Archive for the ‘Agenda 21’ Category

via Bill Gates vs. freedom

Bill Gates Versus Freedom-You DO NOT Want To Skip Reading This…You NEED To Know What It Is Warning You About
By Jon Rappoport 03/06/18: https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/03/06/bill-gates-vs-freedom/ OR: https://wordpress.com/post/randrewohge.wordpress.com/3571

“Under the surface of this global civilization, a great and secret war is taking place.

The two opponents hold different conceptions of Reality.

On one side, those who claim that humans operate purely on the basis of stimulus-response, like machines; on the other side, those who believe there is a gigantic thing called freedom.

Phase One of the war is already over.

The stimulus-response people have won.

In Phase Two, people are waking up to the far-reaching and devastating consequences of the Pavlovian program.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

“From the moment the first leader of the first clan in human history took charge, he busied himself with this question:

‘What can I say and do that will make my people react the way I want them to.’

He was the first Pavlov.

He was the first psychologist, the first propagandist, the first mind-control boss.

His was the first little empire.

Since then, only the means and methods have changed.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

A thought-form is a picture-plus concept in the mind that tends to guide behavior.

A dominant thought-form in Earth civilization today is: universal rule through gigantic, highly organized structures; e.g., mega-corporations that owe no allegiance to any nation.

Imagine a few thousand such corporations with interlocking boards and directorates; colluding with super-regional governments and their honeycombed bureaucracies; combined with regional armies, intelligence agencies and technological elites; hooked to a global surveillance operation; in control of media; cooperating with the largest organized religions on Earth.

Imagine all this as essentially one organization—and you see the thought-form in its wide-screen version.

Top-down as top-down has never been before.

Functions and compartments defined and specialized at every level, and coordinated in order to carry out policy decisions.

As to why such a thought-form should come to dominate human affairs, the simplest explanation is: because it works.

But beneath that answer, for those who can see, there is much, much more.

Individuals come to think that “effective” and “instrumental” and “efficient” are more important than any other issues.

Keep building, keep expanding, keep consolidating gains—and above all else, keep organizing.

Such notions and thought-forms replace life itself.

The Machine has come to the fore.

All questions are now about how the individual sees himself fitting into the structure and function of The Machine.

Are human beings becoming social constructs?

Populations are undergoing a quiet revolution.

We can cite some of the reasons: television; education; job training and employment requirements; the Surveillance State; government organizations who follow a “zero tolerance” policy; inundation with advertising.

Yes, it’s all geared to produce people who are artificial constructs.

And this is just the beginning.

There are a number of companies (see, for example, affectiva.com) who are dedicated to measuring “audience response” to ads and other public messages.

I’m talking about electronic measuring.

The use of bracelets, for instance, that record students’ emotional responses to teachers in classrooms, in real time. (Bill Gates shoveled grant money into several of these studies.)

Then there is facial recognition geared to the task of revealing how people are reacting when they sit at their computers.

Push-pull, ring the bell, watch the dog drool for his food.

Stimulus-response.

It’s not much of a stretch to envision, up the road a few years, whole populations more than willing to volunteer for this kind of mass experimentation.

But further than that, we could see society itself embrace, culturally, the ongoing measurement of stimuli and responses.

“Yes, I want to live like this. I want to be inside the system.

I want to be analyzed.

I want to be evaluated.

I want to accept the results.

I want to be part of the new culture.

Put bracelets on me.

Measure my eye movements, my throat twitches that indicate what I’m thinking, and my brain waves.

Going to a movie should include the experience of wearing electrodes that record my second-to-second reactions to what’s happening on the screen.

I like that.

I look forward to it…”

In such a culture, “Surveillance State” would take on a whole new dimension.

“Sir, I want to report a malfunction in my television set.

I notice the monitoring equipment that tracks my responses to programs has gone on the blink.

I want it reattached as soon as possible.

Can you fix it remotely, or do you need to send a repair person out to the house?

I’ll be here all day…”

People will take pride in their ongoing role as social constructs, just as they now take pride in owning a quality brand of car.

The thought process behind this, in so far as any thought at all takes place, goes something like:

“If I’m really a bundle of responses to stimuli and nothing more, then I want to be inside a system that champions that fact and records it…I don’t want to be left out in the cold.”

Here is a sample school situation of the near future: for six months, Mr. Jones, the teacher, has been videotaped, moment by moment, as he instructs his class in English.

All the students have been wearing electronic bracelets, and their real time emotional responses (interest, boredom, aversion) have also been recorded.

A team of specialists has analyzed the six months of video, matching it up, second by second, to the students’ responses.

The teacher is called in for a conference.

“Mr. Jones, we now know what you’re doing that works and what you’re doing that doesn’t work.

We know exactly what students are positively reacting to, and what bores them.

Therefore, we’re going to put you into a re-ed seminar, where you’ll learn precisely how to teach your classes from now on, to maximize your effectiveness.

We’ll show you how to move your hands, what tone of voice to use, how to stand, when to make eye contact, and so on…”

Mr. Jones is now a quacking duck.

He will be trained how to quack “for the greater good.”

He is now a machine toy.

Whatever is left of his passion, his intelligence, his free will, his spontaneous insights, his drive to make students actually understand what they’re learning…all subordinated for the sake of supposed efficiency.

Think this is an extreme fantasy?

See the Chicago Tribune, June 12, 2012, “Biosensors to monitor students’ attentiveness”:

“The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has poured more than $4 billion into efforts to transform public education in the U.S., is pushing to develop an ‘engagement pedometer.’

Biometric devices wrapped around the wrists of students would identify which classroom moments excite and interest them — and which fall flat.”

“The foundation has given $1.4 million in grants to several university researchers to begin testing the devices in middle-school classrooms this fall [2012].”

“The biometric bracelets, produced by a Massachusetts startup company, Affectiva Inc, send a small current across the skin and then measure subtle changes in electrical charges as the sympathetic nervous system responds to stimuli.

The wireless devices have been used in pilot tests to gauge consumers’ emotional response to advertising.”

“Gates officials hope the devices, known as Q Sensors, can become a common classroom tool, enabling teachers to see, in real time, which kids are tuned in and which are zoned out.”

“Existing measures of student engagement, such as videotaping classes for expert review or simply asking kids what they liked in a lesson, ‘only get us so far,’ said Debbie Robinson, a spokeswoman for the Gates Foundation.

To truly improve teaching and learning, she said, ‘we need universal, valid, reliable and practical instruments’ such as the biosensors.”

“The Gates Foundation has spent two years videotaping 20,000 classroom lessons and breaking them down, minute by minute, to analyze how each teacher presents material and how those techniques affect student test scores.”

“Clemson received about $500,000 in Gates funding.

Another $620,000 will support an MIT scientist, John Gabrieli, who aims to develop a scale to measure degrees of student engagement by comparing biosensor data to functional MRI brain scans [!] (using college students as subjects).”

When you boil it down, the world-view represented here has nothing to do with “caring about students.”

It has everything to do with the Pavlovian view of humans as biological machines.

What input yields what response?

How can people be shaped into predictable constructs?

As far as Gates is concerned, the underlying theme, as always, is: control.

In this new world, the process of thinking and comparing and independently judging, and the freedom to make individual choices…well, for whatever that was worth, we can’t encourage it for a whole society.

It’s too unpredictable.

We don’t have time for that sort of thing.

No, we have to achieve reduction.

We have to seek out lowest common denominators.

This is what universal surveillance is all about; the observation of those denominators and the variances from them—the outlying and therefore dangerous departures from the norm.

“Well, we’ve tracked Mr. Jones’ classroom for a year now, and we’ve collated all the measurements of reactions from the students.

It was a wonderful study.

But we did notice one thing.

All the students showed similar patterns of reactions over time…except two students.

We couldn’t fit them into the algorithms.

They seemed to be responding oppositely.

It was almost as if they were intentionally defecting from the group.

This signals some kind of disorder.

We need a name for it.

Is it Oppositional Defiance Disorder, or is it new?

We recommend attaching electrodes to those two students’ skulls, so we can get a better readout of their brain activity in real time.”

You see, everything must be analyzed on the basis of stimulus response.

Those two students are suffering from a brain problem.

They must be.

Because if they aren’t, if they have the ability to choose and decide how to respond, then they have free will, and that can’t be measured.

Much deeper, that also suggests an X-factor in humans, wherein the flow of chemicals and atoms and quarks and mesons and photons don’t tell the whole story.

The rest of the story would imply the existence of something that is…non-material…above and beyond push-pull cause and effect.

The gatekeepers of this world are obsessed with ruling that out.

They guard Reality itself, which is to say, their conception of Reality.

They are willing to spend untold amounts of money to make that Pavlovian conception universally accepted and universally loved.

Because they own that conception.

They are the self-appointed title holders.

They are the kings of that domain.

I feel obligated to inform them that their domain is much, much smaller than they think it is.

And in the fullness of time, which is very long, the domain is going to fall and crack and collapse and disintegrate.

And all their horses and all their men won’t be able to put it back together.

Eventually, a man like Bill Gates will be forgotten.

He’ll be a small footnote on a dusty page in a crumbling book in a dark room on a remote island.

A morbid venal fool who chased, for a brief moment, fool’s gold.

There is an irreducible thing.

It’s called freedom.

It is native to every individual.

Sometimes it rears its head in the middle of the night, and the dreamer awakes.

And he asks himself: what is my freedom for?

And then he begins a voyage that no device can record, measure, or analyze.

If he pursues it long enough, it takes him out of the labyrinth.

Pavlov wrote:

“Mankind will possess incalculable advantages and extraordinary control over human behavior when the scientific investigator will be able to subject his fellow men to the same external analysis he would employ for any natural object…”

Basically, Pavlov was promoting the idea that whatever an individual perceives and feels about his own experience is a confused mess and an obstruction.

Rather, the individual should ignore all that tripe, and instead, allow himself to be a “natural object,” see himself as a clean and simple response mechanism, as planned inputs cause him to behave in various ways.

In other words, then he will have no life.

Bill Gates and other elite planners are working toward this end.

When Ray Kurzweil talks about hooking brains up to super-computers, he is envisioning a process of downloading that goes beyond choice.

Somehow, automatically, the brain and the individual (he apparently believes they are the same thing) will receive inputs that translate into knowledge and even talent.

This is another fatuous version of Pavlov.

In Brave New World, Huxley wrote:

“Hot tunnels alternated with cool tunnels.

Coolness was wedded to discomfort in the form of hard X-rays.

By the time they were decanted the embryos had a horror of cold.

They were predestined to emigrate to the tropics, to be miner[s] and acetate silk spinners and steel workers.

Later on their minds would be made to endorse the judgment of their bodies.

‘We condition them to thrive on heat’, concluded Mr. Foster.

‘Our colleagues upstairs will teach them to love it’.”

Stimulus-response.

If researchers developed this technology, who could doubt that elite planners would push it forward?

It would be the culmination of their dream.

The freedom of the individual, his innate capacity to make wide-ranging choices, is the monkey wrench in the program.

It is anti-stimulus-response.

This is why you would have to search far and wide to find, in one school, anywhere, on any level, a course that examines and promotes individual freedom.

It is anathema to the plan.

It is the silver bullet for the vampire.

Freedom comes from Within the individual, not from Without.

On the level of political control, freedom emerged and broke through during centuries of struggle.

Now, and in the future, every individual carries that torch.

So it is incumbent on the individual to understand the scope and meaning and power of his own freedom, and to decide for himself what his freedom is FOR.

What will he choose to launch from that great space?

Advertisements

via Trilateral conspirators out in the open—and Donald Trump

Trilateral Conspirators Out In The Open-And Donald Trump-An Interview That Will Live In Infamy: https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/02/13/trilateral-conspirators-out-in-the-open-and-donald-trump/ And: https://wordpress.com/post/randrewohge.wordpress.com/3538
By Jon Rappoport 02/13/18

Note: I wrote this article long before Donald Trump appeared on the scene.

Love him, hate him, trust him, don’t trust him, he has spoken against Globalism and for Nationalism.

Those sentiments have taken hold and reverberated across the planet, crossing swords with Elites who are bent on destroying separate nations and ruling one collectivist world from above.

Therefore, whether or not Trump means what he says, he must be taken down.

The genie must be put back in the bottle.

Who is in charge of destroying economies?

One group has been virtually forgotten.

Its influence is enormous.

It has existed since 1973.

It’s called the Trilateral Commission (TC).

Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.”

In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

In 1969, four years before birthing the TC with David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote:

“[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

Goodbye, separate nations.

Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003):

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America.

Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.

For example:
* Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary;
* James Jones, National Security Advisor;
* Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee;
* Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence.

Here is a stunning piece of forgotten history, a 1978 conversation between a US reporter and two members of the Trilateral Commission. (Source: Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management; ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980, South End Press, Pages 192-3).

The conversation was public knowledge at the time.

Anyone who was anyone in Washington politics, in media, in think-tanks, had access to it.

Understood its meaning.

But no one shouted from the rooftops.

No one used the conversation to force a scandal.

No one protested loudly.

The conversation revealed that the entire basis of the US Constitution had been torpedoed, that the people who were running US national policy (which includes trade treaties) were agents of an elite shadow group.

No question about it.

And yet: official silence.

Media silence.

The Dept. of Justice made no moves, Congress undertook no serious inquiries, and the President, Jimmy Carter, issued no statements.

Carter was himself an agent of the Trilateral Commission in the White House.

He had been plucked from obscurity by David Rockefeller, and through elite TC press connections, vaulted into the spotlight as a pre-eminent choice for the Presidency.

The following 1978 conversation featured reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper.

The interview took up the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.

The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”

NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?

COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.

NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?

KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.

COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy].

NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?

COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.

NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.

COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches. [a lie]

KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.

This interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was buried.

US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission had been created in 1973 by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

When Carter won the presidential election (1976), his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.”

Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.

Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared.

But he didn’t quit.

He became Carter’s chief of staff.

Now consider the vast propaganda efforts of the past 40 years, on so many levels, to install the idea that all nations and peoples of the world are a single Collective.

From a very high level of political and economic power, this propaganda op has had the objective of grooming the population for a planet that is one coagulated mass, run and managed by one force.

A central engine of that force is the Trilateral Commission.

How does a shadowy group like the TC accomplish its goal?

One basic strategy is: destabilize nations; ruin their economies; send millions and millions of manufacturing jobs off to places where virtual slave labor does the work; adding insult to injury, export the cheap products of those slave-factories back to the nations who lost the jobs and further undercut domestic manufacturers, forcing them to close their doors and fire still more employees.

And then solve that economic chaos by bringing order.

What kind of order?

Eventually, one planet, with national borders erased, under one management system, with a planned global economy, “to restore stability,” “for the good of all, for lasting harmony.”

The top Trilateral players, in 2008, had their man in the White House, another formerly obscure individual like Jimmy Carter: Barack Obama.

They had new trade treaties on the planning table.

After Obama was inaugurated for his first term, he shocked and astonished his own advisors, who expected him, as the first order of business, to address the unemployment issue in America.

He shocked them by ignoring the number-one concern of Americans, and instead decided to opt for his disastrous national health insurance policy—Obamacare.

Obama never had any intention of trying to dig America out of the crash of 2008.

That wasn’t why he was put in the Oval Office.

He could, and would, pretend to bring back the economy, with fudged numbers and distorted standards.

But really and truly, create good-paying jobs for many, many Americans? Not on the TC agenda.

Not in the cards.

It was counter-productive to the TC plan: torpedo the economy further.

Eight years later, along came Trump.

Judge him in any way you want to.

At the very least, he became a symbol for dismantling Globalism.

And that was enough to trigger alarm bells in Elite circles and centers.

And the word went out: destroy Trump by any means necessary.

Put the Trilateral Plan back on track—make the whole world One Nation, and erase the memory of America…

So that, one day, a student will ask his teacher, “What happened to the United States?”

And the teacher will say, “It was a criminal enterprise based on individual freedom. Fortunately, our leaders rescued the people and taught them the superior nature of HARMONY.”

President Challenges Cities to Join Compact & Set Precedent for Climate Action by COP21

In a fact sheet released today by the White House, President Obama challenged all Mayors to publicly commit to a climate action plan ahead of the Paris UN meeting, and has set a goal of having at least 100 US cities that have signed onto the Compact of Mayors by the end of November.

The Compact of Mayors, our global coalition of mayors and city officials that have pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance resilience to climate change, is committing to further the uptake of clean energy technologies, including in low-income communities, and to track overall progress. 

U.S. ICLEI commends President Obama’s recognition of the Compact’s key position to accelerate cities’ commitment and ability to take climate action, thereby protecting local communities and collectively motivating international progress.

Cities are taking meaningful steps to reduce emissions, but the only way to measure progress is through a transparent and consistent system that provides accountability. 

Connected To The UN’s Agenda 21 And Coming Agenda 2030:

UN Agenda 21 Still Advancing Worldwide

By Bruce Tanner – July 2015

We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order — a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful — and we will be — we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders. – G.H.W. Bush Speaking at start of first Gulf War, 1991

What is Agenda 21? — Quoting from the UN website: “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.”(sic)

Many have said that Agenda 21 is now outdated policy that’s fallen into neglect. 

This is far from true. 

For example, among many other things, the slow-motion train wreck of our ongoing world economic collapse supports UN Agenda 21, and the UN conference on “Post-2015 Sustainability Agenda” coming this September is a clear reiteration. 

Apologists say that Agenda 21 is only “Soft Law,” a policy that has no teeth. 

But they’re lying. 

In 20 years, through stealth implementation, this plan has become embedded in local policies all over the United States. 

It’s called Sustainable Development. Wherever you see it you’ll find “The 3 E’s:” ecology, economy, equity. 

In the upcoming UN conference, where the Jesuit Pope Francis will be appearing to promote his recent encyclical, they’re being called “People, Planet and Prosperity.”

Agenda 21 emerged full-blown from the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) aka The Rio Summit, in 1992. 

16 to 17 thousand “delegates,” who were somehow given official status as officers of the UN, traveled from all over the world to take part in an 11-day party in Rio De Janeiro, where they were presented with Agenda 21, The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio, a more than 300-page document that they were asked to approve, though it seems unlikely that many of them could have had time to even read it. 

Unsurprisingly, they voted to accept it, and it was suddenly official United Nations policy for the world.

I recently spoke with a delegate to Rio from Santa Cruz, who took exception to the way I’ve characterized the Rio Summit above. 
 
After more than 20 years, she entirely believes that the document was created by agreement at Rio, that its ideas and principles are unimpeachable, and that it has only been improved on since then. 
 
This is the genius behind the ways this program of worldwide social engineering has been rolled out, as well-meaning people are enrolled as supporters through poetic-sounding but fuzzy phrases, pledges of concern for the masses of humanity, and clever misdirection.

In fact, the Agenda 21 document was largely a creation of Maurice Strong, a mysterious man with a double-tracked career as both a high official at the UN, and as a billionaire financial insider extracting the Earth’s resources in the petroleum and mining industries. 

Strong first took the world stage prominently as “Secretary General,” a title the UN, for whatever reasons, adopted directly from communist and socialist organizations, of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environmentin Stockholm in 1972.

Strong’s very scant bio on Wikipedia says that he “met a leading UN official in 1947 (when Strong was just 18) who arranged for him…to serve as a junior security officer at the UN headquarters in Lake Success, New York” (before the new UN building was built on land donated by the Rockefellers in Manhattan). 

Just one year later, Strong became a trainee in a high-powered brokerage in Canada, “where he took an interest in the oil business,” and was transferred to an office in “the Alberta oil patch.” 

There he was quickly hired as an assistant to an oil-industry leader, Jack Gallagher — All while maintaining his connections at the UN.

In 1971, before the conference in Stockholm, Strong commissioned a report on the state of the planet, entitled “Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet”. 

The report summarized the findings of 152 leading experts from 58 countries in preparation for that first UN meeting on the environment. 

This was the world’s first “state of the environment” report. 

Following the Conference, Strong became the Chairman of the new United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), until 1975, and served as a member of the Brundtland Commission.

The 1972 conference was followed by several other major conferences as well as sets of meetings all over the world laying out the shape of this emerging globalist agenda. 

Despite the elusive nature of this long process and the ways it has remained under the radar of the mainstream media, it has somehow remained on track with constant reiterations. 

In 1976 there was the UN Conference on Human Settlements which produced a Declaration containing 26 principles concerning the environment and development, an Action Plan with 109 recommendations, and a Resolution.

Here is an excerpt from the Conference Preamble:

Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. 

Private land ownership is also the principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, and therefore, contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes…

This preamble is followed by 65 pages of very specific land use recommendations. Among the many recommendations are: 

The Planned “Mega-Regions”

A-1) Redistribute population in accord with resources, 

D-1) Government must control the use of land to achieve equitable distribution of resources, 

D-2) Control land use through zoning & land-use planning, 

D-3) Excessive profits from land use must be recaptured by government, 

D-4) Public ownership of land should be used to exercise urban and rural land reform, and 

D-5) Owner rights should be separated from development rights which should be held by a public authority.

Then, in the fall of 1983, the 38th Session of the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution to create a commission “to propose long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development to the year 2000 and beyond” (emphasis added). 

Gro Harlem Brundtland, former (and later) Prime Minister of Norway and Vice President of the Socialist International (sometimes called “the cradle of globalism”) was appointed to chair the commission. 

In her forward to Our Common Future, the 400-page report from what would become known as The Brundtland Commission, she wrote, “‘A global agenda for change’ – this was what the World Commission on Environment and Development was asked to formulate. 

It was an urgent call by the General Assembly of the United Nations…” 

With this conference, the term “sustainable development” first appeared.

It’s from this long-term plan which emerged 20 years before the 1992 Rio Summit, that the many seemingly friendly terms such as SustainabilitySmart GrowthResilient and Walkable Communities, and High Density Urban Mixed-Use Development come. 

It seems like no one had never heard these phrases 10 years ago but that now they’re everywhere we look. 

Among other key terms are: Equity,Affordable HousingConsensusSocial JusticeHuman SettlementsWatershedFacilitatorBest Management PracticesOutcome Based EducationHabitat RestorationQuality of LifeBenefit of All,Public/Private PartnershipsCommon GoodCollaborativeInter-disciplinaryStakeholderSchool to WorkVisioning, and the all-important Regional. If you see these terms, particularly in combinations, you can be sure you’re looking at language dedicated to implementing this agenda.

In 1992, 172 governments attended the Rio Summit, with 116 sending heads of state. 

There were also 2,400 people from UN-connected NGOs. 

Then President George HW Bush was there on Prince Charles’ yacht, where he signed the Agenda 21 document with absolutely no legal standing to do so.

In 1993, shortly after Bill Clinton took office, Nancy Pelosi helped, with 33 original cosponsors, to introduce legislation “to implement Agenda 21.” 

The bill passed the house, but was stopped in the Senate. 

But with clearly international pressure to advance the program, in June 1993 Democrat Clinton created The President’s Council on Sustainable Development which has placed Sustainability Officers in every federal department and agency since then. 

This has resulted in administrative regulations enforcing Agenda 21 policies as (possibly fraudulent) hard law, and in huge distortions in federal funding that have forced States to adhere to federal dictates.

An international treaty, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), was also presented at the Rio Summit for signing, and was eventually brought to the U.S. Senate for ratification in 1994. 

At first, it looked like it would pass, but at the last hour, text from a book Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA), which was not to be published for another year and a half, was leaked to staff of Senators, along with the now well-known Biodiversity Wildlands Map, which showed graphically the plan to move Americans off the land and into dense “human settlement zones.” 

The Convention wasn’t ratified, while the MSM reported that the GBA book did not exist. Congress has, so far, refused to implement Agenda 21 as policy for the United States of America. 

But it has been advanced by Presidential edicts.

The End of Natural Property Rights — UN policy on “land” has been clear since the 1976 Conference on Human Settlements. 

Its preamble on land quoted above continues:

Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.

Public control of land use is therefore indispensable to its protection as an asset and the achievement of the long-term objectives of human settlement policies and strategies.

This makes obvious the position of the UN policy makers that private property is now to be considered as a social asset to be controlled by “the public.” 

The exact nature of this public is, however, not clear. 

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution says, “No person shall… be deprived of… property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” 

But the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17 Sec 2 says, “Property shall not be arbitrarily taken.” 

This is a crucial difference. 

Somehow “the public” can take private property from you, as long as it’s not done “arbitrarily.”

Santa Cruz County seems to have been targeted for early implementation of Agenda 21. 

Two years before Agenda 21 was unveiled in 1992, the voters of the County passed Measure C, “The Decade of the Environment ” containing many of the key tenets of the UN Program, and which has been reaffirmed every ten years by the Board of Supervisors, and is reported on regularly by the Planning Department.

The Supervisors also fell into step with the Agenda in 1993-94 when they “officially approved the process” of the “Sustainable Santa Cruz: Local Agenda 21” 100-page planning guide created by Action-Santa Cruz County and the Santa Cruz Chapter of the United Nations Association. 

This type of document was directly called for in Agenda 21 itself — In Chapter 28, “Local Authorities Initiatives,” the first objective listed is “(a) By 1996, most local authorities in each country should have undertaken a consultative process with their populations and achieved a consensus on ‘a local Agenda 2I’ for the community…” Of course, this directive was unknown in most of the rest of the U.S.

In our society the direct taking of people’s properties is, so far, unacceptable to most people. 

What has happened instead, certainly in Santa Cruz, is the use of permitting processes, zoning and taxation, including the infamous “Red Tags,” to gradually take away the productive use of their land from property owners without compensation. 

Though a relatively small county, Santa Cruz has, after LA County, the second-largest planning department in the State. 

There are currently thousands of red tags on record here, and, according to some counts, hundreds of owners have been forced off their properties, which have, in many cases, been transferred to insider “Private Partners” through practices many say are corrupt. 

Frequently, after the new owner appears, zoning is changed or permits are issued for new uses.

It is getting increasingly hard to get permits for single family homes, while permitting is easier to get for “High Density, Mixed Use” (typically floors of small apartments above retail spaces of questionable utility – AKA “Stack n’ Pack” housing). 

The Santa Cruz Supervisors are in the process of creating a new tax to fund this high-density “Low Income” housing through an “Affordable Housing Assessment” on all new construction, including additions, in the County. 

This will raise the cost of building a house by perhaps tens-of-thousands of dollars.

International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives — or ICLEI (pronounce Ick-ly) is a UN NGO that had its founding meeting in 1990 in the General Assembly chamber at the UN building in Manhattan. ICLEI staff wrote one of the chapters of the Agenda 21 document, under the direction of Maurice Strong. 

Santa Cruz City and County have both been members of ICLEI since its inception, though this has been made as obscure as possible by local officials over time. 

ICLEI works to bring top-down policies from the UN globalist agenda to local communities under the guise of being guided by its membership.

ICLEI was directly involved in the creation of California bills AB 32 and SB 375, mandating severe ongoing restrictions on our “greenhouse gas emissions” in the name of the heavily-pushed and yet highly questionable theory of “global warming” caused by CO2. 

ICLEI was then hired by hundreds of cities and counties in California to help them draft the “Climate Action Plans” mandated to help reach the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals set in AB 32. 

This is a serious conflict of interest violation by this formal arm of the UN.

Regionalism — Regional “governance” is a concept that has been advancing in the U.S. since World War II. 

Regionalism has been extended across America primarily through executive presidential action, including Nixon’s creation of multi-state Federal Regions, and through confusing provisions of Congressional “Acts” which require the action of Regional Planning Agencies or Councils of Government (COGs) in order to secure the more and more essential federal funding needed for major public works. 

Regional Agencies are composed of appointed officials from all levels of local government, and are not subject to direct input by voters. 

Our local COG is the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), founded in 1968, two years after the U.S. Model Cities Act set up the framework for AMBAG to be a funding conduit.

The COG for the nine Bay Area Counties is ABAG, the Association of Bay Area Governments. ABAG, is working with ICLEI to create the “One Bay Area” program. 

One Bay Area is a major initiative to promote the top-down plan to implement Agenda 21 around the San Francisco Bay. 

This plan for a region containing 7.5 million people, is designed to entirely remake the region in the image of Smart Growth, high-density housing and government transportation planning.

Over the next 20 years 630,000 new residential units are projected by ABAG. 

ALL residential construction specified by the plan is be multi-family housing. 80% of this housing must be within ½ mile of the plan’s designated “transit corridors” (permits will not be granted outside these zones). 

One corridor, the El Camino Real, running from San Jose to San Francisco, will be transformed into a series of government controlled Stack ‘n Pack smart growth developments. 

The plan is that all private vehicles will be banned from what is to then be called “The Grand Boulevard.” 

Through the ABAG COG, the federal government has committed more than 300 billion, mostly highway tax dollars to this “Plan Bay Area.”

Locally, something similar but more modest is being proposed under the newly rechristened “Sustainable Santa Cruz County” Regional Transportation Plan, where the eventual centerpiece will be a widened “Soquel Drive Corridor” from Dominican Hospital to Aptos, where hundreds of units of Stack n’ Pack housing will be built, close to planned public transit to include the much ballyhooed “Rail Trail” and possible train service. 

As part of enrolling us into this planned “sustainable” development, public “consensus” meetings have been held regularly by the Planning Department and Sustainable Santa Cruz County for the last few years.

Recent Advances in the Globalist Programs for Sustainable Development — In 2015 we are seeing two major events to promote and re-energize global population control, and a very curious confluence of globalist social engineering and the Roman Papacy. 

Pope Francis Meeting The ICLEI Mayors.

From Sept. 25 to 27 the UN will be holding its “Post-2015 Sustainability Agenda” conference at its New York headquarters, accompanied by an appearance of Pope Francis doing a formal presentation of his monumental ecologist encyclical “Laudato Si” (praised be). 

This conference is a clear extension of the Millennium Summit in 2000. Instead of the 8 “Millennium Development Goals” set there to be realized by 2015 (none have been), we are being given 17 this time, to be done by 2030. 

What KIND Of “Sustainability”?

I will only share Goal 17 – “Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.” 

Suffice it to say that The Agenda for the 21st Century slogs on.

Then, from Nov. 30 to Dec. 11 in Paris, France, will come the massive propaganda onslaught of COP21, billed as “The UN Climate Conference.” 

Actually, COP stands for Conference of the Parties of the Kyoto Accords, so it’s interesting to see the event subsumed under the UN. 

While even the 2014 IPCC report, in its section on the real climate science, admitted that there has been no significant warming of the planet for the last 15 years or so (despite the desperate pleas of upcoming disaster contained in the report’s “summary for decision makers”), we are now being lobbied relentlessly about “climate change” by the corporate media (and NPR) to prepare us for a draconian “carbon suppression regime” they hope to create at this conference. Any “carbon” taxes arising at this 12-day event are rumored to be, for the first time, going directly to the UN (“a credible United Nations”).

I’ll briefly touch upon the apparent synchronicity of Pope Francis’ encyclical with the huge world effort to push the United Nations. 

While it’s easy to see why many people find some of the ideas expressed in it to be moving, even poetic, to me they seem rather diffuse and confusing. 

More than that, the Pope’s focus on pushing the need to respond immediately to a posited “climate crisis” and to problems eerily like those driving UN sustainable development, is quite striking. 

Some in the “climate reality” community are elated that the spiritual force of the Pope’s message may put their quest for a serious solution to carbon “pollution” over the top. 

If so, it will have been very convenient.

Here’s A Recent Posting Of Mine Showing How Agenda 21 Is Being Used To Confiscate Property:

How the UN Is Confiscating American Homes and Controlling All Food and Energy

Dave Hodges Jan 24, 2015

In times of crises, the government has proven, time and time again, that it cannot be counted on to adequately protect the American people.

As the American people have not prepared for the coming dark days, they will be vulnerable to starvation, dehydration, cholera, pandemics and attacks from resource-deficient looters.

Will the government be there to save them?

History has already answered this question in the negative.

Events such as Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Sandy, L.A. riots, and the Ferguson riots have repeatedly demonstrated that when trouble comes, the American people will be on their own.

When disaster strikes, it will take less than 24 hours until grocery stores are empty, the utilities are down and neighbors begin to prey upon neighbors.

Obama Criminalizes Independence

Certainly, no government can be all things to all people.

Subsequently, the government should be in the business of encouraging its citizens to be independent.

However, the Obama administration has taken the opposite approach.

Instead of the government empowering the people to be self-sufficient, this administration is punishing independence and self-sufficiency.

DHS actually published a “Right Wing Extremism Manual” which demonizes and targets normal citizens with labels such as “preppers” and have further defined the act of becoming self-sufficient as being the actions of a domestic terrorist.

It is ironic that DHS is the one who has ordered millions of FEMA caskets, 2700 armored personnel carriers and 2.2 billion rounds of ammunition.

Yet, it is only the wholly independent people, only desiring to be left alone by their government, are labeled as domestic terrorists.

America Is Witnessing the Manifestation of Agenda 21

Any aware person knows that Agenda 21 is predicated on eliminating private property ownership and keeping all people within the “system.”

Drinking raw milk, engaging in off the grid living, and heating your home with a wood stove are forbidden.

All of these prohibitions and more are presently encircling America as the Agenda 21 noose is tightening around collective necks.

Many unaware Americans still mistakenly believe that they have dominion over their lives and personal choices.

These same people mistakenly believe that the government does not care if you want to live independently of their corporate cronies who own the utilities.

They want you in their system so they can continue to exploit your resources for their benefit.

Take the case of Robin Speronis who tried opting for renewable non-grid tied power and utilize environmentally friendly composting toilets and his own self-sufficient water supply.

If one commits these acts in Florida, that person could go to jail.

Speronis lived off the grid, independent of Cape Coral’s (Florida) water and electric utilities.

Not to be denied the revenue to them owed the subjects of Florida, the utilities took Speronis to court and the judge ruled this off-the-grid living was illegal last week.

The judge labeled the Speronis home as being “unsanitary” and cited the International Property Maintenance Code in the ruling.

Wikipedia further exposes the fact that the International Property Maintenance Code derives its authority from Agenda 21 and ICLEI and that this “regulation” bootstraps its authority into the following domains.

International Building Code

International Residential Code

International Fire Code

International Plumbing Code

International Mechanical Code

International Wildland Urban Interface Code

International Existing Building Code

International Property Maintenance Code

International Private Sewage Disposal Code

International Zoning Code

International Green Construction Code…

Subsequently, we have an American judge, in Florida, citing UN mandate to forcibly evict an American citizen of their property and nullify their Fifth Amendment Rights. Speronis also faces jail time for noncompliance with international law.

If you read nothing else in this article, I strongly suggest you heed this warning. In two years, local and state governments will have the ability to begin to seize individual property for the failure to meet code, usually in the area of energy efficiency and international code compliance.

In the near future if one cannot meet the burden of upgrading their older homes into meeting the standards related energy compliance, by United Nations standards, one could have their home confiscated without any compensation.

More Agenda 21 Insanity

The latest round of Agenda 21 insanity is coming from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA has recently imposed new heating rules as of last year and the date of enforcement has long last arrived.

The insane application of Agenda 21 policies knows no bounds when it comes to the EPA.

Also under the auspices of the International Property Maintenance Code, the EPA has introduced new standards for wood stoves which dramatically reduces the amount of fine particle emissions for any wood stove sold in 2015.

The emissions must be reduced by 33% with more reductions scheduled for 2019.

At issue is the unsubstantiated claim that the EPA is making that if the use of wood stoves are reduced, the health of the residents will increase.

Yet, the EPA does not offer any peer-reviewed research, which has been replicated, as proof of this bogus claim.

Are we just supposed to take their word for it?

We might as well face the fact that the EPA is controlled by ICLEI and their United Nations puppet masters.

Who Are the Real Terrorists?

We are under attack from the skies and through the poisoning of our air through massive chemical spraying complete with Alzheimer’s and dementia causing aluminum sulfate and cancer causing barium.

Fukushima radiation, Corexit spraying and the resulting toxic rain from the Gulf oil spill is running rampant over our country and not one ounce of mainstream media coverage is afforded to these dangers.

Prevention and remediation from these dangers, caused by governmental indifference or complicity, are not put into place by our present government.

Our water is being systematically removed from the country by Nestle, and our water tables are being systematically compromised by environmental toxins and of course many Americans are consuming water permeated with IQ-lowering rocket fuel (i.e. fluoride).

Americans are now in the midst of being subjected to the death panels of Obama care in which citizens over the age of 70 are officially referred to as “units” and are targeted for comfort care but not given life saving measures.

Under these conditions is it really in our best interest to remain “in the system”?

This is an undeniable, unmitigated and naked version of Eugenics cast in the same flavor as that practiced by Margaret Sanger, Joseph Stalin, and Adolph Hitler and when Americans try to extricate themselves from these assaults upon their liberties and their health, they are increasingly marginalized, and prosecuted.

Conclusion

Who’s the real terrorist here?

Why is the Obama administration embracing international mandates which criminalizes independent behavior and choices in violation of our Fifth Amendment rights?

If you have the courage to really answer these questions, I would suggest you dig into world history and read about the Holodomor and discover the real motivation behind forced compliance which results in total dependence on the government for life-sustaining services should become readily apparent.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/01/un-confiscating-american-homes-controlling-food-energy/#zVIlDwyR1LfWbxBk.99

19 U.S. Cities have already signed onto the Compact, and 15 more are announcing their commitment today, including:
14527b1542

  • Atlanta, GA
  • Austin, TX
  • Bridgeport, CT
  • Camuy (PR)
  • Chicago, IL
  • Chula Vista, CA
  • Grand Rapids, MI
  • King County, WA
  • New York, NY
  • Oakland, CA
  • San Francisco, CA
  • Santa Monica, CA
  • Seattle, WA
  • West Hollywood, CA
  • West Palm Beach, FL


Here’s A Fuller List:

President Obama’s comments build on the speech made by German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the Sixth Petersburg Climate Dialogue in May this year. 

At the Dialogue, Chancellor Merkel praised the Compact of Mayors for showing how “climate protection can be put into practice locally.”

As part of the Compact, a coalition of U.S. mayors and city officials announced today that they will join the UN Conference of Parties (COP) meeting in Paris this December to showcase their cities’ climate leadership and call for an ambitious international agreement that addresses our climate crisis and supports further action at the local level. 

This group of mayors and ICLEI members, called the Local Climate Leaders Circle, includes mayors of Atlanta, Boulder, Chula Vista, Columbus, Des Moines, Grand Rapids, Oakland, Pittsburgh, Salt Lake City, West Palm Beach, and council members from Santa Monica and King County, WA.

For more about the Compact of Mayors: http://www.compactofmayors.org/

For more about the Local Climate Leaders Circle: http://www.resilientamerica.org/leaderscircle/

So…Is it NOT time to find out what’s going on in YOUR Community? If you have Smart Meters, sudden changes in Zoning Laws, etc., you SHOULD be looking closer at who’s REALLY “governing” YOUR municipality. 

Primary ICLEI Source: http://icleiusa.org/president-challenges-cities-to-join-compact-set-precedent-for-climate-action-by-cop21/