays the same.

How the Decade could be leveraged to advance education for sustainable development (ESD) in the United States;
What were the opportunities for collaboration within and across sectors; and
How could widespread engagement in the Decade by U.S. organizations be facilitated.

A subsequent strategic planning retreat on the campus of Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania gave shape to the emerging Partnership. Hosted by the International Center for Leadership Results and facilitated by Group Jazz, participants agreed upon the Partnership’s Vision – “sustainable development integrated into education and learning in the United States;” and Mission – to “leverage the UN Decade to foster education for sustainable development in the United States”.

What kind of traction has it gotten?

Educational institutions

Professional organizations often produce their own standards and best practices lists. The North American Association for Environmental Education has produced a detailed “Guidelines for Excellence” in educational programming. Some educational institutions that focus on ESD include:

London South Bank University, with a Masters program in Education for Sustainability
Cloud Institute for Sustainability Education
Ramapo College
St Francis Xavier College (Canberra)
Prescott College, with a PhD program in Sustainability Education
Ithaca College
Göncöl Foundation
Hermit Park State School
Centre for Sustainability
Creative Change Educational Solutions
Learning for a Sustainable Future
Green Education Foundation

In other parts of the world, some active organizations are

SWEDESD, the Swedish International Centre of Education for Sustainable Development, Stockholm
Global Action Plan (GAP) International
The NOW! Organization

The important thing about this is not that these folks want a sustainable future, we all do. The important bit is that these things are NOT just growing up on their own, the natural outgrowth of local interests. They are the direct result of a Central Committee driving a cultural shift toward a specific agenda. One that defines human life as bad, free will and free choice as bad, private property as bad, and wishes to make everyone else think the same way. So at this point we can add the word “sustainable” to the long list of positive words corrupted by a progressive agenda into negative things. From here on out, to me, “sustainable” is roughly the same as “UN Collective Labor Camp”.

We can see the impact of THAT in the lack of moral compass and subservience of the culture of Science to the culture of the UN in the emails as well.

With that, on to the emails…

Foia search on “Agenda 21″

This listed 8 total emails with the token “Agenda 21″ in them. Not really all that many out of over 5000. About 1/5 % but we don’t know how many that looked like simple SPAM were NOT in the F.O.I.A. email bundle to begin with.

They divide into roughly 3 types. Some are your basic SPAM from a True Believer advocating that folks take a look at something. In itself, not much of a worry. There is always some loose nut with a new passion sending junk around at work. HOWEVER…

These folks work at a government site. I thought one was discouraged from sending SPAM about? And these particular messages are about a UN Political Agenda. Isn’t there some kind of rule about pushing political agenda events inside the Government Workplace? Maybe things are different in the UK…

What interests me about these, though, is the email headers. They are broadcast ‘group wide’. Usually anything that is at all controversial gets “slapped down” in mass mailings and folks ask that there be a “cease and desist”. There is no evidence at all of that (though it might have ended up on the Foia editing floor…) IMHO, the final emails explain why. “Names” inside The Team are working with Agenda 21 via a local clone. The group culture is clearly not just tolerating this, they are endorsing it, IMHO.

The emails are here: http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/FOIA/

So you can ‘pull them up’ to ‘follow along’ if you so desire.

In my opinion, the SPAM forwards are: 1854, 2345, 5107

The “Pushing it a bit more” are: 2336, 3862, and especially 4462

While the “working together” are: 4803 and 2318

First Group

The first group are of the form ‘hey, look at this’

Email 1854

date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 10:27:41 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
from: Julie Burgess
subject: KERN InfoBrief: March 2001 – Renewable Energy: Experience and
to: cru.all@uea.ac.uk

MELISSA Program – Managing the Environment Locally in Sub Saharan Africa

KERN InfoBrief March 2001: Renewable Energy: Experience and Practice in Sub Saharan Africa

OK, 2001 is not all that recent, but it isn’t ancient either. I don’t know if Julie is a secretary or Lead Scientist ( or Cell Leader…) but she sends out a couple of these. KERN probably deserves a bit of investigation too. (Frankly, I would not care WHAT these folks spent there time on, except that they have this habit of sucking money, TAX Money, out of the government to pay for their fantasies…)

At any rate, whoever KERN is, they send out a periodic “InfoBrief”. This one includes some Agenda 21 stuff. Skipping over a bunch of “World” this and Global that and how to use biomass and wind…

There are a list of “Summits” and other “Workshops” for folks to attend (undoubtedly on YOUR dime and while collecting salary…) on various of the “Sustainable” themes. (Wonder where they get ‘their’ teaching materials…) we come to:

Conferences
Commission on Sustainable Development, 9th Session New York, 16-27 April 2001 In 1992, more than 100 heads of state met in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). The Earth Summit was convened to address urgent problems of environmental protection and socio-economic development.

The assembled leaders signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity; endorsed the Rio Declaration and the Forest Principles; and adopted Agenda 21, a 300-page plan for achieving sustainable development in the 21st century. The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of UNCED; to monitor and report on implementation of the Earth Summit agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels. The CSD is a functional commission of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), with 53 members. It was agreed that a five-year review of Earth Summit progress would be made in 1997 by the United Nations General Assembly meeting in special session. Earth Summit + 5: The Special Session of the General Assembly held in June 1997 adopted a comprehensive document entitled Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21 prepared by the Commission on Sustainable Development. It also adopted the programme of work of the Commission for 1998-2002.

The Commission on Sustainable Development consistently generates a high level of public interest. Over 50 ministers attend the CSD each year and more than one thousand non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are accredited to participate in the Commission’s work. The Commission ensures the high visibility of sustainable development issues within the UN system and helps to improve the UN’s coordination of environment and development activities. The CSD also encourages governments and international organizations to host workshops and conferences on different environmental and cross-sectoral issues. The results of these expert-level meetings enhance the work of CSD and help the Commission to work better with national governments and various non-governmental partners in promoting sustainable development worldwide. CSD Secretariat: Secretariat of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development United Nations Plaza, Room DC2-2220 New York, New York 10017, USA Tel: + 1 212-963-3170 Fax: + 1-212-963-4260 E-mail: [18]dsd@un.org

It goes on to fawn over Earth Day (and lists more ways the UN is “helping”…)

What kind of thing is “Great in ‘cru.all’ email”? An excerpt:

· The Human Rights and the Environment campaign defends powerless communities in developing countries who suffer human rights and environmental abuses when big oil companies extract and transport oil, coal and gas from and across their lands. Partners: Amnesty International, Sierra Club and Oilwatch.

· The Green Energy Funding campaign is steering the international funding that pours into developing countries away from polluting fossil fuel projects and towards clean, sustainable energy sources such as the sun, the wind, and hydrogen. Partners: Rainforest Action Network, IPS/SEEN, Friends of the Earth, and Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF).

· The Green Energy Commitments project is fostering government commitments to renewable energy, particularly in island nation states, whose very existence is threatened by the rising tides associated with global warming. Partners: Climate Institute, Counterpart International, and Winrock International.

· The Safe Power: No More Nuclear campaign aims to stop nuclear power, and all its associated dangers, from being accepted by the international community as part of the solution to global warming. Partners: World Information Service on Energy (WISE), and Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS).

No, not Agenda 21 by name, but singing from the same hymnal. I note in passing that many of these groups look to be eating from the same public money trough too…

It goes on for several pages in that same theme. It ends with an ‘invite’ to participate and ‘learn more’..

We invite you to contact the MELISSA Program for further information, contributions, comments and suggestions regarding the KERN InfoBrief at:

Program Co-ordinator, The MELISSA Program, c/o World Bank Country Office P O Box 12629,
Hatfield, 0028 Pretoria, South Africa. Tel +2712 349-2994 Fax: +27 12 349-2080 Email:
[33]****sa@melissa.org Website: [34] http://www.melissa.org

Am I against renewable power? Not at all. I love the tech and very much would like my own independent solar power system. I own stock in several alternative energy companies. HOWEVER, I’m very much against the UN or anyone else using TAX Money to advance an agenda and any particular technologies over any other.

Markets lead to efficiency. Mandates lead to tyranny. Thus has it always been…

Email 2354 is more of the same, but a different year.

date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 13:39:24 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)
from: Julie Burgess
subject: KERN InfoBrief July 2001: Towards the World Summit on Sustainable
to: cru.all@uea.ac.uk

MELISSA – Managing the Environment Locally in Sub Saharan Africa

KERN InfoBrief July 2001:
Towards the World Summit on Sustainable Development:

There’s that “sustainable” word again… Good we now know what it really means…

I won’t quote as much of it. Just some bits. In case you were wondering if ICLEI was real (from the video) we have:

· Survey of Local Authorities by ICLEI
· Inviting WSSD Contribution from the MELISSA Network

In talking about the “Earth Summit” they have an eye to enforcement, too:

The upcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development will aim to answer the following questions, among others: What has been accomplished since 1992? What have the participating countries done so far to implement Agenda 21? Have they adopted the National Sustainable Development Strategies as they agreed they would by 2002? Have they ratified the conventions that aim to prevent loss of biodiversity or ensure women’s rights as they agreed to do in 1992? What obstacles have they encountered? What lessons have they learned about what works and what does not? What new factors have emerged to change the picture? What mid-course corrections need to be made to reach the goals? Where should further efforts be concentrated?

The summit gathering will not open Agenda 21 for revision, but will rather seek consensus on the current conditions, and on priorities for further action. A focused agenda will discuss the findings in particular environmental sectors (forests, oceans, climate, energy, fresh water, and so on) as well as in cross-sector areas such as economic conditions, new technologies and globalization. The gathering will also consider the impact of technology, biology and communications. New financial instruments, the functioning of international financial institutions and markets will also be evaluated for their implications for the future.

All types of citizens’ groups from business and industry to scientists, from indigenous people to young people, from community leaders to trade unions are urged to take part in the evaluation process that are now being launched in every nation.

Oh Dear, that “consensus” word too….

Email 5107

The final one has at least a bit of a ‘solicitation’ aspect in that it asks if anyone is interested. It, too, is from Julie Burgess and sent to ALL of CRU. Oddly, what I find of interest is that this one is dated the earliest at 2000. In the later ones, she does not ask if folks are interested. Guess she had her answer by then…

date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 09:55:35 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)
from: Julie Burgess ***ss@uea.ac.uk
subject: IGFR and Global Futures Bulletin
to: cru.all@uea.ac.uk

Is this of interest to anyone?
Julie

— Begin Forwarded Message —
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 15:54:15 +0800
From: “Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR)”
Subject: IGFR and Global Futures Bulletin
Sender: “Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR)”
To: – Invalid Address -

Reply-To: “Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR)”
Message-ID: 3.0.6.32.20000906155415.00847220@mail.mpx.com.au

—————————————————————–
Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR).
P.O. Box 263E, Earlville, Qld 4870, Australia.
E-mail: .
—————————————————————–

Dear Colleague,
You have been referred to us as someone who is interested in
global futures, sustainable development, and social justice issues.
[...]

I interrupt to note that we have quite a Red Flag list of buzz words here. “Global Futures, sustainable development, and social justice”. Mark your playbook, those are now known “flag words” for a Global Socialist Agenda (21)… There’s a load more just a bit on:

The Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR) arose out of a series
of meetings held during the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, 1992.

The IGFR was established in 1995 as an independent research
centre to explore urgent global issues and longterm future options.
The brief of the IGFR is to build a macro interdisciplinary
perspective by researching pivotal issues in the areas of peace and
social justice, the global environment and climate change, poverty
and Third World development, human rights and democracy,
population, resources, international relations, the global economy,
science and technology, urban planning, and comparative culture, to
mention but some of the key areas.

The IGFR coordinates an Open Research Program where research
teams comprising experts and advisers are grouped around
43 interest areas. Using futures and other methodologies as well as
non-methodological (intuitive) approaches, we draw results together
from different disciplines to identify major trends, global parameters,
continuities and discontinuities, and use this understanding to
generate options for the future.

GENERAL AREAS OF RESEARCH

1. development issues, theory and paradigms
2. peace and conflict resolution.
3. climate change
4. energy

5. evolving world order
6. biodiversity and habitat
7. emancipation of women
8. megatrends in technology
9. comparative society
10. implications of globalisation
11. ethnic relations and multicivilisations
12. food and sustainable agriculture
13. international governance
14. Agenda 21

15. quality of life indicators
16. population issues
17. toxic waste
18. urban development
19. global finance
20. transport
21. future generations – ethics
22. water
23. global parameters, scenarios, new dimensions
24. disaster
25. futures studies methodologies
26. history of the future
27. longwaves and macrohistory
28. industry trends, industrial ecology
29. new economics
30. corporate citizenship
31. alternative communities and lifestyles

32. cyberspace revolution
33. global conventions and international law
34. world summits
35. Gaia theory
36. world health

37. world systems theory
38. equity
39. spirituality and religion
40. community development
41. ecopsychology
42. space
43. deep futures

The IGFR produces a twice-monthly journal (Global Futures
Bulletin) disseminated via e-mail to all its members and
subscribers. Members and subscribers include students and
community leaders, members of various religious affiliations and
non-government activist organisations, scientific research centres,
university academics, and senior officials in the corporate sector,
government policy makers and multilateral organisations, in 76
countries.

We will shortly be sending you a copy of the Global Futures Bulletin.
The journal is multidisciplinary and succinct.

Recipient organisations include: World Bank, World Futures Studies
Federation (WFSF), United Nations Commission for Human
Settlement (UNCHS), United Nations Organisation, UNDP, Tellus
Institute, Stockholm Environment Institute, Millennium Institute,
International Human Dimensions Programme on Global
Environmental Change (IHDP), Institute for Alternative Futures,
Ford Foundation, Finland Futures Research Centre, FAO, EPA (US),
EPA (Australia), Applied Futures, numerous government agencies,
and researchers in 52 universities including Cornell, Harvard,
Cambridge and Oxford.

[...]
Sincerely,
Geoff Holland, Director,
—————————————————————–
Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR).
P.O. Box 263E, Earlville, QLD 4870, Australia.
E-mail: .
—————————————————————–

********************************************************
Julie Burgess
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ

I think that’s pretty clear. Oh, it was also nice of them to include a list of the organizations that have bought into this… Now we know exactly where to go looking for sources of funds, agenda, and influencers.

That concludes the first group.

On To Group Two

The “Pushing it a bit more” are: 2336, 3862, and especially 4462

This one is from back in 1997. Clearly it did not generate enough “push back” to stop the others from coming..

Email 2336

date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 18:50:38 +0100 (BST)
from: “B.J.Matthews” ***tthews@uea.ac.uk
subject: The Drowning Village: (about global climate change negotiations)

Again, we’ve all had this kind of Cute Email.. . Most organizations have rules against it. I’ll delete most of it, but realize that in this case it is part of a larger narrative. Note the greeting: “Climate Colleagues”… Sheesh..

Dear Climate colleagues,
I thought you might like this story from Titus Alexander
(please accept my apology if you get this message more than once)
Ben
*****************************************************************

The Drowning Village

An allegory about global climate change

“I don’t want to frighten you” said Ipsee, the village seer, “but if we don’t act now the village will be flooded. Spent Carbon Water is seeping into the soil. The ground water is rising and one day floods will force people from their homes and fields.”
“That can’t be true,” said Uncle Sam, self-appointed village headman. “Our life depends on Carbon Water. We can’t possibly live without Carbon Water!”
And so it was in Annex One, the district where the rich people lived.

“Why is Carbon Water bad?” asked little Bird Sam, the boy who knew everything about competitive baseball and always wanted to do the right thing.
“Carbon Water is wonderful! Our life depends on it” explained General MacSam, Uncle Sam’s powerful brother. “It is a magical fluid full of energy that comes from deep wells in the ground. We use Carbon Water to heat our homes, drive our cars and make ever
ything we want. Carbon Water is like liquid gold.”

General MacSam and his friends Olly Pec and Bull Carson owned most of the Carbon Water wells in the village.
“Look son” said Uncle Sam, “Carbon Water helps us win at baseball.”
“And spent Carbon Water?” asked Little Sam again. “What is that?”
“Oh, some nonsense Ipsee made up to cause trouble” snorted the General. “You can’t believe everything the old seer says.”
“Spent Carbon Water is what’s left when you use Carbon Water” explained Ipsee patiently. “It runs straight out into the ground and there is nothing we can do to catch it.”

“It can’t be true!” said Uncle Sam again. “What can we do?”
“More than half of all the Carbon Water is used by the fifteen families in Annex One. You could stop using so much Carbon Water” said Ipsee.
“We can’t do that!” said General MacSam. “We’ll go bust if we stop using Carbon Water.”

It goes on from there for a few pages of slamming the West in general an the USA in particular.

“Let us talk about all these problems together” said the Strong Man. “Rich or poor, we are all in trouble if the Carbon Waters rise. Where can we meet?”

And so the Brazza brothers invited one person from every family to the Rio Restaurant on the riverside to talk about poverty and the environment. There the villagers wrote a long list of things to do, which they called Action 21. Everyone agreed that the
danger of flooding from Carbon Water was the number one problem.

Well, now it’s Action 21… but as least “everyone agreed”… You remember agreeing, don’t you?

And so this chapter in the story ends with rich and poor families helping each other to create a village safe from flooding.

Let us make sure that the Climate Change negotiators learn the lesson of this little fable before it is too late.

Copyright 1997: Titus Alexander, 32 Carisbrooke Road, London UK, E17 7EF Please send comments to ****xander@mcr1.poptel.org.uk

Non-profit organisations are free to circulate this story on the internet or in magazines for campaign purposes, provided credit is given and the following background notes and action points are included. Where writers are normally paid, please pay the usual rate to Titus Alexander. This material can also be adapted for use as a play or street theatre.
A cartoon version will be available.

Background note: interpreting the story
Global warming is the most serious threat ever faced by humanity. It is potentially more dangerous than World War 2 or the cold war. To avoid dangerous climate change, we need to devote at least as much effort to using less fossil fuels as went into defence over the past 50 years. [...]

After the Story Time, he wraps with Things To Do!!!

Action points
Use the story to encourage people to talk and find out more about global warming. It can be reprinted or serialised in school and university magazines. It can be used as a basis for drama improvisation in youth clubs, schools, drama societies or street theatre. Science and drama teachers might be persuaded to work together on this topic.

As a play, you could develop the story to involve the audience in a discussion about the issues and ways of reducing use of fossil fuels.

Use the story to campaign for your workplace, university, school or town to use less fossil fuels. This could fit it with Local Agenda 21.

Get people to write to their MP and Robin Cook (Foreign Secretary) John Prescott (Environment Secretary) and Tony Blair (Prime Minister) to
• declare climate change to be a global security interest
• support proposals for a global limit on CO2 emissions and equal per capita CO2 emissions rights as the basis of an agreement at Kyoto
• support the government’s proposal for a minimum 20% cut in emissions by 2010
• urge the government to bring in measures to cut CO2

It think this matters. Using workplace resources for a:

DIRECT solicitation to work with and support your local Agenda 21 from a staff person at CRU.

Then again, maybe UK law and workplace rules are different.

Email 3862

Solicitations continue on into 2006. This one from UEA but not specifically CRU. Leaves me wondering what ZICAR is, though.

date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:53:43 -0000
from: “Gill Seyfang” ***fang@uea.ac.uk
subject: FW: ESRC seminar on local economic development and climate change
to: zicer.all@uea.ac.uk

Please reply to Peter North
****th@liv.ac.uk

—–Original Message—–
From: Economic Geography Research Group [mailto:ECONOMIC-GEOGRAPHY@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On
Behalf Of North, Peter
Sent: 30 November 2006 11:51
To: ECONOMIC-GEOGRAPHY@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: ESRC seminar on local economic development and climate change

Apologies for cross posting, but list members might be interested in the following ESRC seimar series starting 6th February in Liverpool.
Pete North
……………………………………………………………………………….
Local economic development: Restructuring for climate change
6th February 2007, University of Liverpool.
11am-5pm
The first in a two year ESRC-funded seminar series “Local economic development in the face of dangerous climate change and resource constraints.” This introductory seminar is the first of six which will examine what dangerous climate change and peak oil means for local economic development strategies. Critiquing growth-orientated perspectives of local economic development, the seminar series will examine which conventional growth options might be problematic in terms of a forthcoming ecological crisis, and what an alternative programme would look like.

The seminar series will investigate what it means to be radical in terms of economic strategy? Is it possible to define a radical local economic strategy? Does being radical need a radical movement, and what sorts of movements exist? It will examine experiences of radical local action, local initiatives, coalitions, social movements and previous forms of radical local economic action interacted with processes of large scale economic change in order to draw appropriate lessons from them. Do the lessons of the past still hold? How might we avoid past mistakes? This first seminar will scope the issues and set up the research seminar series, enabling discussions to be developed more fully over the coming two years.

Speakers:
[...]
Erik will explore the ecological apocalypse as a populist `strange attractor’ occluding an understanding of the pathologies of capitalism, and argue for democratic control of solutions to environmental problems.

Professor David Gibbs, University of Hull
Action on climate change is not new: it has been addressed by citizen action, campaigns against road building, dams and the like, for environmental justice, and through policies for sustainable development. Again, the effectiveness of local action in response to global challenges is an issue, as is the efficacy of institutional processes such as Local Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development policy when contrasted with campaigns with more overtly oppositional strategies. David will review experiences of Sustainable Development, similarly uncovering effective and more therapeutic approaches.

Ted Trainer, University of New South Wales, Australia
For some, more radical approaches are required. For example, James Lovelock argues that humanity has already done irremediable damage to the planet’s life systems, and we now need a managed retreat from industrialisation. Ted will argue that our industrial-affluent-consumer society is extremely unjust and ecologically unsustainable, and problems cannot be solved in a society that is driven by obsession with high rates of production and consumption, affluent living standards, market forces, the profit motive and economic growth. A sustainable and just world order cannot be achieved until we undertake radical change in our lifestyles, values and systems, especially in our economic system. The alternative we must work for is a `Simpler Way’, based on frugal “living standards”, co-operation, high levels of local economic self-sufficiency, and zero economic growth.
[...]
Co-ordinated by Peter North, Department of Geography, University of Liverpool.
***orth@liv.ac.uk Room details to follow.
The seminar is free, but prior registration is required. Lunch will be provided. There are limited number of ESRC-funded travel bursaries available on a strictly first come first served basis for postgraduate students and practitioners – applications to Peter North.

Yup. We have wonderful TAX Funded gabfests for folks to tell us we need to learn to live in poverty. In keeping with Agenda 21.

There is more in the whole email. What is clear to me, though, is that folks in the real world, with real jobs, hoping for a better life for their kids though improved productivity, are NOT invited to the party. What I’d expect to be laughed out of the room is, it would seem, central to the mind set of these folks. “Gloom, despair, and agony on me… Deep Dark Depression, burning misery…”

OK, so that’s just some sort of ‘small change’ office SPAM, right? It’s not like anyone is actually involved in those things? No?

Email 4462

I’ve taken a bunch of names in Germany off the CC list as I have no idea if they are private citizens or not. The sender has a .gov address and Mike Hulme is at UEA. What I want to know is who’s pocket is being picked for all these junkets to “World Summits” in order to tell us we need to live a more poverty ridden lifestyle? Maybe it’s time we let them try it for us first and report back in a decade?

date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 09:27:16 -0700
from: “Benedick, Richard E” ****enedick@pnl.gov
subject: FW: International Eminent Persons Meeting – Sept 3 and 4, 2001,
to: “‘Hulme, Mike’” ***lme@uea.ac.uk,

I thought you might be interested in this press release on the meeting I’ve been invited to in preparation for the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development. Following further consultations in Tokyo, I’ll[...]
Best wishes,
Richard

—–Original Message—–
From: Jerry Velasquez [mailto:***ry@geic.or.jp]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 6:15 AM
To: World Summit on Sustainable Development Info Mailing List
Subject: International Eminent Persons Meeting – Sept 3 and 4, 2001,
Tokyo

14 August 2001
PR/E24/01
WSSD INTERNATIONAL EMINENT PERSONS MEETING ON INTER-LINKAGES

The United Nations University (UNU), in cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan, Ministry of the Environment, Japan, and Global Legislators Organization for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE) International, is organizing a World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD) International Eminent Persons Meeting on Inter-Linkages – Bridging Problems and Solutions to Work Towards Sustainable Development. The meeting will be held at the UN House in Tokyo, Japan, on 3 and 4 September 2001.

A year before the scheduled World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD), most experts agree that progress towards the goals set in Agenda 21 has been unsatisfactory. The world still awaits a modus operandi for ground-level action. It is not that we have misunderstood the problems, but that we have failed to prepare the socio-economic systems needed to deal with these complex, inter-linked issues. Our laws, conventions, treaties, institutions, mechanisms and information are all developed in isolation, and often segregated based on topic or theme. To promote the further implementation of Agenda 21, we must fill the gap between our perception of problems and our solution-making process through strategic approaches, such as Inter-Linkages, that can clarify the linkages between our ecosystems and our socio-economic institutions.

A number of eminent policy makers and scholars will participate in the meeting, including: Maurice Strong, Senior Adviser to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Chairman of UN Reform and Secretary-General of UNCED; Jan Pronk, Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment of the Netherlands, and President of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change’s COP6; Emil Salim, former Indonesian State Minister for Population and Environment, and Chairman of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development Bureau of the Preparatory Committee of the WSSD; Ambassador Richard Benedick, former US chief negotiator for the Ozone Convention and author of the book Ozone Diplomacy; Prof. Norman Myers, leading British ecologist and environmental economist and visiting fellow at Green College, Oxford University; Mr. Delmar Blasco, Director General of the RAMSAR Convention; Mr. Martin Kohr, Executive Director of Third World Network and one of the South’s most prominent social commentators; and Akiko Domoto, Governor of Chiba Prefecture and former President of GLOBE International.

Key issues to be deliberated in the meeting are the inter-linkages between the chapters of Agenda 21 (specifically, the linkages between globalization and sustainable development), the inter-linkages between multilateral environmental agreements and strategies for sustainable development. The outputs of the meeting will be fed into the WSSD preparatory conferences and meetings. Plenary sessions will be broadcast live on the Internet. Please visit http://www.unu.edu on the day of the conference to view the broadcast. IISD’s Sustainable Development will also cover the meeting. Please visit http://www.iisd.ca for photos, daily summaries and real-audio clips.

* * *
For further information, please contact:
The UNU Public Affairs Section: Tel. (03) 5467-1243 & -1246; Fax (03) 3406
7346

Well, Guess Maurice and Kofi know a lot about a poverty level life style and know what’s best for the rest of us…

Clearly this isn’t just interoffice SPAM. These are folks involved in Agenda 21, working to make it happen, measuring ‘progress to goal’ and with every intent to implement it globally. OK, even if it looks whacky to me, these folks with big bundles of power and position are working to make it happen. That makes it real. That means I need to learn about it.

That they are ‘well connected’ inside UEA and CRU and that the agenda at least appears to be accepted and endorsed means that the UEA and CRU can NOT be unbiased custodians of the global temperature record nor provide unbiased policy advice. The UN connections and money are providing political corruption along with political correctness, in my opinion.

Group Three – Working Together

But just because someone has a seminar or a cushy VIP back slapping session, that doesn’t mean folks are actually working with Agenda 21, does it?

While the “working together” are: 4803 and 2318

Email 2318

date: Thu Nov 2 14:30:57 2000
from: Mike Hulme ***lme@uea.ac.uk
subject: Fwd:
to: t.osborn

Tim,
Not sure whether you’ll get the graphics on this, but they do look striking!!! Can you reply to him?
Mike

From: “hilles” ***es@easynet.co.uk
To: **Hulme@uea.ac.uk
Subject:
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 14:04:45 -0000

Dear Dr Hulme,

I am very concerned by the strong correlations between UK Winter Rainfall and solar activity and the failure of the authorities to incorporate such data in their forward planning – we appear to be paying a bitter price for this here in Gloucestershire.

Your rainfall data had been previously been published to illustrate increasing UK rainfall due to Greenhouse Gas emission led Global Warming – there would appear to be a strong solar component to this also.

By failing to acknowledge this and incorporate this in our plans we are also failing to produce a cohesive argument for Sustainable Development – certainly as far as the petrol protesters are concerned!

Please advise.

Kind Regards,

Julian Jones
Director Vision21 (Glos. C. C. Agenda 21)

Oh Dear! A local “Vision21″ Director unhappy that the CO2 causality is getting a bit muddied by an apparent SOLAR component, and that is making it hard to push the Agenda 21 vision…

So when an Agenda 21 Local Director for action has an issue with the science… he calls up the folks who control the science to see what they can do to fix it for him… Golly.

Email 4803

So do they tell the guy to go take a hike? Oh, wait, we saw in one of the other emails that they needed to stamp out a solar causality and that the computer models were one tweak of a parameter away from saying Solar caused things and GHG was a non entity… While not a smoking gun, it’s a big “Dig Here!” to find those Inconvenient SOLAR truths (and key words in the emails) and see if this can be fleshed out.

date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:20:41 +0000
from: Tim Osborn ***sborn@uea.ac.uk
subject: RE: intense precip
to: **hulme@uea

Mike,

I replied to this guy on our behalf. I thought I’d bring you back into the picture – he wants to approach the Environment Agency to suggest a joint UEA-EA-WeatherAction project to sort out the greenhouse vs. solar problem.
Not quite sure how to respond – any suggestions?

Tim

So, Minion did the contact, got a reply of “lets work together, shall we?” and is asking the boss how to proceed. Normal for folks you work with, I guess. The reply to Tim?

From: “hilles” ***lles@easynet.co.uk
To: “Tim Osborn” ***sborn@uea.ac.uk
Subject: RE: intense precip
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 12:34:56 -0000

Dear Tim,

Thank you for your reply of the 6 November, very much appreciated.

Could it simply be that the solar signal is being produced by a combination of the improved resolution of your most recent winter precipitation data, together with the ever increasing levels of CO2 providing now greater and more pronounced greenhouse effects?

I have also asked Weather Action at SBU to provide longer time series correlations between solar activity and terrestrial weather related factors. We have used WA forecasts for planning the arable farming on 2500 acres here in Glos for several years – and they have been of great benefit. They seem to achieve similar accuracy to conventional forecasts at 5 days range, yet are produced months ahead, and are usually best at showing overall trends, as well as extreme storm events. I appreciate such forecasts could be produced by purely mathematical means; but the WA people seem very sincere in their claim that these forecasts are produced by correlations with solar activity – and certainly those graphs I originally sent you would indicate (well beyond the chance of coincidence) that such links do exist.

May I also mention my own perspective and vested interests, in addition to my Agenda 21 work.
As a countryman and keen fisherman I have done what I could over the last twenty years to prevent the obvious deterioration in our local environment. It has become apparent that in addition to the greenhouse gas/solar debate on climate change and weather – there are also significant terrestrial factors that have a role, not only in the amelioration of the effects of weather/climate extremes, but also probably in the moderation of the actual weather extremes. I see little in the media relating to this and I strongly believe that we are thus failing to produce a cohesive and convincing strategy to meet such changes.

The graphic below, taken from one of my local studies shows some of these principles, to enable a relatively ‘cheap’ response to climate change:

I have had contact also with the Environment Agency regarding these issues,
ranging from their neglect of the natural water management principles detailed in the graphic above through to their equally apparent disregard of the clear drought/flood cycles detailed in the public domain information I originally sent you. Such cycles have long been noted in the water industry; but not acted on. Dr Richard Bailey (former CIWEM president) tells me he was fully aware of the solar signal apparent in Yorkshire river flows over 30 years ago.

I am aware that there is a great difference of opinion regarding global warming between your department at UEA and Weather Action at SBU. Between you both you will have the expertise and data to more fully investigate the atmospheric/solar links – and WA has expressed to me a willingness to collaborate with you in this respect.

May I suggest to the EA that they should commission a joint UEA/WA/EA study of such links? Could I introduce you to WA researchers to develop such a proposal, if not for the EA, then I might find other sponsors?

I thank you in anticipation of your consideration of this.

With kind regards,

Julian Jones

What did Tim say to get this response?

From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.***rn@uea.ac.uk]
Sent: 06 November 2000 10:03
To: ***les@easynet.co.uk
Subject: Fwd: intense precip
[Original request duplicate of above left out. ]

Dear Julian,

Mike Hulme asked me to reply to your email (copied above). The possible link between solar variability and winter precipitation intensity is very interesting – one of the scientific reviewers of our paper in fact asked us to add some comments about it to our original scientific paper. We declined to do so, however, mainly because we had a second record that covered the period from 1931-1997, though based on only 63 weather stations rather than 120 stations used to create the figure that appeared in the media. The second record showed a very similar trend to our main results over 1961-1995, and also showed the 11-year variability that indicates a link to solar activity over this period. *But* over the 1931-1960 period it showed no link at all to solar activity. It is quite possible that the 11-year oscillations over 1961-1995 are purely coincidental, and that the solar-climate link is weak or non-existent.

The range of scientific opinion is quite broad on the topic of how much climate variability and change is driven by solar variations. Nevertheless, as more observational data and improved statistical analysis techniques become available, it is becoming increasingly obvious that solar variations are important. For temperature, many scientists now feel that natural solar variations were the main contributor to the early 20th century warming that occurred between about 1910 and 1950. The dramatic warming since 1980, however, cannot be explained by changes in solar output. So, the role of solar variability is starting to be acknowledged, though it cannot explain all changes, and is much more uncertain than the greenhouse effect (in terms of quantifying past changes and in understanding physical/chemical mechanisms that can amplify a small change in radiation into a large climate response). It also does not imply that the greenhouse effect is necessarily weaker than is currently believed, so the best way to think of it might not be that climate change scenarios due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are wrong, but just that the level of natural variability that should be superimposed upon them is larger if solar variability is included. This is, of course, my personal opinion.

Best regards

Tim

Dr Timothy J Osborn
Senior Research Associate
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\sustainwater.jpg”

I find this fascinating.

Some times the Sun DOES do it, sometimes it doesn’t. In the PAST the sun worked. Now, it’s CO2.

No wonder poor Tim was asking what to do next.

The key thing for this posting, though, is that there ARE local Block Commissars, er, Directors working on Agenda 21. It is real, and it is popular inside UEA and CRU as evidenced by the kind of ‘interoffice notices’ they happily circulate, with whom they work, and the fact that Friends Of CRU are invited to VIP Meetings and like to tell their friends about it.

This is a distressing thing to me for the simple reason that I don’t like to be wrong. One poster here had posted some links to Agenda 21 stuff and said, basically:
“It’s Agenda 21!”…

and I blew it off. I was wrong.

Now I’m playing ‘catch up’ to find out just how pervasive this is and where it’s going. Any pointers to a decent summary of “what is the evil part” appreciated. (I’m sure there are some good parts in it, there usually is some sugar mixed with the poison… but any time the UN wants to tell me to live in poverty for my Carbon Sin, well, that’s evil. Especially when they are having VIP Gabfests with dinner on the TAX Payer dime all over the planet.)

So that’s the Agenda 21 package. Maybe now I’ll be able to get back to the 5300 block… FWIW, I did a search on “Agenda 21″, so emails with “Local 21″ or “Action 21″ or that refer to the topic obliquely will have been missed. This is the minimal set, not the maximal..

Subscribe to feed

About these ads

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW and GIStemp Issues, FOIA Climategate, Political Current Events and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

117 Responses to Foia – Agenda 21

  1. boballab says:

    EM:

    Prior to the facts coming out about the tests the CIA did with LSD in the 60′s there was “Crazy Talk” that they did such things. Prior to the truth coming out about the Tuskegee experiments there was “Crazy Talk” about that. Prior to the truth about the US Radiation experiments there was “Crazy Talk” about it. If someone told you in 1968 that the President of the US would authorize the break in to the rival political party’s HQ and then instigate a cover up, that would have been considered “Crazy Talk”, but all those things happened plus there is probably many more we do not know anything about.

    The kicker about Agenda 21 was and still is, is the fact they are not trying to hide what they are doing since they put the whole document up on the web:

    Agenda21

    Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.

    Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.

    http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

    Even more than that the UN has started their own university and from that have produced academic papers that tells you straight out not only what they want to do but also how they are going to do it. Back in 2010 I found one such document that was written by Dr. Samuel Makinda titled: Recasting global governance.

    At that time the UN University had a copy up in PDF format but have since taken it down, however you can still find it as Chapter 1 in a book from 2007.

    The dominance of Western institutions is partly due to the function of an ‘interpretive community’ that constantly explains, promotes, advocates and justifies global governance. The ‘interpretative community’ has been extremely successful in portraying Western ideas, values and preferences as global. The term ‘interpretive community’ is used in this essay to refer to any group of people who are committed to providing justification and legitimating principles for particular institutions, values or practices. Members of an ‘interpretive community’ may come from different professional backgrounds, such as scholars, journalists, international civil servants and NGO workers. They may also be recruited from different countries and might not even be aware that they operate as a part of a global ‘interpretive community’. What they have in common is a conviction that they are interpreting reality, when in fact they may be only expressing aspirations. Sometimes the ideas of an ‘interpretive community’ may influence practice.

    You can find that quote and more here (Google Book): http://tiny.cc/swmn1

  2. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Does this mean that I should get rid of my tin foil hat or should I build a tin foil fort?
    The old paradigm of controlling the masses through control of distribution of information by the Elites is now being ended by the net that covers the world. Their use of it may well be their undoing.
    Welcome to the new reality. The new age is beginning pg

  3. E.M.Smith says:

    @Boballab:

    Thanks for the pointer… I’m still playing catch up at this…

    @P.G.Sharrow:

    No tinfoil needed (that would scratch Mother Earth and is environmentally unsound and …) instead, apply conductive fluid to the inside of head. Mix 1/2 L of “single malt” with 1/4 L of “thermally stabilized solid mineral rich hydrogenated oxygen”… Sip slowly so the effect persists.

    You will find that between 1/2 and full dose relieves symptoms of emotional distress, despair, feelings of being alone and persecuted, and a desire to throw things at the computer. At about 2 x recommended dose, feelings of dizziness return along with disorientation, so modulate dose accordingly.

    I find it also does a great job of preventing UN Propaganda from entering brain (or much else either ;-)

    @all:

    I’ve read all the comments on other threads and would respond to them, but I’m a bit worn out by this posting creation process… so I’m going to go look at Egypt and 780 year cycle things for a while to ‘recover’…

  4. George says:

    For example, the infiltration of education

    This would be sort of a sidebar and fodder for a different posting. But there is a thing with a very innocent name that one would probably not notice if they saw it in passing called the North Dakota Study Group. But it is an organization of very progressive teachers and administrators. And I mean VERY “progressive”, their very job is basically the indoctrination of the kids. I once had an email sent to me by mistake that had a list of bullet points for Occupy Wall Street communications from a progressive outfit in New England. On the distribution list of that email was a principal of a public elementary school and I looked her up and she is apparently some “wig” in the NDSD.

    Might want to have a look into that outfit.

  5. This is premature because I haven’t read and absorbed all this, BUT if I have your drift correctly, EM, thank you!
    An open mind,especially one as astute as yours, (I am not sucking up here, you have proven your abilities and I am not the only one who recognises and appreciates them), is all it takes to sort the trees from the wood.
    If you can comprehend the possible agendas and see them as being real and not “conspiracies claimed by the leaders”, you will make my day, so to speak.

    Thanks also to pg, If I could understand what you are proposing I might benefit, in the meantime, red wine does(or overdoes) it for me. Maybe I have worked it out – scotch and water, not there yet!

    With respect to some literary expert, “We live in interesting times!”

    Thanks guys, you are inspirational.

  6. George says:

    Note that URL shown on the YouTube is no longer valid. Interested parties in the Bay Area might go to:

    http://www.freedomadvocates.org/

  7. George says:

    The thing about this whole Agenda21 thing it it’s being done by the UN (who NOBODY voted for) and is spread by various non-government organizations such as teachers unions or implemented by government departments whose people are not elected. The whole thing is being done by unelected bureaucrats. Planning boards, etc. The elected governments are being completely bypassed.

    Sure, we all want a “sustainable” future. But not in exchange for central control and planning of everything.

    Deciding who gets educated and who does not? Sounds to me like they want us all back living in mud huts chasing deer.

  8. R. de Haan says:

    Agenda 21 is just as big threat as the Climate Change doctrine.
    The climate change doctrine is set to introduce an individual carbon footprint.

    Agenda 21 is aimed at the permanent lock up of our resources, depopulation of rural area’s and control over agricultural land.

    The main aim is to drive people into cities.

    Both climate change doctrine and Agenda 21 fit together like a glove and both are poison pill for humanity.

    However, most countries already signed up to Agenda 21.

    http://green-agenda.com

    http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

  9. Hillbilly33 says:

    “The kicker about Agenda 21 was and still is, is the fact they are not trying to hide what they are doing.”

    It has been astounding to me that so much of the aims and statements of various “environmental” groups and associated eco-nutters, together with information on the the UN target of “global governance” has been so freely available to all for so long but has been allowed to go virtually un-noticed.

    I have been linkng to http://green-agenda.com on various blogs for some time imploring people to at least have a look and make up their own minds. It does not have to be a “conspiracy” but certainly there has been a pattern of groups with their own longterm motives using people involved in different movements to progress to the ultimate goals of the global governance control clique.

    Good to see the Tallbloke raid motivated you to get your tenacious and analytical teeth into climategates and Agenda-21 Chiefio.

    Will let you know soon if Tasmania is cooling more – the Scarlet Runner beans are in first flower and I’m hoping they set OK. My whole garden has loved the increasing CO2 – best crops for years!

    Cheers to you and yours. A Happy and Merry Christmas to all

  10. Ian W says:

    Interesting taking a snippet from Congressman’s Rohrabacher speech to Congress – shown at:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/17/congressman-rohrabachers-speech-on-climate/#more-53264

    He’s talking of the same ‘AGW’ campaign and says – inter alia -

    ” The purpose of this greatest of all propaganda campaigns is to enlist public support for, if not just acquiescence to, dramatic mandated change of our society, and to our way of life. This campaign has such momentum and power that it is now a tangible threat to our freedom, and to our prosperity as a people.”

    The entire speech is worth reading.

  11. A. C. Osborn says:

    Quite frightening.

  12. gallopingcamel says:

    I have always liked the concept of “Informed Consent”.

    Today our tax dollars are being spent to ensure that as many people as possible are mis-informed.

    We are still expected to consent or at least go along with it.

  13. Kevin B says:

    I don’t think I’m a conspiracy theorist, but I am quite old and cynical. Thus, when I see the word ‘sustainable’ being used I automatically substitute ‘Eugenics’ to get the real meaning behind the words.

    These people want to decide not only whether you get to reproduce, but whether you get to live or die.

  14. John says:

    @ P G SHARROW

    I think you’ll find that the ability of “the net” to allow views contrary to the “correct” ones is going to be attacked quite soon.

  15. John says:

    And @John, you might like to consider that the only viable means of population control is not control of births, but control of deaths.
    I am quite sure that others are aware of this…..publicising it would certainly be fatal at this time….but after intense indoctrination…..something that socialist/communist states are renowned for.

  16. tckev says:

    I am shocked but not surprised.
    Shocked at that 43 point list. Basically it is indoctrination of our youth through the NGO re-educators and subsequent new world order and control through the offices of the UN.
    As stated above – R. de Haan (08:55:48) – drive populations to cities for better control, and control all resource for the betterment of the elite. All this without a vote cast by the affected populations.
    It truly is a New World Order. Is it the one George Bush spoke of?

    Sheeple of the world awake! – you have nothing to loose but your children’s future!

  17. adolfogiurfa says:

    I want to reiterate here what I have wrote about the current Tallbloke´s Blog, which has called our attention to search for the origins of what it is happening and it has been happening in the world the last two centuries

    Before all, Tallbloke´s blog, it is and it was, taking into account his background:
    I’m a qualified engineer and a graduate of the History and Philosophy of Science. I’m interested in finding out how the solar system works and how Earth is affected by changes in it.
    An “Agora” of philosophy, of philosophy of science, as in the times of the ancient Greek “Agora”, an open temple under the Sun, a corner of a city`s square where free citizens congregate to talk about what the rest of “commoners” do not care or can not care, because of having to deal with the daily struggle for survival. A source of higher energy to be transmitted, shared, given, to the confused and afflicted by current conflicts and personal enigmas.
    Such a phenomenon has repeatedly arisen in the history of humanity as a beacon to guide with its light to real knowledge in order to answer the old burning question: Who am I?
    A reiterative Delphi fighting against darkness.
    Then it is not about “freedom of press” or whatever it may be called in our “modern times” ,this “Age of the Feuilleton”, as the “Magister Ludi” could call it (*), it is about the fight between the forces of good, of negentropy versus the forces of evil, following the involutionary tendencies, of entropy, the self indulgence of thanatos, the self destructive desire. Eros vs. Thanatos (Thanatos (Greek: Θάνατος (Thánatos), “Death,”[1] from θνῄσκω – thnēskō, “to die, be dying”[2]) was the daemon personification of death.)
    The thanatophile can not bear himself a lonely death, he wants us all to follow him in his self destructive quest, thus he associates with others sharing his irrational tendencies, and, while he is convinced he is doing the best for the rest, he and his comrades, destroy the fruits of the labour of the normal and sane people: This is why liberals, free thinkers of the west, in special after the so called democratic “French Revolution”, share common ideals with those fanatics of the east.
    Then let us be clear about what it is happening now in the world and let us not worry about: Life, eros, always prevails.
    (*)Herman Hesse´s “Magister Ludi” or “The Glass Bead Game”

  18. George says:

    There is one major thing that bothers me about all of this and it is that central planning and control is itself unsustainable.

    This is because different regions have different sets of resources upon which to draw and different sets of problems facing them. A policy decision that is good for 85% of the world might be devastating for the remaining 15%. Or a mistake in central policy can march the entire world off a cliff. You can get one of these “sustainable development” folks to agree with this philosophy if you mention crops. If you mention how having a single variety of a food crop such as wheat planted ubiquitously, a single disease or condition of weather can rip through the entire crop and destroy it. Having a mix of different varieties that have different tolerances to different diseases and climate conditions allows one to limit damage by some single event. On this they tend to agree.

    The same is true for policy. Our government, that of the United States Constitution, was originally founded in order to have each state address their unique set of problems by allocating their unique set of resources as they saw fit. Each state was free to try things in their own way. A drastic mistake (going hell-bent for canals in Indiana, for example, just when railroads were starting to take off, causing bankruptcy of the state) would see the damage limited to that state and the benefit of its experience shared by all of them.

    In order to create a sort of symbiotic synergy among the states, the Federal Government’s job was to defend the whole and to ensure free trade between them. If you look at the country as an organism, the federal government was to be sort of an immune and circulatory system. States rich in raw material resources could send those materials to states rich in energy/labor resources where things could be manufactured. These goods could then be transported to the other several states where the people could benefit from their availability without barriers of trade between the states adding artificial costs. The federal government was to be funded by taxes on foreign trade (until the invention of the excise tax where domestic trade was taxed).

    What we have evolved to is a federal government that is now determined to micromanage the states from Washington DC. The smallest of economic transactions and businesses are regulated from the center of government. One bad policy at the federal level can result (and has resulted) in serious consequences to the entire country.

    The UN wants to expand this to the global level.

    I am in favor of decentralized government as being more sustainable, more adaptable, and frankly, more enjoyable for the people who have to live under it. America is neither a “conservative” country nor a “liberal” country. We have conservative communities/states/regions and we have liberal communities/states/regions. Each one of these should be free to reflect their culture in their laws and regulations and other areas (including the federal government) should mind their own business. No matter what your own values, there should be a place in this country where you feel at home. Different areas can use different economic/governance models and the ones that are successful will grow and gain political influence and the ones that are unsuccessful will lose relative political and economic influence.

    Issues such as abortion and gay marriage are very divisive at the federal level because we do have such a wide variety of community values. Each side is afraid of the other side taking power at the federal level and shoving their values down the throats of the rest of the country. This results in exaggeration, overblown rhetoric, and genuine fear in some people’s minds. We would be better served by allowing these issues to be addressed by levels of government closer to the community. What works for California might not work for Oklahoma. At the global level, what works for Ecuador might not work for Japan.

    The notion of central planning appeals to many people because it takes the ambiguity out of things and makes the world and the future seem more “predictable”. For people who have a fundamental uneasiness over the “invisible hand” of economics, this provides them with a feeling of security. They might feel like they are adrift on a boat at sea with decentralized government but feel that things are under control with an engine and a rudder if things are planned.

    I believe that the MOST SUSTAINABLE model is decentralization of policy with some basic guidelines. Your country may not pollute your neighbor’s drinking water, for example, is my idea of good central policy. A country could not collect all of its waste water, for example, and pipe it to the border and dump it in a river just as that river flows into its neighbors’ country. But a country should be free to set its policies inside its own borders. Within that country, different states/provinces/districts should be free to enact their own policies to a much greater degree of autonomy than we see today. And even within those jurisdictions, we have room for autonomy for municipalities/counties/parishes to set their policies that might be different.

    Approaching things in this way makes for more harmony at the federal level. People are no longer afraid of social values being shoved down their throats and the issues become more of foreign policy or general “role of government” issues.

  19. E.M.Smith says:

    Well, a search on:
    “Agenda 21″ “San Francisco” chapters
    was very productive.

    One report details where the UN statistics on ‘progress’ are kept and presents a chart (admittedly about a decade out of date) showing the ‘progress’ as about 50% globally. It also maps out some of the lines of influence, including how government agencies, like the EPA, give grants to NGOs, that then provide the “consensus” to EPA to enable the regulation making (and get more money).

    http://sovereignty.net/p/sd/agenda21rpt.htm

    This chart is a bit chilling:

    http://sovereignty.net/p/sd/agenda21rpt.htg/a21chart2.jpg

    At this point a lot of things start to make sense. The “Global Warming” battle is just ONE battle in a larger war on liberty and free thinking. An important battle, but only one.

    The interlocking support from various quarters now makes more sense, too. It’s not ‘accidental’, nor the result of ‘independent thought’. It is Agenda driven and highly coordinated.

    There is also a clear pattern of directed infiltration and subornation of government agencies for the purpose of bypassing BOTH the electorate AND their electors. No Representative Republic here, no sir.

    Just as clear is that it is pretty much essential to root out and cut off the Leeching of money out of governments to fund their operations. NO funding of NGOs, NO funding via a wash through the UN. NO “Tobin Tax” nor “Carbon Tax” to the UN.

    Several agencies either need a complete top to bottom cleaning (which is likely not possible) or more likely must simply be obliterated. EPA, Education, and NOAA look to be pretty much hopeless. NASA may be as well at this point. But it’s worse than that. There are local metastasis all over the place and the infiltration of Education pretty much tells me that we need a Voucher system at the state level.

    (This also explains the vehemence with which religion and Voucher based education are fought.)

    An example of a minor ‘win’ (or at least a minor delay) is here:

    http://wearechangetv.us/2011/05/will-the-san-francisco-bay-area-stand-against-agenda-21/

    While a pretty clear layout of the depth and breadth of the problem is here:

    http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/la21_198.html

    I just hope more people are further along at stopping this than I am. I’m clearly “way late”…

    IMHO, this needs to be put in front of Farmers Groups (granges et all) nationally and it needs to be put in front of rural communities around the country (world?). I’m not sure which religions will already have been co-opted already, but those that have not yet been lost need to take a look at what they support.

    There also needs to be a much better awareness inside the Republican Party that this is NOT their friend. Yes, Baby Bush signed it (though that does NOT make it US law…) and I will hold that against him forever… But it flies in the face of traditional conservative values.

    ANY Senator or Representative that votes funding directly OR INDIRECTLY via an agency re-granting to support this (or the NGO leeches) is committing a nearly criminal act and ought to be educated about what they are doing, then removed if they continue doing it.

    ANY company that supports the goals of this Agenda needs to be told to stop it, or take your money elsewhere. No less a company than Wal-Mart has a program that supports the “sustainable development” agenda, so one must ask if they think they are just Greenwashing their stores? If so, they need to realize how grave a mistake it is to be a tool for the propaganda arm of Agenda 21.

    Somewhere there needs to be a ‘counter coordination’ body. I’m all for the Celtic tradition of calling for a war and everyone just shows up and does their part; but that didn’t work out so well against a Roman Army controlled by the Evil Empire. IMHO, that’s what is on the other side. So while the Celtic “Just Fight IT” is good, it is likely not sufficient.

    I can only hope there is enough time to “fix it”. Things seem to have gotten fairly far along already. Then again, I suspect a lot of the folks “contributing” have no idea they are being driven to a global tyranny tune.

  20. Hillbilly33 says:

    E.M. I apologise if I’ve mentioned this before but with your renewed interest in Agenda 21 and request for “pointers”, details of Ottmar Edenhofer and his work will give you a more current view of UN and IPCC aims and a possible rich vein to follow because he also seems to be refreshingly honest and uninhibited in stating some matters. I haven’t linked anything specifically but Google ‘Ottmar Edenhofer and NZZ Online’ for details of the interview

    German economist Ottmar Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

    Following are excerpts from a November 2010 interview of Edenhofer with NZZ Online just before Cancun.

    (EDENHOFER): “Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.
    One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.
    If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.”

    Edenhofer continues to be a leading light of the UNIPCC as evidenced by the following.

    On May 9, 2011 the IPCC released a “Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation.” Actually, it only released its summary because, as is always the case with these IPCC products, the “Summary for Policymakers” is produced before the actual work it purportedly summarizes. Right up front are the paper’s four “coordinating lead authors.” Representative of the world of global warming schemes, these include two Germans, an African, and a Cuban, as no economic plan is complete without an expert from Cuba. First among them, however, just happens to be IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer.

    Go to ICECAP and enter Ottmar Edenhofer in the search box for more details.

  21. George says:

    It is Agenda driven and highly coordinated.

    And I believe you will find Fenton Communications is the nexus of that coordination at least as far as NGO’s and various pressure groups are concerned along with the media reporting.

    Find me an Agenda 21 pressure group, and I am willing to bet Fenton is behind them. Find me an Agenda 21 news article, and it was likely placed there by Fenton with Tides Foundation providing the funding, mostly with Soros and Heinz money along with that of the Ford and MacArthur foundations.

    Check this out:

    http://www.veengle.com/s/North+Dakota+Study+Group.html

  22. E.M.Smith says:

    A search on “Agenda 21″ “Tobin Tax” is productive as well. Looks like it IS a push for direct funding for the Agenda

    http://www.ceedweb.org/iirp/projdir.htm
    http://www.ceedweb.org/iirp/biblio.htm

    http://www.discerningtoday.org/key_international_meetings.html

    for international taxes to finance agreed initiatives
    bullet a Tobin (Summers) tax, air travel tax, other international taxing authority
    bullet WTO, WB and IMF under UN system of law
    bullet Commission with NGOs to devise coherence mechanism
    Redefine the WTO’s mandate towards sustainable development (away from mercantilist approach)
    bullet of global environmental organization
    [...]
    bullet International Conference on Financing for Development will focus on creating a standard accounting system for the world that will be used by all governments and corporations to make their activities more transparent to international inspection, the creation of Economic Regions, global taxation, and UN supervision of financial regulations.
    bullet The Monterrey Consensus on Goals
    bullet Statement by the U.S. pledging an additional $5 billion in aid.
    bullet Press Conference excerpts, 03/21/02:
    bullet Mr. Wolfensohn (President World Bank) said there was now a unity of purpose between the leaders of the developed and the developing countries. What was coming out in the consensus was that the partnership was not only recognized, but also that they would act on it in the areas of capacity-building, trade and increased development assistance, with each side bearing its responsibilities.” (i.e. there is agreement on the restructuring of the global financial system between the NGO, corporate and governmental partnerships)…
    bullet There was still a large gap between the pledges by the United States and the European Union and the money required, another correspondent said. How would the rest be obtained? Mr. Annan replied that, apart from the money given, the acceptance that aid was necessary, and the realization by the public that it was in the common interest to help the poor, would maintain pressure on politicians to keep assisting the developing nations.” (i.e. they need a global tax)…

    Ambitious little bastards. Take over of the WTO, World Bank, and IMF too…

  23. E.M.Smith says:

    This insight also explains the otherwise inexplicable “stupidity” of some destructive acts.

    WHY run the banks to ruin via a CRA “give away home loans” mandate?

    Because you don’t want successful banks, you want dependent banks. You don’t want happy individual home owners, you want folks with a homeowner disaster looking to government to “help” them. You WANT subdivisions to fail.

    It is the motivation behind the “push it until it breaks” when it comes to anything capitalistic. The “food contamination” scares.

    Then you vilify the bankers and the farmers…

  24. dougieh says:

    E.M.

    thanks for casting your eye on this & other interesting/worrying developments which (speaking as lurker mostly) we “Joe public” never get to hear of from MSM.

    Agenda 21 – sounds like si/fi horror fiction (maybe this is where Dan Simmons gets his ideas for “flashback”, good read by the way, great author)

    can this really be happening without us plebs realising, yes i now believe it can & is.

    cue for song I’ve always found expressed my feelings as a youngster (only it’s the older people now) -

  25. E.M.Smith says:

    @Dougieh:

    It can be happening, and it is. The number of organizations that pop up on web searches working to make it real pretty much says so.

    The more frightening aspect is that so many people clearly EMBRACE the Agenda. I suppose a lot of it is just the result of a decade or two of propaganda… but still. Clearly the message of freedom and independence has not been communicated well from “The Greatest Generation” to the “Me Generations”.

    The one thing that gives me some reasonable hope is Asia. From Russia to China to India and places in between, folks have tasted a bit of economic modernity and they are NOT interested in turning back.

    Just heard on the news that sales of Air Conditioners were at an all time high this year in China. Add that to building a “Coal Powered Electric Plant” per WEEK, and it is clear that China is not going to this slaughter house.

    India has a whole generation that finally has a shot at aspiration. Not turning back there, either. Even out in the rural areas, folks are getting one light bulb and a TV… A Huge Improvement.

    Russia is “on the cusp” of liberty, but surrounded by threats, so continues to be vulnerable to the “Safety Savior” strongman… But at the same time, Putin has no interest in letting some UN body tell HIM how to run HIS country. To the extent an item helps him, it will get done; otherwise, nope.

    Then there is the Muslim World….

    A problematic point, in that most of their people are already herded into urban enclaves and subject to Central Authority of one sort or another. Yet it is a young population that has seen what a free world looks like. The Arab Spring was driven by a desire to toss off tyranny, not swap them.

    They may still end up with a new tyranny of Islamists, but frankly, I’m looking at the alternative and that just might be a good thing. Why? Because there is no way on earth that Islam is going to lay down and get raped by a bunch of UN Socialists. The greed of the upper classes will not give up a life of riches and the lower classes will not accept a world of no hope and poverty. IF that is their only choice, they will retreat into Islam for solace… and Islam will not allow for domination by another belief structure. Given how much the UN has “helped” Muslim nations with megatons of bombs, I doubt it will be welcomed with open arms…

    I’ve been pondering this earlier in the day. While I have exactly ZERO evidence for the idea: Say you have one group with a ton of bombs and money; and another group with folks that will NOT play ball… How better to get the guy with the money “brought down” than by burning up his money and get the guy who won’t play ball “knocked into complacency” than by having bombs dropped on him? It would be a classic move. Provoke the two places that are most problematic into fighting each other.

    So the UN has sent armies into several Muslim lands. WHO’s army? Largely the US. This helps generate hatred toward the USA by Muslims. Eventually the thing becomes self perpetuating. Is it possible we are both just tools of someone trying to ‘clear the board’ of powerful opposition?

    Then who goes in once a country is “Liberated”? Why, the UN and UN agencies… Who gets drained of treasure and ‘reputation for support of liberty and independence’? The USA.

    There’s something ‘not right’ in the various wars we’ve been goaded into over the last 20 years or so. I’ve not been able to tease it out. The “cover story’ is pretty good and fits well enough. But there are loose threads.

    We’ve done NOTHING to support a real agenda of liberty and independence. We’ve done NOTHING to support self determination by the people. The ‘adventures’ have been supported by Bush (who signed the Rio agreement) and Clinton/Obama. What do they all have in common?

    Countries that are run by strongly independent leaders are flattened.
    Countries that do NOT have a “Global Orientation” are flattened.
    Countries that could be independent, due to oil, are flattened.

    Some of it is self interest, I’m sure. There’s no doubt we wanted to get Bin Laden. But what does that have to do with occupation of Afghanistan? Just suppression of the Taliban? How about lending an air force to the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya? We’ve been grumpy at them or 30 years. Why now?

    I’d not be thinking this way were it not for the pattern of behaviour we already have from the Agenda 21 folks. They like to parasitize an existing organization, then redirect it to their goals. They like to use Other Peoples Money. They like ‘leveraged solutions’. They like to use the UN and “treaties” to attain their ends. So you simply must look for and suspect that they might be doing things in the form of what they already have shown they do.

    What has directed where the US forces are sent? The UN, various treaties, and recently the Progressives in the Obama administration directly issuing orders.

    Again: There is no evidence for this. It is at best an early speculation. The step that comes just before “look for evidence”.

    My suspicion is that an open society is more vulnerable to this type of attack. Folks just don’t expect it and don’t defend against it. We expect people to “play fair”. Dictatorships and other “central control” forms (like Theocracies) always expect subterfuge and attempts to destabilize them.

    The answer? Use a parasitized ‘open society’ to take out the recalcitrant resistant ones.

    Given the corruption of the meaning of Democracy that has been practiced, they see it as a way to gain control via public manipulation. So you get a large push for “democracy” as the ‘false flag’, but NOT an independent democratic Republic; no, you get the democracy that can be manipulated more easily via mass marketing and envy / greed.

    The other ‘convenient’ thing is that you don’t care which way it turns out. As long as two of your enemies are fighting, you don’t care which one wins… Once the provocation has been started, it will tend to form a feedback loop, so it’s easy to start and easy to keep it going.

    Think about it: What AT ALL do I care about Libya? They were selling oil into the world market. That’s enough. As a person who believes in Self Determination (a phrase we have not heard much lately…) and Liberty: WHY do I care what government Libya chooses or by what means? It’s up to them No US Bombs need apply. Ditto Iraq and Afghanistan.

    But if you can goad (one side or the other) into starting a fuss with each other, then it winds up into an ongoing opportunity to “Take Down” countries that are not compliant using resources from a country you would like to weaken. A nice “Lose-Lose” and they win.

    Similarly the complete lack of the slightest move to restrain US Debt.

    They are spending $Billions via NGOs that suck the money out of the US Government. Why on earth would they want to slow that down? Hell, it’s not THEIR credit card they are loading up. Spend the USA into poverty, then swap to a Tobin Tax the hobbles finance globally. Another “Lose-Lose” they win… It is not just a reluctance to cut spending. We cut spending drastically after W.W.II and had other times of restraint. This is more rabid. Not even remotely hoping to make any real reduction. The initial GOAL is at best ‘reduced growth’.

    But if the GOAL is to bankrupt the USA by spending all our money and all our credit via NGO grants… Hey, looking good!

    Again, no proof. Not even decent evidence. But a lot of loose ends get neatly explained once you let go of the notion of “Honest moral people working for Americans”…

    Balanced against that is: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”.

    That had been the thing that kept me from embracing the idea that Agenda 21 was “real”. But at the time we have it, in their own words and deeds, that they are working to these ends: We know there is malice (they say so) toward America and Western Ideals. At that point many things are no long ‘adequately explained by stupidity”. I think the debt crisis is one of them.

  26. dougieh says:

    E.M.
    WOW – thanks for the reply, as usual you are like a machine gun with your thoughts, will have to reread & maybe rethink before answering (had a few pops)

    ps. how are the wabits on a lighter note?

  27. George says:

    Is it possible we are both just tools of someone trying to ‘clear the board’ of powerful opposition?

    Reminds me of someone I once overheard saying “what the world needs is for someone to nuke China and have it look like India did it”

  28. E.M.Smith says:

    The bunnies are quiet happy. They seem cheered by my return. Most likely as I always pick some stuff from the garden for them ;-)

    The brain has two speeds: On and Asleep and one ‘transitional mode’ that is characterized by “where’s the coffee?”. Once “on”, it just does what it does and I’m just along for the ride… Strange effect, though…

    For example, while listening the the news, the other half of the brain was wandering the net. Found a UN posting site full of mind numbing semi-empty politically colored ‘progressive speak’ (where things like ‘provide funding’ means ‘tax the USA’ and ‘access to food’ means “Free Lunch – but no farming allowed’… So I’ve read a few dozen pages.

    Other than the need to constantly vigilant to the double speak, there is the semi-mindless volume of it to slog through. But occasionally you find some interesting bits:

    http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_33.shtml

    33.18. The secretariat of the Conference has estimated the average annual costs (1993-2000) of implementing in developing countries the activities in Agenda 21 to be over $600 billion, including about $125 billion on grant or concessional terms from the international community. These are indicative and order-of-magnitude estimates only, and have not been reviewed by Governments. Actual costs will depend upon, the specific strategies and programmes Governments decide upon for implementation.

    33.19. Developed countries and others in a position to do so should make initial financial commitments to give effect to the decisions of the Conference. They should report on such plans and commitments to the United Nations General Assembly at its forty-seventh session, in 1992.

    33.20. Developing countries should also begin to draw up national plans for sustainable development to give effect to the decisions of the Conference.

    So the developing countries ought to draw up plans to spend the loot, and the DEVELOPED countries need to get on it and prepare to hand over $0.6 TRILLION dollars PER YEAR. Or more…

    This thing is just HUGE.

    You can see the ‘weasel words’ every so often: “in a position to do so”, “or concessional terms”, “from the international community”.

    So you have to wade through a lot of that stuff to get to the nub of it. Somewhere near $Trillion a year (in current dollar terms) to be provided by developed countries, through the UN money laundry, to ‘developing countries’

    33.16. Innovative financing. New ways of generating new public and private financial resources should be explored, in particular:

    (a) Various forms of debt relief, apart from official or Paris Club debt, including greater use of debt swaps;

    (b) The use of economic and fiscal incentives and mechanisms;

    (c) The feasibility of tradeable permits;

    (d) New schemes for fund-raising and voluntary contributions through private channels, including non-governmental organizations;

    (e) The reallocation of resources at present committed to military purposes.

    So forget any loans ever made to ‘developing countries’ and turn that military self defense budget over the the UN…

    We also see the genesis of “Carbon Permits”…

    And they want to make their own ‘sort of a bank’

    The Global Environment Facility, managed jointly by the World Bank, UNDP and UNEP, whose additional grant and concessional funding is designed to achieve global environmental benefits, should cover the agreed incremental costs of relevant activities under Agenda 21, in particular for developing countries. Therefore, it should be restructured so as to, inter alia:

    A “facility” is often a financial term for a major loan and /or your own bank. In this case, a bank account managed by UNDP and UNEP (who are undoubtedly under Agenda 21 control).

    http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_35.shtml

    (b) Environmental and developmental policy formulation, building upon the best scientific knowledge and assessments, and taking into account the need to enhance international cooperation and the relative uncertainties of the various processes and options involved;

    (c) The interaction between the sciences and decision-making, using the precautionary approach, where appropriate, to change the existing patterns of production and consumption and to gain time for reducing uncertainty with respect to the selection of policy options;

    Here we see the push to put forward agenda driven science, then use it, only couched in the “precautionary principle” – that we have seen is abused to say ‘do not burn fuels’.

    The goal? “change the existing patterns of production and consumption”.

    That is the definition of the economy. Who, makes what, for whom. They want nothing less than management of the economy.

    http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_09.shtml

    Basis for action

    9.6. Concern about climate change and climate variability, air pollution and ozone depletion has created new demands for scientific, economic and social information to reduce the remaining uncertainties in these fields. Better understanding and prediction of the various properties of the atmosphere and of the affected ecosystems, as well as health impacts and their interactions with socio-economic factors, are needed.
    [...]
    (a) Promote research related to the natural processes affecting and being affected by the atmosphere, as well as the critical linkages between sustainable development and atmospheric changes, including impacts on human health, ecosystems, economic sectors and society;
    [...]
    (d) Cooperate in research to develop methodologies and identify threshold levels of atmospheric pollutants, as well as atmospheric levels of greenhouse gas concentrations, that would cause dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system and the environment as a whole, and the associated rates of change that would not allow ecosystems to adapt naturally;

    i.e. manufacture the ‘science’ that lets them control how much fuel is used globally, and taxes from it too…

    There’s more in there. The push to windmills and solar, for example.

    Many of the things that were nutty were not just randomly happening on their own all over the world. They originate here, as directives.

    I can only take about 2 pages of it at a time as it does cause the brain some dyspepsia…

  29. kuhnkat says:

    EM,

    I always find it interesting to see what finally kicks the DIG HERE DIG NOW button on people. Apparently on Agenda 21 it was seeing it mentioned as a CAUSE in the E-Mails for you??

    As I was an avid reader of right wing “propaganda” and already totally against the UN and its Communist roots. All I needed was that it was linked to the UN, and reading the page, and some of its propaganda suggesting the end of private property!!!

    Generally people laugh about conspiracies that are secret collaborations to take over the world. Then think about Marx and Hitler. Both wrote books about their plans and had plenty of collaborators who wanted to help them. Did they do it alone? Heck no. Plenty of authoritarians, crooks, and Utopians willing to work to make the world over in their idea of perfection!!!

    Agenda 21 is an extension of this.

  30. kuhnkat says:

    Now add in LOST “Law of the Sea Treaty” where they implement pollution controls that means they control the land that provides the runoff to the oceans!!!

  31. kuhnkat says:

    Just so that you don’t get ANY rest, here is a blog where they are tracking the posts of a gentleman who claims to be duplicating Rossi’s E-cat work successfully. Interesting details!!

    http://www.ecatplanet.net/showthread.php?100-Chan-Method-of-Ni-H-fusion
    (hat tip David at NicheModeling)

  32. icouldahad says:

    Marry Agenda 21 with Codex Alimantarius and you start to really have fun.

    No one’s mentioned Obama’s EO 13575 ‘White House Rural Council’ which is Agenda 21. He created a ‘council’ of his adminstration and cabinet depts that are to run the entire heartland. No wonder he won’t let the Keystone Pipline be built. Everyone is missing the connection between that and his EO.

    A year ago I started reading agricultural blogs and warned them about Agenda 21. I was told to get lost. I wonder how many people on those blogs would say the same now?

    I’m glad to see you’ve finally woken up to the threat we’re under.

  33. Konrad says:

    I believe that these Agenda 21 and those relating to the World Bank are, perhaps more than the science related emails, what is causing the recent panic. I would note that just days before the raid on Tallbloke, he had a post relating to contact between Robert Watson of the World Bank and the Climategate scientists. These small number of emails appear to have been accidentally picked up by the science focused filter used to select the recent 5000 emails released. This is likely the tip of a very large iceberg hidden in the further 200,000 encrypted emails.

    I feel some of those pushing Agenda 21 are coming to the realisation that the collapse of the global warming hoax may, in the age of the Internet, be a death blow to their plans. All their troops have been recorded as strong advocates for the AGW hoax, and in the Internet age the record of their advocacy cannot be erased. Sceptics will never forgive and the Internet will never forget. The collapse of the AGW hoax could sideline the Left globally for many years. They have over reached and are now realising what is about to occur. The fellow travellers in the AGW hoax now appear to be in a panicked fight for political survival. I would expect that attacks against sceptics will become more bitter and spiteful.

    Hopefully FOIA will release the code for the further 200,000 emails swiftly. Democracy is under threat, but most of those opposing democracy can be neutralised with the collapse of the AGW hoax.

  34. Hillbilly33 says:

    E.M. You say: “Again, no proof. Not even decent evidence. But a lot of loose ends get neatly explained once you let go of the notion of “Honest moral people working for Americans”…

    The following sourced quotes from htttp://green-agenda.com leave no doubt as to the aims of these supporters of Agenda 21 and America is a principal target.

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
    industrialized civilizations collapse?
    Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
    - Maurice Strong,
    founder of the UN Environment Programme

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society,
    which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
    - David Brower,
    founder of Friends of the Earth

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of
    saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have
    an ecologically sound society under socialism.
    I don’t think it is possible under capitalism”
    - Judi Bari,
    principal organiser of Earth First!

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the
    United States. De-development means bringing our
    economic system into line with the realities of
    ecology and the world resource situation.”
    - Paul Ehrlich,
    Professor of Population Studies

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another
    United States. We can’t let other countries have the same
    number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US.
    We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
    - Michael Oppenheimer,
    Environmental Defense Fund

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty,
    reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
    - Professor Maurice King

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place
    for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and
    plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams,
    free shackled rivers and return to wilderness
    millions of acres of presently settled land.”
    - David Foreman,
    co-founder of Earth First!

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “Complex technology of any sort is an assault on
    human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to
    discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy,
    because of what we might do with it.”
    - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the
    worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
    - Jeremy Rifkin,
    Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
    equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
    - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “Our insatiable drive to rummage deep beneath
    the surface of the earth is a willful expansion
    of our dysfunctional civilization into Nature.”
    - Al Gore,
    Earth in the Balance

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many,
    doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
    – Sir James Lovelock,
    BBC Interview

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to
    about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure
    and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species,
    returning throughout the world.”
    -Dave Foreman,
    co-founder of Earth First!

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “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,
    Rio Earth Summit

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  35. E.M.Smith says:

    @Kuhnkat:

    The UN has had a long laundry list of “Whacky Lefty” {ideas, mandates, agreements, workshops, whatever} that basically were a lot of onanism producing nothing. I’d put this in that category until shown otherwise.

    In the emails, seeing folks claiming titles of Local Leader and folks pushing the agenda…. well, at that time it becomes real and needs to be understood.

    It’s basically time management. Don’t waste time on fruitless things, concentrate on what is real.

    One good bit of news: “Dear Leader” in N. Korea has died… on CNN now.

    One less Socialist Dictator to worry about.

    @Hillbilly:

    Ok, ok I’ll fix it: “No proof that I’ve found yet”…. Better? ;-)

    Now where did I leave those No-Doze?…

  36. david says:

    Such hate of modern society, such desire to destroy much of the worlds population as advocated by agenda 21 groups is very close to Obama’s team.

    “de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth … Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential”” John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar – Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions (1973)

    The other part is the “Save the environment for the children” Again they left out something. It should be “Save the environment (and resources) for OUR children not yours.” Obama’s Science Czar makes that clear in the book Ecoscience (1977)
    They are summerized :
    • Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
    • The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
    • People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
    • A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.
    [actual quotes at link http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/ ]

    Does Obama understand that debt is bad for the US. Here is what he said in 2006

    “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
    ~Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

    August, 2009
    ”the last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up – take more demand out of the economy and put business further in a hole.”

    My concern is not that these people will succeed in their Blackbeard like quest to “rule the world.” It is that they will divide the world, race against race, nation against nation; specifically 1st world vs 3rd world. These people can only create chaos, financial collapse, masssive social destruction and wars. If that is their goal, I am fairly confident (despite what they think) that they will not be able to control the systems that evolve out of such chaos. Sometimes it is like watching a really bad movie.

  37. Pingback: The New Earth Government « T W A W K I

  38. twawki says:

    Google Germain Dufour spiritual leader of the New Earth Government. Your future brought to you by the vested interests of others
    http://twawki.com/2011/12/19/the-new-earth-government/

  39. George says:

    The major driver of UN meddling in the policies of nations through their unelected bureaucracies is a thing called “Sustainable Development” that was agreed to in Rio. Google that one and then Google “Education for Sustainable Development” and you learn why public school teacher put their kids in private school.

    Anyway, part of the “Sustainable Development” thing is this thing called “The Precautionary Principal” and what that says is that if you have a plausible threat to the environment and have reached a consensus that the threat is plausible, then it should be mitigated against DESPITE SCIENTIFIC UNCERTAINTY.

    One of the primary foundations of the precautionary principle, and globally accepted definitions, results from the work of the Rio Conference, or “Earth Summit” in 1992. Principle #15 of the Rio Declaration notes:

    “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”[2]

    This definition is important for several reasons. First, it explains the idea that scientific uncertainty should not preclude preventative measures to protect the environment. Second, the use of “cost-effective” measures indicates that costs can be considered. This is different from a “no-regrets” approach, which ignores the costs of preventative action.

    The 1998 Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle summarizes the principle this way: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.” (The Wingspread Conference on the Precautionary Principle was convened by the Science and Environmental Health Network [3]).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

    So what they say here is that if they deem something to be a potential threat to the environment they can take precautionary measures even if they have not established cause and effect. Basically what it means is that if consensus is reached that it is plausible that A: temperatures are warming and B: fossil fuel consumption can make temperatures warm then the UN is free to take action and blow money. They do not have to establish that fossil fuel consumption *IS* causing warming, just reach consensus that it is plausible that it could.

    So the role of the IPCC is not to prove that the Earth is warming. The purpose of the IPCC is simply to make an assessment and see if they can reach consensus that it is plausible that CO2 emissions COULD be causing warming (notwithstanding that there has been no warming in 10 years). Their adjustments to the databases to show continued warming also create a plausible scenario that temperatures COULD be warming (they don’t need to really show that they ARE rising under the precautionary principal).

    So we can argue the science all we want and it makes no difference. It doesn’t matter if it is actually warming or not or if CO2 emissions is causing anything or not. If we were to show tomorrow that it was the release of peanut butter fumes causing global warming and not CO2, that is beside the point. CO2 *could* cause warming so it is a potential threat to the environment so they can act.

  40. david says:

    Lots of people haters around…

    A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
    Ted Turner,
    Founder of CNN and major UN donor
    ”The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
    Jeremy Rifkin,
    Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
    ”Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
    Paul Ehrlich,
    Professor of Population Studies,
    Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
    ”My three goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full compliment of species, returning throughout the world.”
    David Foreman,
    co-founder of Earth First!
    ”The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
    Sir James Lovelock,
    BBC Interview
    ”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
    Stephen Schneider,
    Stanford Professor of Climatology,
    Lead author of many IPCC reports
    Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in history… When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
    Dr. Kiminori Itoh, PhD
    UN IPCC Japanese Scientist
    award-winning environmental physical chemist
    ”Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
    Sir John Houghton,
    First chairman of the IPCC
    ”It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
    Paul Watson,
    Co-founder of Greenpeace
    ”Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
    David Brower,
    First Executive Director of the Sierra Club
    ”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
    Timothy Wirth,
    President of the UN Foundation
    ”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest oportinity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
    Christine Stewart,
    former Canadian Minister of the Environment
    ”The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
    Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin
    ”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 Environmental Program
    ”A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-Development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
    Paul Ehrlich,
    Professor of Population Studies,
    Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
    ”If I were reincarnated I would wish to return to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
    Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh,
    husband of Queen Elizabeth II,
    Patron of the Patron of the World Wildlife Foundation
    ”The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these third World countries right where they are.”
    Michael Oppenheimerm
    Environmental Defense Fund
    ”Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
    Professor Maurice King
    ”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,
    Rio Earth Summit
    ”Complex technology of any sort is an assault on the human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
    Amory Lovins,
    Rocky Mountain Institute
    ”I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. it played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
    John Davis,
    Editor of Earth First! Journal

  41. George says:

    Email 2318.txt from a local UK Agenda 21 group (Vision21)

  42. George says:

    Several emails mentioning “Sustainable Development” (same as Agenda 21)

  43. Pingback: Agenda 21 | Orphans of Liberty

  44. Gary P. Smith says:

    It is time for the EPA to go away.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/19/epa-ponders-expanded-regulatory-power-in-name-sustainable-development/?test=latestnews

    Are there any candidates willing to abolish this organization? Can our Congress please remove this organizations charter, or put some sever restrictions on its authority.

  45. adolfogiurfa says:

    All that is a total naiveté, as it is impossible that russians and chinese could candidly accompany these machinations. If they remain silent…remember that silence, sometimes, means more than words.
    Russians may be preparing an special “balalaika” and chinese a typical “chinese vengeance” :-)

  46. adolfogiurfa says:

    That “Sustainable Development” will be soon unsustainable :-)

  47. George says:

    Suddenly I now see why they are doing this:

  48. Jerry Franke says:

    E.M.
    Your timing of this discussion is impeccable!

    Today, Fox News has an article that suggest that our EPA sees themselves as a prime implementer of Agenda 21.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/19/epa-ponders-expanded-regulatory-power-in-name-sustainable-development/

  49. adolfogiurfa says:

    What would it be the best investment if we know we are approaching a Solar Minimum, perhaps as deep as the Maunder?. Obviously land property; the owners of land will set the price of food for the hunger.

  50. colliemum says:

    This has been cooking for a long time.

    The roots are described very well in the last chapters of ‘Watermelons’ by James Delingpole, which is now available free on kindle:

    Pretty scary stuff …

  51. E.M.Smith says:

    There are a couple of comments up thread from: Icouldahad and Konrad

    that are worth a read. They had been in the moderation queue and I’d not gotten to it in a timely manner… so put their names in the search box and take a look. (I just don’t want them to be missed as they get put in, but way up thread from here…)

  52. Jason Calley says:

    @ E.M. “There’s something ‘not right’ in the various wars we’ve been goaded into over the last 20 years or so. ”

    True, and it is very much the same thing that is “not right” with today’s environmental movement. Here is my short answer — and it is one which I do not often say so bluntly because people get upset when they hear it.

    Global warming is the hook to catch so-called progressives. Global warring is the hook to catch so-called conservatives. The war on terrorism is just as phony as the war on CO2, but each is designed to catch a specific personality type. The yuppies and hippies waste their energy seeking zero carbon dioxide emissions. The conservatives waste their energy seeking enemies who are either imaginary or made by us.

    Meanwhile, the REAL environmental problems get ignored while the regulations and intrusions get more radical. Meanwhile, the REAL threats to our freedom get ignored while the regulations and intrusions get more radical.

  53. H.R. says:

    @david (08:24:37) :

    “Lots of people haters around…

    A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
    Ted Turner,
    Founder of CNN and major UN donor”

    I’m not sure folks are aware of how much infrastructure, goods, and services are available solely because of current populations.

    When there are only 250 million people to share the costs of airports, bridges, hospitals, etc., things will go to hell in a handbasket in a hurry.

    And all of Ted’s wealth will be needed just to keep his helicoptor running… but wait! He won’t be making any money because there won’t be very many cable customers left. And the 17 npeople left in the world who know how to make custom TT cufflinks will be split between Egypt and Viet Nam.

    You can’t eat gold and German bearer bonds.

  54. dougieh says:

    hi E.M.

    after reading your post & comments i’m now geting worried that i’m ignorant. really ignorant of the goings on.

    this for me, started out with the climate debacle that began with SMac (others before him as well) et al trying to get the data to verify the doomsday prophecies.

    most of us know the story from then & thought the foia.1 email drop would end this crap, but no,
    the powers that be “played a blinder” whitewashed & gone.

    i think this Agenda21 info from you & others on this post explain why these people think & are confidant they can not be touched & the cause protects its own.

    ps. hope this does not sound paranoid, am rethinking my world view with a lot of info at the moment.

  55. dougieh says:

    pps.head pic- put a space (Hubble) pic back up at some point, that’s where we should be aiming for:-)
    beach,enjoying,palms,drinks – not allowed.

  56. adolfogiurfa says:

    @George: Why is it so that “they” never learn from experience? …from ancient Egypt to the USA of today, what a mania!. Just can´t believe that such and old goat still wishing to increase his assets, what for?, is he immortal? . We, the “gentiles” as they call us, feel happy having just enough for a decent living and having the great luck of enjoying our grand children.
    But only a few of them, to be fair, the ones who are of a religious trend, are really admirable; and they do have a fantastic traditional knowledge: I had a business partner ,who was a real religious man and he was mocked by their comrades for not being such ambitious.
    They have managed to invent a “philosophical principle”, concocted by Jerome Ravetz (see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle) which justifies all these delicacies…

  57. adolfogiurfa says:

    …they want for them the Amazon basin….just to protect the “environment” and save us from “global warming”. How kind and altruistic!

  58. Patrick Moffitt says:

    If you want to see Agenda 21 you need to look no further than PlanMaryland- the States template for the future. I joined a panel of speakers recently that included Lord Monckton cautioning the Maryland county governments of the Agenda 21 plans for the people of Maryland that include State direction of everything from housing to agriculture. Incredibly PlanMaryland uses the Happy Planet Index as an example of how we should free ourselves of monetary evaluations. People are happiest by this evaluation in countries like Viet Nam, Egypt, Cuba and China. Haitians are far more happy that we in the US which is ranked just above some of the poorest countries in Africa. Maryland is preparing to adopt PlanMaryland as I write this.

    Any further description on my part would be seen as hyperbole- better look for your self-http://plan.maryland.gov/

  59. George says:

    @ Patrick Moffitt

    Yes, it may be too late. Our state and local and even some bureaucracies are basically handing over their policy direction to the UN. Soon there will not be a single elected representative of the people involved with creating and implementing policy. It will come from the UN and be directly taken up by the various agencies, and that is the end of it.

    I was born in Maryland. I left.

  60. E.M.Smith says:

    @Jason Calley:

    Truth can be a bitch. I like uppity women ;-)

    Can’t see anything wrong or ‘left loose’ in your reasoning.

    @H.R.:

    I’ve noticed that the capacity to make money is often orthogonal from the capacity for rational logical thought. At times I think they are oppositional..

    @Dougieh:

    You and me both. I’m new to this Agenda 21 stuff; and while I’m quick to see the patterns and have the Ah Hah! that, too, is explained: I’m still in the ‘slowly integrating it’ into my general world view.

    I am mostly from the Rational Honest Moral Folks Are In Power camp. Not from the “We are managed by a conspiracy” side. It is jarringly disconcerting to realize that there may well BE a conspiracy trying to run things (or perhaps already running things). Then again, history is full of real and effective conspiracies. It’s not a “conspiracy theory” if it is a real conspiracy…

    Oh, and even paranoids can have enemies trying to get them ;-)

    As a systems admin for a decade or so, it literally WAS true that “they were trying to get me” (at least in terms of cracking my system defenses). Didn’t mean I was paranoid. Just meant I had good syslogs…

    (Hmmm… Interesting name for a “counter A21 group” — SysLogs….)

    @Adofo:

    There are many folks with mental defects. Some of these make them better suited to be managers and rise to power. (NOT hyperbole, actual fact).

    My thesis would be that after some time, or at some level of hierarchy, that defect dominates all the parties, and their thinking. At that point all you need is a “Generals and Colonels” class willing to be bought with money or power.

    No, no idea how to fix it…

    @Patric Moffitt:

    Oh dear. Looks like it is much later than I thought…

    @George:

    Rather like was done with the EU.

    I think I (we?) need to put some ‘think time’ into how to break that process…

    One positive thing, though:

    If the EU is ‘model’, it looks like the end comes quickly by the usual things that end Socialisms. They’ve run out of other peoples money to spend.

    As the USA is $15 Trillion and rising fast is debt, We’re “done” in about 5 years (my best estimate, subject to error from estimates being wild).

    I think they can not complete their “plan” before the roof falls in, economically.

    The apparent plan depends on a ‘business as usual’ economic outcome.

    It’s not going to be ‘business as usual’. It’s going to be economic stagnation in the USA and Europe (at best) and recandle of wealth to Russia and China (and maybe India).

    Basically, the “overreach” will take down any economy where they get too much “progress”.

    As Europe implodes, there will be much more emphasis on stopping that path in the USA. (Hey, a fella can hope, can’t he?)

  61. George says:

    I think I (we?) need to put some ‘think time’ into how to break that process…

    The key is sunlight and education. For example, most federal, state, and local elected government officials hear a lot of the PR hype surrounding these programs but I do not believe they actually look very closely into them. If it were explained at a council meeting that passing programs such as these basically takes policy decisions out of the hands of the elected officials and hands it to an unelected UN, I believe the people would be quite upset about that. People do not like having some appointed crony of the President of Bolivia deciding what sort of house they are going to be allowed to have in South Carolina.

    What we need to do is first of all find a way to educate people on what “Sustainable Development” really is and make them aware of the “Precautionary Principle” and how it works. Educate them on Agenda 21 and what that is about.

    First, though, we need to undo one damage that was done by George HW Bush and pull out of the Sustainable Development treaty.

  62. Ripper says:

    Where does the antelope valley fit in the map of “wilderness areas?

    From about 4m 30.

  63. kuhnkat says:

    Running out of OPM is not a problem for this type of Utopian. They realize they need to shrink the population drastically to fit in all their tiny sustainable areas buried in nature. They realize they have little ability to wipe out half or more of the world population without major blowback. Crashing the economy of the world means all the paeons like me no longer have any support and a large number of them will die off as they have ZERO survival skills. I sometimes wonder if that is the purpose of feeding the refugees in Africa and other areas and liberal welfare programs. Raise generations who cannot support themselves and when the advanced economies collapse they mostly die. It really doesn’t take that long for cities to start reverting to wilderness when there is no one to prevent it.

  64. E.M.Smith says:

    @George:

    Nearly $10,000 for a text book? I think a lot of folks will be dropping the class or making photo copies of the one in the library ;-)

    Hmmm… Take digital camera with video feature. Point at book with tripod. Turn pages for what, an hour? Then play video, pausing as needed…

    Yeah, that’s what I’d do. You can buy BOTH the Really GOOD Hdef camera AND the laptop for the playback and have $9000 let over. Well worth it ;-)

    @Kuhnkat:

    In the new NOW (on CNBC World): UK declining to loan money via IMF to Euro bailout. USA, Russia et. al. questioning why THEY ought to participate…

    I think running out of OPM is coming home to roost in the Euro Zone RIGHT NOW!

    We’ll see how it goes ;-)

    @Ripper:

    I’m behind on some postings, but will watch the video a bit later. Looks interesting…

    @George:

    Good thoughts, but I have this feeling there is a more “leveraged” kicker possible… Needs a catchy meme that’s easy to grok…

  65. George says:

    The concept is pretty simple. Do you want to handle your local zoning board to the UN? The zoning board and whatever environmental bureaucracy your local government has. In California it would be CARB being basically run by the UN and its mandates and not the mandates of the Assembly.

    The buzzwords to look for are “Development Commission” or something to that effect and “Corridor” of some sort, usually a rail corridor. The notion is to build high-density mixed-use residential/commercial development along these corridors. Now I actually don’t have a problem with that portion of it. I am fine with that. It’s the flip side of that causing a problem with me. They then go out and condemn “low density” residential in order to get people herded into the high density areas.

    They have a new word in their lexicon: “Underutilized”. They can force people to move by declaring an area to be “Underutilized” residential or even “Blight”. They can get these Development Commission posses out telling people they have to either tear down the improvements or bring it to the master plan which means you have to have municipal water and sewer and electric brought to the property.

    The end result is that you take all of the lower and middle class and stack them in rabbit warrens leaving the very rich to live in their nice, secluded locations without any of the riff-raff around. You take all of the riff-raff and put them where they can be kept an eye on, hopefully even make it so they can’t afford cars/fuel so they can’t go traipsing out in the countryside and you limit them to living where the rail goes and moving about only when the trains run while the rich enjoy their freedom and get to go wherever and whenever they please.

    It won’t be long before they start telling small communities outside of urban areas that they have to dissolve the community and move into the city or else pay some huge fee of some sort to continue living out there. They are already making it nearly impossible to live in a very rural area where it might be 30 miles to the gas station.

  66. E.M.Smith says:

    In related news:

    I have not yet figured out how to pick up the link to an individual article on Icecap, so this link is just to the category. As of now it is the top story, but you will need to scroll down in a day or so. Joe covers the EPA request to get into the sustainable development business with massive new powers…

    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate

    Links to this story from FOX:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/19/epa-ponders-expanded-regulatory-power-in-name-sustainable-development/

    Neither of them has the word “Agenda” in the article.

    I think this is likely a good example of how The Agenda folks work. Hide the fact they are behind it by having it be EPA, have the idea ‘justified’ by the study done by the NSF (that we have seen has been turned into a money laundry, and likely also is an ‘idea laundry’) to whom they shipped $700,000 for the privilege of providing the propaganda.

    THAT is what has to be broken. That mutual support circle of swapping money for justification via pre-formed propaganda. All happening hidden behind “Sustainable Development” as the feel-good code words and ALL of it funded with US TAXPAYER MONEY.

    Best bet I see is a new administration (or more aware congress) shutting off the money spigot (or better yet, BOTH money spigots – EPA and NSF). Second best is “public awareness campaign” but that takes a lot of money, time, and mindshare. Nice to have along the way: Exit the Rio Treaty.

    IMHO, Key Questions to ask ANY candidate for ANY office:

    1) What will you do to stop any action driven by UN Agenda 21 and any efforts to support or fund their power grab hidden under the name “Sustainable Development”?

    2) What will you do to remove the USA from UN treaties that reduce American Sovereignty, such as the {Rio treaty, Sea treaty, etc.)

    3) What will you do to defund agencies that hand money to NGOs? Why should any taxpayer money be given to unaccountable organizations? Especially those with a political agenda?

    4) What will you do to stop the flow of taxpayer money to politically driven groups, such as NSF funding of NGOs?

    5) What will you do to stop ALL government funds transfers to non-representative bodies, such as the UN and various NGOs.

    6) What will you do to put NASA back in the Space business and get it out of the PC games of so called Climate Science?

    7) The Cimategate emails show much of so called “climate science” is corrupt. What will you do to put NOAA back in the weather business and get it out of the “climate science” business?

    8) The EPA has recently started an Agenda 21 driven power grap under the propaganda banner of “sustainable development”, what will you do to stop it?

    I’m sure there’s more, but that’s a decent start.

    Key points: Constantly link the word propaganda or ‘political power grab’ to the phrase “sustainable development”. Connect UN with Agenda 21. Connect Agenda 21 with the phrase “sustainable development”.

    By the use of phrasing, shine light on the connections.
    By the use of questions, inform about the hidden money flows and hidden incestuous relationships.
    Make it a POLITICAL ISSUE here and now. Force candidates and the NEWS to hear the connections and the concern.

  67. Hillbilly33 says:

    “@Hillbilly:

    Ok, ok I’ll fix it: “No proof that I’ve found yet”…. Better? ;-)
    Now where did I leave those No-Doze?…”

    Chiefio, it was never my intention to badger you nor drive you to the No-Doze! It’s just that his Agenda 21 thing has been a “bee in my bonnet” for ages with its obvious inherent dangers to individual freedoms and world economies!
    Few others, apart from Christopher Monckton seemed to have noticed.

    In Australia, there is a concerted effort by the “Greens” to get candidates on local councils and when elected they are instrumental in getting an increasing number of petty by-laws in force regulating and/or restricting what people can do!
    Ratepayers are bucking about what they see as “Nanny-state” rules but don’t yet realise it’s all about Agenda 21 under the cloak of “sustainable living”!

    As you and many others are now finding out, this has been a well-planned long-running infiltration of many facets of society by those seeking to impose the UN-driven Agenda 21 on the road to their ultimate aim of global governance and control.

    I’ll still sit under one of my apple trees on Christmas day and raise a glass of good Tasmanian Sauvignon Blanc to you, yours and all your posters! Cheers!

  68. George says:

    Well, well, well

    A link between IPCC and “Sustainable Development”

    http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2011/mar/DENIN-Dialogue-Pachauri030311.html

  69. George says:

    @E.M. Smith

    “Sustainable Development” == Agenda 21 it is the same thing. Agenda 21 of the Rio treaty is “Sustainable Development”.

    http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=11659

    http://lbre.stanford.edu/luep/sustainability_development_study

    Agenda 21 hides under “sustainable development” buzzword.

    It is a carrot/stick approach.. They build a bunch of “affordable housing” in the city and then make it too expensive to build/live in rural areas.

    Look up Agenda 21 at this link

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development

  70. E.M.Smith says:

    @Hillbilly33:

    Didn’t feel badgered… didn’t you notice the emoticon? the ;-)

    BTW, I’ll likely have a Californian Merlot… Cheers!

    @George:

    I think I need more coffee first.. and not “sustainable coffee” either ;-)

  71. Pingback: AGW Motivation, Climate Change Agenda, New World Order, Agenda 21 | The GOLDEN RULE

  72. I am in awe of this post and all who are creating and contributing to it.

    It is so encouraging to see your revelations and understanding of what is actually happening.

    In one day you have created a public exposure of a world domination program of critical importance to our future. An exposure of incredible coverage and detail, yet that is still probably the tip of of the iceberg.

    The difference is when some one of learning and intelligence sees through the veil of secrecy and subterfuge and concludes “this is actually happening”.

    After the usual response of ” conspiracy theory”, it is a breath of fresh air. (including 0.04% CO2).

    This is my second comment which is inspired by my having now read through some of the content.

    Hearty appreciation and unconditional support.

    World shattering information on a world shattering agenda.

  73. Tim Clark says:

    Will we have the collective guts or even the opportunity to foster armed opposition?

  74. P.G. Sharrow says:

    @ Tim Clark, no need for “armed” resistance. I have been telling people that the computer is mightier then the sword for over 25 years, and many of them were geeks. Just keep pounding your keyboard and roaming the net. When information is universally available the Liers will lose their power. pg

  75. E.M.Smith says:

    @Tim Clark:

    Information Wars are not won with physical means, they are won with information on one side or propaganda on the other.

    Personally, I’d be “up for it” if something came along that DID need physical defense, but that’s just not this. When the L.A. planning department makes your subdivision a development area, moves folks out via eminent domain, and hands it over to Friends Of Boss to build low ‘footprint’ rack-and-stack apartments: any armed response just becomes “disaffected nut attacks development” and doesn’t achieve much…

    I think it would be more effective to get organizations, one at a time, on the “stop it” side. So folks need to work on their corporate “green initiatives” guys to get them off of The Agenda, their church to not endorse it, their political party, their grange, their professional association, etc. Basic grass roots stuff. “Sustainable development” has to become controversial, so start “speaking against” it…

  76. George says:

    The concept of “sustainable development” is fine. The program of “Sustainable Development” is a mechanism by which the UN basically takes control of environmental and zoning regulations and bypasses elected government. (Note lower case and upper case difference).

    The program is given a name that is difficult to oppose. You can oppose Sustainable Development and be very much for sustainable development. The name is selected in an Orwellian manner.

  77. Pingback: WSW, Wedneday, 21 December, 2011 « Musings from the Chiefio

  78. Mark says:

    @George:

    Re. “enough science” to apply the precautionary principle

    Very insightful as to the arguments from the left. That’s what they argue. Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it must be controlled, no matter how little the effect is, though they try to argue as much as they can that the effect is large.

    Here’s the thing. I remember discussing with a friend almost 10 years ago the prospect of hydrogen-based power. Hydrogen was really being hyped, that it was the most abundant substance in the Universe, and that we could have an endless supply of ecologically-friendly energy. Well…not so fast. I investigated where we could get hydrogen from, and where the most abundant, current sources of hydrogen were. It turned out the most abundant source at that time was from…oil. We could also get it from other organic, carbon-based sources, such as natural gas. Hydrocarbon molecules are studded with hydrogen atoms. The problem is how to peel them off. Naturally you have to use a chemical reaction of some sort to free the hydrogen. And what waste product is produced from that, I wonder… Here’s the problem with respect to climate. There was a conceit that the “greenies” were either using or unaware of: CO2 is the most powerful GHG on earth. According to the scientific research I’ve seen, the most powerful GHG on earth is water vapor. It makes up about 3-4% of the atmosphere. It consigns the significance of CO2 to background noise in terms of its actual effect at its current concentration. The other problem is if we get hydrogen from hydrocarbons, think about what hydrogen-powered engines do. They emit water vapor. So by freeing hydrogen from hydrocarbons, and using it to bind to free oxygen, we’re creating a net increase in the world’s volume of water/water vapor, the world’s main GHG! The only way to avoid this would’ve been to get the oxygen and hydrogen that would power a fuel cell from the existing water base. The only effective method that was available at the time of doing this (I haven’t kept track of this since) was electrolysis, which is not energy efficient. Whatever energy storage is produced out of it is a small percentage of the energy put into the process. So wind power would be out of the question for producing it. The other option would be nuclear, which would be the most realistic “green” option in terms of CO2 emissions.

    Once I saw this, I could tell that hydrogen, at the time, was not a realistic option. The energy and automotive industries soon caught on to this as well.

    It’s been interesting to watch the “greens” debate energy options, because nothing ever seems to be good enough for them. At one point some energy source is all the rage. Then a year later, “No, that won’t work, because it causes problems here.” You start to get the feeling that it’s all a game to them, either to create churn in the energy industry, because it creates jobs for their friends, or it’s an effort to reduce the amount of energy available gradually over time, down to almost nothing far into the future, meanwhile giving people “hope” about various “options,” all of which are eventually dashed. Or, they’re totally impractical in their thinking. They end up being opposed to every energy source that’s been proposed, even wind and solar farms, because something about it causes a problem for some element of the environment to them. I’m waiting for more people to figure this out, and to notice the nature of the arguments environmentalists have been using.

  79. Pingback: Who Really Controls the World? | The GOLDEN RULE

  80. Jason Calley says:

    @ Mark “You start to get the feeling that it’s all a game to them, either to create churn in the energy industry, because it creates jobs for their friends, or it’s an effort to reduce the amount of energy available gradually over time, down to almost nothing far into the future, meanwhile giving people “hope” about various “options,” all of which are eventually dashed. Or, they’re totally impractical in their thinking.”

    My experience is pretty much the same as yours, but with perhaps one difference. While I agree that the folk at the top of the various movements know what they are doing, (creating churn, jobs for friends, etc.) I think the basic foot soldiers of the movements are sincere. Misguided, yes, but sincere. These are the same people who show up in alligator “attacks” in Florida. Seriously, every year, here in Florida, there are several people bitten by alligators. The usual story is “I was here on vacation and saw this alligator lying in the sun. I went over to pet it, and it bit me!!” These are people who have their conception of wild animals based on their experience with dogs, with cats, and with the pictures they have seen in Disney movies. Not real world sort of people… They do the same thing with science. “Of course a battery can store enough energy to cut an automobile in half. I saw Luke’s light saber do it!” Ask the average environmental foot soldier what size individual wind generator would be needed to run one conventional home. If you hear anything larger than “oh, maybe a ten foot diameter,” I will be surprised.

    These people are sincere and they are not stupid. They are ignorant, and they are ignorant in a way which allows them to THINK they have Deep Understanding, a thing which they believe you lack, if you disagree with them. And what is it which motivates them into their belief of personal Deep Understanding? “This is what Doctor So-and-so said on 60 Minutes last night! Why should I believe what you say, when HE is an EXPERT!” This is what happens when people are trained that “teacher is always right, and if you want to pass the course, you will agree.”

  81. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Mark: Allow me to point to some facts about CO2:
    Please always remember that THE EARTH HAS NO LID.
    Then, the question arises: Where is heat saved?
    Alternatives:

    1) Atmosphere: Air: Volumetric heat capacity: 0.00192 joules /cu-cm.
    2) Oceans: Water: Volumetric heat capacity:4.186 joules/cu-cm, i.e., 3227 times than that of Air.

    3) Soil: Ground: volumetric heat capacity: About 2.0 joules /cu-cm.
    Green House Effect = Confined Heat Effect

    No confinement = No effect.

    Remember: How soon atmosphere cools down during an eclipse.

    About energy: The following it is an interesting method:

    http://www.blacklightpower.com/index.shtml

  82. Jason Calley says:

    @ adolfoguiufa Speaking of the “Black Light Power,” yes, interesting subject, though I would still want to see one of their generators running my house before I put any money into it! I do not know if you are familiar with the atomic hydrogen torch invented by Nobel Prize winner Irving Langmuir back in the 1930s or so, but there are reports of anomalously high heat output from it. I have wondered for some years whether the “Black Light” process — if it is real! — is related to the effects of Langmuir’s torch.

    By the way, if you get a chance, read Langmuir’s speech on “Pathological Science.” http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys3000/phys3000_fa10/langmuir.pdf It is a sort of precursor to Feynman’s similar speech on “Cargo Cult Science.” I am unable to read “Pathological Science” without seeing very close similarities to current “Climate Science.” Interesting too, that Langmuir praises the skill of scientist R. W. Wood who did early experimental research into the workings of the greenhouse effect.

  83. Mark says:

    @adolfogiurfa:

    I have heard about theories saying that the warming from 1980-1998 was caused by heat released from the oceans. That sounds plausible to me, though it needs to be rigorously tested somehow before science can put more stock in it.

    I have heard warmists ask the question, “Where did the heat go,” making a heat budget argument. My answer is, “I don’t know,” because as best as I was able to make out in the science, when I looked at it, scientists didn’t know, either. The most troubling thing to me about climate science’s position on global warming is they assert they know a lot more than they do on the subject. That’s the bottom line for me.

    @Jason Calley:

    I know what you’re talking about. I run into that mentality all the time where I live. They get their knowledge from their anointed experts, not from their own investigations, or that of anyone else. I’ve realized that progressivism is a religion. It has its clergy, and its prophets. The government and the universities (at least the arts and humanities departments…) are their churches. The experts are bestowed their titles of nobility by these people. They hand down the orthodoxy, and the followers of progressivism believe whatever they say. If you differ with the orthodoxy, you’re evil, “listening to the devil,” as it were. “Open mindedness” merely means you’re “open” to new additions to the orthodoxy from other leaders of the church.

    In their minds reason is the devil’s trickery. It’s meant to confuse the faithful, because its nature does not fit orthodoxy. Their leaders are noble, knowledgeable, smart, and “aware” of the unity of humanity, and the unity between humanity and the earth. Yours are not. The discussion ends there.

    A conclusion I’ve come to is they are ignorant of the real nature of knowledge. They want to be told what to believe by people who share their values. They don’t feel comfortable at all with questioning their thinking. Questioning, thinking, is practically a sin, except if it’s analytical in furtherance of their existing goals.

    I had a couple experiences in school that exposed to me the “teacher is always right” mentality. In one case my grade was docked because I confronted it. In another, the teacher merely doubted my knowledge to my face. It was confusing and disillusioning, because I realized I had stepped into an area of uncertainty, mainly because I hadn’t tested what I was saying, and I did not feel I had the means to do so. I just had a plausible theory. I was operating on my own knowledge, not what was handed to me, and that felt pretty isolating. Nevertheless, I stood my ground, because I also realized the teacher was guessing. They just did so with more confidence, because they had their education, and they were older than me. Sometimes they had the textbook, and the school district’s curriculum to back them up.

    The only reason I realized this in a couple incidents was I had the good fortune to be interested in knowledge that they were not. So I was able to realize, “Hey, wait a minute. There’s another way of looking at this, I’m sure.” I was a bit ready to have a discussion about ideas, not to merely repeat back what the teacher had taught me. Some teachers were interested in that idea, too, but not all were.

  84. Jason Calley says:

    @ Mark Sounds like your experience with teachers echoes my own!

    The entire approach to knowledge which is based on the appeal to authority is something of a closed loop. After all, you don’t get to be an authority if you do not support the majority view! In the same way, CAGW sceptics do not easily get to publish papers when the “authorities” have agreed to subvert the peer review process.

    I hope some day to have the following conversation with a CAGW supporter who uses the appeal to authority. (The following is not meant to either support or disparage Catholicism.)

    “So, you believe in CAGW because most climate scientists do?”
    “Sure! I would be stupid not to!”
    “OK… So, when are you planning on joining the Roman Catholic church?”
    “Huh?!”
    “Well, I am pretty sure that most of the highest ranking experts on Catholicism support church doctrine.”
    “What are you talking about?!”
    “Well, the Jesuits — who are without a doubt the world’s leading experts on the subject of Roman Catholic church doctrine — say it is the one true church. You don’t think that 99% of the experts could ALL be wrong do you? You don’t really think that YOU know more about Catholicism than THEY do?”
    “It does not matter whether they believe it or not! I do not plan to join their church!”
    “Ha! What are you, some kind of Jesuit Conspiracy nut? I bet you are getting a pay off from the Baptists!”

  85. E.M.Smith says:

    @Jason Calley:

    Oh, so delicious ;-)

    IMHO, the whole point of The Scientific Method was to subvert just such dogma based thinking patterns. Also, IMHO, the present limitations on publishing (the whole peer review throttle) is a resurgence of it. We need a new publication paradigm (one that I think is starting to show in the Internet, if it survives) where folks find something, and just self publish. Then “journals of rank” could recognize and republish, or not.

    Fills in the need to publish and have “public review” (and revision) along with the need for specialized journals to provide a synopsis of the best most interesting (and perhaps most dogmatic…) papers of the year.

    The only sticking point being the journals rules about requiring novelty and not just republishing… A ‘curious’ rule that raises their power, IMHO…

    I note in passing that Powers That Be are trying to pass rules to prevent just such free and open internet communications. (Russia banned Twitter as did Syria btw… Power NEVER likes free communications… It will only be tolerated in the USA as long as the people have ultimate power. Oh, wait, Obama is getting a ‘shut down the internet authority’… guess we know where power rests now, don’t we…)

  86. P.G. Sharrow says:

    8-) Jason 8-) I found that most amusing. As a non-practicing Roman Catholic I know what dogma really looks like. Efforts of Brothers and Sisters gave me real training in being a “stiff necked”Skeptic in my resistance to their attempts at brainwashing. And a Baptist preacher found me even more vexing to his own beliefs. pg

  87. E.M.Smith says:

    Father raised Catholic (but with an Amish mom) and Mother Church of England at the start, but buried Catholic at the end. In the middle I was raised in a Mormon Town with most of my time in a First Southern Baptist Church (where I was baptized, btw, full dunk and all).

    Talk about your “attempt to indoctrinate” … The Catholics and Mormons had a constant rivalry (and I’ve spent countless hours listening to Mormon missionaries… and Catholics; along with the endless string of 7th Day Adventists: who I rather liked, BTW… They take the Bible literally which I think is a mistake, but at least they ‘practice what they preach’… if to excess.)

    Maybe that’s why I’m an ‘easy skeptic’. Spent too many decades embedded in a highly doctrine dominated world.

    Though I do regret the time I confronted my Sunday School teacher with a very detailed argument for evolution (with documentation texts in hand). In retrospect he was just a kind and good hearted farmer trying to ‘do the right thing’ by teaching young kids, and not equipped for the task of philosophical debate on evolution. I “showed him up” (at about 9 years old) and that was a bit cruel and insensitive… but I was on a quest for truth and did not appreciate that there were times to not so quest…

    “Stiff necked” is a good term for it… I have an “open mind”, but not an empty and vacuous one. Things can easily enter, but are subject to scrutiny before being given a seat in the choir…

  88. Mark says:

    @Jason Calley:

    “Dilbert” was one of my favorite cartoon series, produced 11-12 years ago. Looking back at old episodes a few years ago I found this one called The Fact that amazed me. Here in a satirical nutshell was how the case for AGW was created. The episode didn’t talk about global warming at all, but some made up disease called “Chronic Cubicle Syndrome.” What it really gets across is how gullible we humans are, even in our modern society. People tend to respect science as an authority on truth. You can make your “discovery” sound scientific by describing symptoms, and categorizing it with a technical sounding name. The key is to take what’s normal but undesirable, make people acutely aware of it, then make it sound abnormal and something to fear. If anyone raises scientific issues, say convincingly, “There’s no time to study it. It’s too urgent,” and then sell a “cure” for it. Using this technique you can sell snake oil just as effectively as the sheisters who sold it in the 19th century.

    It’s really great right in the beginning where Dilbert and Dogbert are arguing about what people believe. Dogbert promotes anecdotal evidence as “the best kind,” *because* people will believe it, even though it’s unreliable. Dilbert says, “I want scientific proof before I believe anything.” Dogbert says, “No you don’t. You just read something that says scientific evidence exists.” Dilbert complains, “I’m too busy to read scientific reports.” Dogbert says, “When people read about Chronic Cubicle Syndrome, they won’t be gullible. They’ll just be too busy…” I mean, come on! How many shows talk about this! I wish more did! The next thing you know, Dogbert is on TV promoting his made up disease, and people believe it just because they saw it on TV,…and they bought the book. Somehow the act of watching TV and buying the book (though not reading it) solidifies the belief in this disease in people’s minds. This episode was just brilliant!…Or maybe I’m easily impressed. :)

    Dogbert is the character analog to Al Gore, IMO, in this episode.

  89. adolfogiurfa says:

    An old spanish proverb reads: “Lo que Natura non da, Salamanca non presta”: “What Nature does not give, Salamanca (the academia) does not lend”
    Then, those sadly ungifted, who bravely struggle to attain a position in society ( we must recognize that), in this case getting and keeping a job in academia, affirm themselves by believing in what a previous generation of academics, as brilliant as themselves, concocted, and, to avoid any doubts on their proficiency, establish them as “consensual truths” reinforced by mutual caressing and indulging.
    It is funny to observe that their epistemology does not include intuition (their stomachs are too busy digesting trash food or going after the next girl who crosses their field of sight, that it is impossible for them to perceive anything of a higher energetic order) and their whole intellectual activity is limited to counting and naming, being their favorite method statistics and their cosmology astronomy (the naming of stars). Anything different becomes then something “surprising” and “unexplainable” :-)

  90. p.g.sharrow says:

    Over achievers, that have been educated beyond their intelligence.

    In a classroom they are the ones that sit in the front row and constantly query the instructor to explain and reexplain each point to memorize but do not reach full understanding. They get the highest grades and best jobs and are dumber then a wooden fence post. They aspire to be at the head of the line by any means. pg

  91. E.M.Smith says:

    @Mark:

    Love that Dilbert!

    @Adolfo & P.G. Sharrow:

    Ah, yes, the ‘bright enough to memorize not bright enough to question’ folks…

  92. Pingback: Marx, Progressives, Socialism, and Agenda 21 « Musings from the Chiefio

  93. Mark Miller says:

    BTW, as you may notice, I’ve revealed my full name, and I’ve linked to my own blog, called “Tekkie.” I was a bit sheepish about revealing my identity at first.

    I’ve been trying to get back to this subject, since I did some of my own research on this in November. You asked for other sources.

    All of these videos were done by people that seemed to be pretty level-headed about the subject.

    The first of these is a video series by activist Rosa Koire, recording an interview she had with someone with the North Bay Bohemian newspaper. She released it on the internet after, she claims, the paper distorted what she said. So the purpose was to set the record straight, but it was informative nevertheless.

    Here’s “video” (it’s just audio) of a radio interview Koire did on Radio Liberty on this subject.

    Then here’s an hour-long video she made speaking before a Tea Party group on Agenda 21 in CA, called “Behind The Green Mask.” It’s about an hour long.

    This last one is from Donna Holt of Campaign for Liberty, on Agenda 21. She gives the most level-headed presentation of this I’ve seen yet. It’s 40 minutes.

    Rosa Koire has two websites. One is an umbrella organization that she’s developing for national resistance to Agenda 21, called Democrats against Agenda 21. She set up another that’s just for anti-Agenda 21 activism in her “neck of the woods,” called Santa Rosa Neighborhood Coalition. I believe Santa Rosa is a county in CA.

    Donna Holt’s website is VA 10th Amendment Revolution Freedom Bills.

    What I found valuable about these sources is they attempt to explain the mechanics of how this is all happening, to the best of their knowledge, and to explain the agenda, and how it’s developed over decades. You mentioned some aspects of Marxism in a later post that have yet to materialize. You’ll notice in Donna Holt’s video that she talks about a couple of them. So we may yet see them implemented, though I don’t know how yet.

    One aspect that really intrigued me was the “visioning sessions” that both of these ladies talked about. I first heard about these reading Thomas Sowell’s book, “Intellectuals and Society,” which just came out early last year. He said,

    With experts, as with non profit organizations or movements with idealistic sounding names, there is often an implication of disinterested endeavors, uncorrupted by the bias of self interest. This is one of many perceptions which cannot survive empirical scrutiny, but which is seldom subjected to such scrutiny. Quite aside from the vested interest that experts have in the use of expertise–rather than other economic or other social mechanisms–to shape consequential decisions, there is much empirical evidence of their biases. City planners are a typical example:

    Planners often call for visioning sessions in which the public are consulted about their desires for their regions.

    In a typical visioning session, members of the public are asked leading questions about their preferences. Would you like to have more or less pollution? Would you like to spend more or less time commuting? Would you like to live in an ugly neighborhood or a pretty one? Planners interpret the answers as support for their preconceived notions, usually some form of smart growth. If you want less pollution, you must want less auto driving. If you want to spend less time getting to work, you must want a denser city so you live closer to work. If you want apple pie, you must oppose urban sprawl that might subdivide the apple orchard.

    Quite aside from the tendentiousness of the questions, even an honest attempt to get meaningful input into a decision making process from answers to questions that neither cost anything to answer nor even include any notion of costs in the questions, would be relevant only to a costless world, while the crucial fact of the world we live in is that all actions or inactions entail costs which have to be taken into account in order to reach a rational decision. “Rational” is used here in its most basic sense—the ability to make a ratio, as in “rational numbers” in mathematics–so that rational decisions are decisions that weigh one thing against another, a trade off as distinguished from a crusade to achieve some “good thing” without weighing costs.

    Sowell makes these sessions sound rather benign. The public gives its input, and then the planners interpret it the way the people who hired them want them to interpret it. What Koire describes is what it’s like to be a part of these sessions, and why they were created. They sound like more than what Sowell describes. Koire has given accounts of plants in these sessions harassing people who raise objections, trying to make them feel insignificant, isolated, and/or crazy, so they’ll feel disoriented, embarrassed, ashamed, and shut up. These sessions at first blush sound democratic, but they are not. They are designed to present an agenda for what will happen, and to give the community the impression that the community has participated, given its input, and agrees with it. Presumably this is to minimize resistance.

    Everyone I’ve heard talk about this has said the ultimate goal is to implement the goals of The Wildlands Project, which would make 50% of the country off limits to humans. From what I’ve read, this is an “option” in Agenda 21, and is not an absolute goal. But just the fact that it was considered is scary enough.

    I first heard about Agenda 21 because of a video produced by a Texas activist group. I was mystified by it, and it sounded like conspiracy theory. Little Green Footballs apparently thinks that’s what it is.

    The “thread” I pulled on to find these other sources was an article in my local paper written by a resident in unincorporated Boulder County, in CO, complaining about the “green” regulations being imposed on county residents that are not imposed on city residents. One example he gave was of someone building a hot tub on their property. The county said the homeowner was not allowed to use electricity from the grid to heat it. He had to use a photovoltaic solar heater. He suspiciously referred to Agenda 21, and used Koire as his source, saying that the county is trying to drive unincorporated county residents off their land by imposing ever more discriminatory regulations. It sounded a lot like the video that was posted in the comments earlier from Reason TV, though that was more severe. The author of the article said the remedy would be to do away with our ward system of electing county commissioners, and go to a district voting system, where regional interests could be better represented. Sounds good to me, though I’m doubtful it will be implemented.

    Just recently Boulder city residents voted to municipalize the city’s power system in an effort to meet the Kyoto targets, which it has imposed on itself. In the last 10 years the city has been promoting the building of high-rise apartments and “densification” where apartments and stores are grouped together. They’ve also been planning a “transit village,” with an anticipated passenger heavy rail system coming through it. The initial concept was to have high rises in this village for living space. It’s right in the same area as an office park, which goes along with the idea that everything should be grouped together, so that no one has to drive. Regardless, I doubt the rail system is going to be a success. Hardly anybody uses the RTD bus system locally. From what I’ve read about the anticipated rail system, the speed limit on it is slow enough, and it’s going to have enough stops in its route, that it will only be as fast as a bus in getting from Point A to Point B. Most people are still going to drive their cars to get between cities. I can see that now. The rail system is effectively “breaking a window” to create union jobs, and it’s created problems for property and business owners because of eminent domain. Densification of commercial properties has a few good points, but the way they’re doing it is kind of a joke. Most of the places grouped into these dense housing developments are places I’d never go to. Koire quipped, “How many coffee shops do you need?”

    The county implemented an ongoing open space program, ostensibly to prevent sprawl, beginning in the 1970s. This has restricted city growth. Most of the land available for development is gone. So, the rationale goes, the only way to go is “up,” in high rises, though there’s a limit to that, too, because city residents want to maintain the view of the foothills. So the high rises are not like skyscrapers.

    Boulder started talking about “smart growth” several years ago, and I looked into it. It turns out it’s an imported idea from the Eastern Bloc in Europe. It’s the same strategy the Soviet Union used, but to implement political control of these occupied territories. No one was allowed to own land. Everyone was housed in apartment complexes. Transportation, shopping areas, and work areas were all grouped together. After the Soviet Union fell, these places become ghost cities, largely abandoned. Hardly anybody wanted to live in them. Most of the residents moved to plots of land with a house on it and a yard, because that’s what most people want. You could say that from this example, this effort will fail as well. In Boulder, anyway, it may very well succeed. The residents here appear to be all for this idea, and the city government talks quite openly about its goals. We even see occasional articles in the newspaper on local academics talking about the need to limit our population.

    I have a feeling I will be moving somewhere else within the next several years. I’m finding the local political environment creepy and intolerable.

  94. E.M.Smith says:

    @Mark:

    Well, it will take me a while to get through that set of videos! But thanks!

    “Where to go” has held my interest for a while too. Haven’t got a good answer yet, as this beast looks to be global…

  95. George says:

    Well, if there is a “bright spot” it is that the “progressive” movement seems to be in global retreat. Left of center governments seem to be failing across much of the planet. As we appoint more UN delegates from right of center governments, this sort of idiocy should subside.

  96. Mark Miller says:

    After watching Rosa Koire’s videos again, I realized there were some other sources of information I could point to. She mentioned the Post Sustainability Institute. It has a lot of the same material as if you go to the other sites she set up, but it has some material not on the others. She also mentioned Freedom Advocates. It’s an educational site that has commentary on events re. Agenda 21, and contrasts these plans with constitutional principles and principles of freedom. I looked in the video section, and it has the same video as was posted earlier from Reason TV.

    Koire talked about the concept of “food sheds.” I looked this up. This is not food storage. I guess the term “shed” is used in a similar way to the term “watershed,” though I don’t quite get the connection yet. It’s another name for “sustainable agriculture.” The idea is to use just enough land to feed the local population. I see this idea developing in Boulder already. It’s not here yet, but from listening to local activists it’s on the way. Right now it’s called “community farming.” I’m not even clear on what it is yet, whether it’s public land that’s cultivated by volunteers, or by county employees. I’ve heard talk about using it to feed the local poor population, basically a local subsidized food program. Secondly, the county allows some of its open space land to be leased to private, for-profit farmers. Some farmers have complained about this, because they see the county pushing them off their land on the one hand, and then leasing public land to them on the other. Recently a two-year, county-wide battle ended over whether to allow GMO sugar beets on leased open space. The county decided to allow it, though local activists vow to reverse the decision through the upcoming county election. The county has allowed GMO corn for about 9 years now.

    A term Koire used several times is “communitarianism.” I first heard about this term in an article in The Atlantic several years ago about former PM of the UK Tony Blair. It said that he is a communitarian, but on an international basis. It didn’t say anything about him implementing it within the UK, though apparently that’s what’s happened, even under PM David Cameron. Cameron calls it the “Big Society.” James Delingpole recently talked about this on Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson, the video for which I believe was linked to earlier in the comments.

    Koire mentioned a lady in connection with this topic named Niki Raapana. Raapana is an anti-communitarian activist. She claims that the bigger threat, bigger than Agenda 21, is communitarianism, because Agenda 21 is just of a piece of this governing philosophy. She describes communitarianism as a fusion of capitalism and socialism. I think we know it by a more colloquial term: crony capitalism. It’s in lots of other societal issues. She says those who focus on the fight between capitalism and socialism are a) missing the boat, because the threat to freedom isn’t even about socialism anymore, and b) are actually contributing to the encroachment of communitarianism. Koire calls it “corporatocracy,” because big corporations are a big part of Agenda 21. I’ve tried to diagnose it myself, calling it “privatized socialism,” because even though the government is involved in creating it, the socialistic aspects only appear, and are actually promoted by private corporations. It seems reminiscent of fascism, except that individual rights are not subsumed to the nation state. It’s not national socialism. Instead, rights are subsumed to the local community.

    Raapana just recently published a lengthy on article on the subject called, “Smart Growth Centralizing Wealth in the New Earth Age.”

    Looking at the links on Raapana’s blog, (I think) I found this link to the American Policy Center. What’s neat about it is it covers issues that are of concern to those who believe in smaller government and freedom, what’s going on with these issues, and in some cases political strategies you can use to counter the actions of your local government, if they are in fact involved with this stuff. Though it looks like a grassroots site, so some of the information there needs to be read with some discernment and knowledge about the issues, IMO. I wouldn’t take it as gospel truth. It’s good to see it nonetheless, though. It’s the first site I’ve seen that not only talks about the problems, but also talks about what you can do about them.

    Lastly, I just came upon this article in City Journal called “Crony Capitalism Rebuked”, talking about how the CA Supreme Court has eliminated the state’s redevelopment agencies. I don’t know the details of how all of what Koire talked about is tied in together, but this could be a big victory for anti-Agenda 21 activists in CA. It doesn’t mention Agenda 21, or ICLEI at all, however.

  97. Mark Miller says:

    Hey, uh…I tried posting a rather lengthy follow-up comment earlier on stuff I’d found that Rosa Koire had referenced, and the comment never showed up here. Did you close comments?

  98. Mark Miller says:

    Okay. Looks like comments are open, but my earlier one went into a black hole somewhere. Hmmm… It did have some links in it. Sometimes I’ve seen those get caught in bloggers’ spam filters.

    [ It is a configurable link limit that bit you. Some classes of SPAM have a large number of links. I bumped it up from the default 3-ish to somewhere around 7 or 8, but go over that in one posting, it sits in the SPAM queue until I notice. The "diagnostic" is that those held for key word moderation show up with 'awaiting moderation' while those to the SPAM queue just seem to disappear .... so if just evaporates, it's in the bit bucket until I notice, and that can be a week or so... -E.M.Smith ]

  99. Chiefio

    Sorry to be coming so late to this from a link at wuwt today.

    I wrote about agenda 21 several years ago within the context of The British governments developing policy on climate change, and the push to become the Worlds first country to legally enforce a reduction in carbon emissions.The article is still relevant and forms an interesting footnote to your own excellent piece

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/crossing-the-rubicon-an-advert-to-change-hearts-and-minds/

    Like you i had originally thought the whole idea of an ‘agenda’ was crazy-but it’s not.
    tonyb

  100. Ripper says:

    I have just found this series that deals with changing the states of Australia into corporations and the removal of property rights

    They really are a lot further ahead than most have suspected.

  101. Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
    Thanks Chiefio for this information very much supporting the NWO theme, one of this blog’s favourite topics.

  102. Brian H says:

    EM;
    The Infallible Rule of Thumb sez “If something obviously stupid is being done, and can’t be stopped by pointing out the stupidity, those pushing it are making big money at your expense.”
    In this light, the adage, “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity” is exactly wrong. S/b “Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately (and economically/financially) explained by malice”.

    Perhaps there’s a Big Picture sense in which malice is actually stupidity, in the Unenlightened Self-Interest vein, but that’s of no pragmatic use in almost any and all instances. Getting those on the Make and on the Take to reform and embrace Enlightened Self-Interest is a long, hard slog.

  103. E.M.Smith says:

    @Brian H.:

    If they are making money on it, it ain’t stupid… it’s malice.

    @Ripper:

    Yup. All it takes is for most folks to be busy with “bread and circuses” and the focused agenda driven group to stay focused. Unfortunately.

    @Tonyb:

    Everyone arrives at their own time. Late is better than not at all. Besides, it looks like you ‘got there’ before me in the bigger picture….

    @George:

    One can only hope the pendulum swings quickly…

  104. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Ripper. The same is happening everywhere. As far as politicians come from those closed circles where they are “initiated”in the art of providing for “the best” of humanity (translated: “the best for those international interests”). Usually good and hard working people will never belong to that class, as they have a despicable for them characteristic, called “conscience”.

  105. E.M.Smith says:

    @Ripper:

    Finally had time to watch those videos. Amazing example of how this crap is being snuck into operational authority. In the third video, where she points out it is Labor that’s pushing it, makes the interesting connection to the global socialism push to removed private property rights and individual liberties (in favor of The Collective and an authoritarian government with central planning and central control.)

    There’s a consistent and global push to remove sovereign rights from people and local governments and roll all power up to unelected levels.

    There is clearly a global assault on private farm land ownerships and water rights.

  106. adolfogiurfa says:

    @E.M.: It comes from old: Trotsky rented an $600/month apartment in New York in the 1910´s and had one of the few refrigerators then. After living there, his WS sponsors sent him to Russia with $10,000 in gold…..to start the “communist revolution” along with Marx and Lenin.

  107. Pascvaks says:

    It just doesn’t seem to be enough to ‘say’ you belong to a Major Political Party, or be an Independent, folks now actually have to join and participate in other groups that really say and do the things they believe in. Life is getting real complicated; what’s the purpose of being a Dem, or Gopper, or Indy, if you actually have to get off your ass and join and support other folks just to get what you want in life. What’s the World coming to? I thought everything was supposed to be a lot simpler now. How are we supposed to live our own lives in peace if Commie idiots are raising our taxes every five minutes, destroying the value of our money, giving all we have away to scum bags who won’t get a job, and ordering and pushing us around like a bunch of Mexican Pee-óns? (This has got to stop! It’s time to pray! It’s time for Zorro! Turn on the TV!;-)

  108. p.g.sharrow says:

    If you are not part of the solution, You must be part of the problem. Hmmmmm I wonder who said that. pg

  109. Pingback: Ethics, Stanford: A question of balance. | Musings from the Chiefio

  110. Pingback: Response to Paul Bain | Musings from the Chiefio

  111. Pingback: Climate Conversation Group » Chief sceptics explain everything about climate denial

  112. Pingback: Third World On Fire « Tarpon's Swamp

Comments are closed.