Sustainable Development

Posted: June 29, 2010 in General

Sustainable Development – A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

By clicking on the links provided you can see influential leaders who have been actively guiding the emergence of the environmental movement describe their true beliefs and agenda in their own words. But how can they possibly bring about the global political, economic, social and religious transformation they desire? The tool employed must be so potent and pervasive that it reaches into every area of society, from local community groups to sovereign governments and multinational corporations. It must have the power to enforce binding international agreements, exert stringent controls over human activities and yet still be acceptable to the general population. It must become so entrenched in legislation and business practice that its necessity is barely questioned.

Such a tool exists. They have been carefully shaping and nurturing its progress for decades. It is known as the doctrine of Sustainable Development. We are all aware of need to address environmental problems such as water and air pollution, and dwindling natural resources, but Sustainable Development is exerting draconian controls and influence far beyond those required for effective environmental management.

The concept of ‘environmental sustainability’ was first brought to widespread public attention in 1972 by the Club of Rome in their book entitled The Limits to Growth. The official summary can be read here. The report basically concluded that the growth of the human population, and an increase in prosperity, would cause an ecological collapse within the fifty years. The book is considered to be the most successful environmental publication ever produced and propelled the Club of Rome to its current position of an environmental thought-leader and a major consultant to the United Nations.

It has been translated into more than forty languages and sold more than 15 million copies. Throughout the 1970s and 80s the concept that humanity was irreparably damaging the earth gained credence and facilitated the formation of mainstream and activist environmental groups. The Club of Rome has been calling for “a Masterplan to guide world development” since its very inception.

In Nature organic growth proceeds according to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. According to this master plan diversification among cells is determined by the requirements of the various organs; the size and shape of the organs and, therefore, their growth processes are determined by their function, which in turn depends on the needs of the whole organism. Such a ‘master plan’ is missing from the process of growth and development of the world systemNow is the time to draw up a master plan for organic sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all finite resources and a new global economic system. ” – Mankind at the Turning Point, CoR, 1974

Interestingly, just prior to the birth of “Sustainable Development” a well-dressed, articulate man visited a small construction company in Georgia, USA, and announced that he wanted to build an edifice to transmit a message to mankind. He said that he represented a group of men who wanted to offer direction to humanity, but to date, more than two decades later, no one knows who he really was, or who he represented. The stranger gave the company very detailed design documents and stated the money was not an issue.

The “Georgia Guidestones” were completed six months later in 1980. As noted in the Wikipedia entry “The content of the message bears a remarkable resemblance to the so called Earth Charter, a statement of vision of the Earth Charter Initiative of Mikhail Gorbachev (Green Cross International) and Maurice Strong (Earth Summit).

The monument stands high on a hilltop, and is almost twenty feet tall. It is made from five granite slabs that weigh more than 100 tons, with a capstone connecting the slabs. A message consisting of a set of ten guidelines or principles is engraved on the Georgia Guidestones in eight different languages, one language on each face of the four large upright stones. Moving clockwise around the monument from due north, these languages are: English, Spanish, Swahili, Hindi, Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese and Russian. The message in English reads:

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion – faith – tradition – and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth – beauty – love – seeking harmony with the infinite.
10. Be not a cancer on the earth – Leave room for nature.

A shorter message appears on the four vertical surfaces of the capstone, again in a different language and script on each face. The explanatory tablet near the Guidestones identifies these languages/scripts as Babylonian Cuneiform (north), Classical Greek (east), Sanskrit (south), and Egyptian Hieroglyphs (west), and provides what is presumably an English translation: “Let these be guidestones to an age of reason.” The Guidestones have become famous as ‘America’s Stonehenge’. The origin of the Stones remains a mystery but the implications of these guidelines, especially the first two, are disturbing to say the least.

Sustainable Development is a doctrine devised by the former Prime Minister of Norway Gro Harlem Brundtland. The UN Secretary-General, Javier Perez de Cuellar, asked Mrs. Brundtland to chair a World Commission focusing on “long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development by the year 2000 and beyond.” She was asked “to help formulate a compelling call for political action on behalf of the environment”. Members of the ‘Brundtland Commission’ came from 21 nations, more than half in the developing world. After three years, including public hearings in the capitals of 15 countries, what now is often called simply the ‘Brundtland Commission’ published a report titled Our Common Future.

Over the course of this century, the relationship between the human world and the planet that sustains it has undergone a profound change,” said the report. “When the century began, neither human numbers or technology had the power radically to alter planetary systems. As the century closes, not only do vastly increased human numbers and their activities have that power, but major, unintended changes are occurring in the atmosphere, in soils, in water, among plants and animals, and in the relationships among all of these. The rate of change is outstripping the ability of scientific disciplines and our current capabilities to assess and advise.

This sentiment strongly echoes the Limits to Growth published by the Club of Rome nearly twenty years previously. It also surmised that “major, unintended changes are occurring in the atmosphere, in soils, in waters, among plants and animals. Nature is bountiful but it is also fragile and finely balanced. There are thresholds that cannot be crossed without endangering the basic integrity of the system. Today we are close to many of those thresholds.

In issuing a call for various actions, the report offered a now-famous definition of what it referred to as sustainable development: “A form of development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The Brundtland Commission called for an international conference to be convened “within an appropriate period” after the presentation of its report to review progress and create a follow-up structure.

That conference, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, or Earth Summit, was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. At the Rio ‘Earth Summit’, representatives of more than 170 nations, including the United States, agreed to work toward sustainable development of the planet. More specific agreements, most not legally binding, focused on topics of global significance such as climate change, loss of biodiversity, management of the earth’s forests and the responsibilities and rights of nations. A global plan of action developed in Rio was titled Agenda 21, referring to the 21st century.

At the opening session of the Rio Earth Summit Maurice Strong, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Secretary-General, bemoaned the world’s “explosive increase in Population” and warned “we have been the most successful species ever; we are now a species out of control. Population must be stabilized and rapidly.” His speech also stated that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable. A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.

Mr Strong has since stated that “The United States is the greatest threat to the global environment. It is guilty of environmental aggression against the planet” and “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?

Sustainable Development, as outlined in Agenda 21 and the subsequent Earth Charter, is the driving force behind what Al Gore calls a “wrenching transformation” that society must endure to repair what he perceives as the damage of the 20th century’s Industrial Revolution. It is the same Industrial Revolution that gave us modern transportation, medicine, indoor plumbing, healthy drinking water, central heating, air conditioning, and electric light. Sustainable Development is not about environmental clean up of rivers, air and litter. It is an all-encompassing socialist scheme to combine social welfare programs with government control of private business, socialized medicine, national zoning controls of private property and restructuring of school curriculum which serves to indoctrinate children into politically correct group think.

Immediately following the publication of Brundtland Commission report and the Earth Summit many governments swiftly enacted draconian legislation to empower the Sustainable Development doctrine. This followed a common formula of establishing regional or federal authorities that were given sweeping powers to control activities on private property. In Europe nearly every imaginable activity, no matter how benign, now requires and environmental impact assessment to be submitted to a committee which then imposes its own controls on the proposed activity. The UN regularly audits member countries and reports on their progress in implementing Agenda 21.

The primary tools used by the UN to force governments to implement its Sustainable Development agenda have been The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The World Bank states that Sustainable Development is its “global strategic priority” and all government loans are tagged with the requirement to introduce approved environmental legislation and strict monitoring. Even if repayments are met these loans can be foreclosed if the environmental targets are not met within the required timeframe.

In his book, Earth in the Balance, Al Gore insists “We must all become partners in a bold effort to change the very foundation of our civilization. We must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization.” Sustainable Development advocates seek oppressive taxes to control and punish behavior of which they don’t approve and there is much these advocates disapprove, including air conditioning, fast foods, suburban housing and automobiles. Every aspect of our lives is affected by Sustainable Development policies. It is top-down control from an all-powerful central government, specifically the United Nations which seeks to assert such control.

The philosophy behind Sustainable Development is to foster a mentality of guilt in people over the use of natural resources. Every time one starts their car… every time one turns on the tap… remember, be sustainable! Don’t exceed your allotment of resources…. We all must learn to live the same, think the same and most importantly… be sustainable! We are encouraged to calculate our ‘ecological footprint’, or more recently, our ‘carbon footprint’. Using a humble incandescent light bulb is now considered a crime against the planet by some. During the recent Earth Hour there were people in my city banging on their neighbours door telling them to switch off their lights. This collective guilt trip is being used to develop the global consciousness. Even back in 1974 the Club of Rome stated in Mankind at the Turning Point:

A world consciousness must be developed through which every individual realizes his role as a member of the world community… If the human species is to survive, man must develop a sense of identification with future generations and be ready to trade benefits to the next generations for the benefits to himself. If each generation aims at maximum good for itself, Homo sapiens are as good as doomed

The next revolution in the Sustainable Development saga appears to be the use of Global Warming hysteria to implement a global carbon tax or carbon credit trading system. This will give the United Nations, or whatever hierarchy oversees the system, complete control of the worlds economy. Fossil fuels are the life blood of any economy. One barrel of oil contains 23,000 hours of human work output. Controlling the amount of oil that can be consumed, and taxing its consumption, will complete the Sustainable Development agenda of controlling and reducing human activity in order to protect Mother Earth from her greatest enemy – humans!

Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a
pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor
.“

– Sir James Lovelock,
Healing Gaia: Practical Medicine for the Planet

Advertisements

So, what exactly is the Club of Rome and who are its members? Founded in 1968 at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy, the CoR describes itself as “a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity.” It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN beaureacrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe.

Many people have heard of the Tri-Lateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations. What do they have in common with the CoR?  They were all founded by Rockefeller. The head hancho’s at each organization sit on the Board of the CoR.  The T-LC and the CFR are really just the Public Relations unit of the CoR, for the CoR is where the buck stops.

I have been tirelessly talking about Agenda 21, so I hope that people are aware of this little nugget of legislation by now. It was the outcome of the Club of Rome, a think-tank that provides ‘suggestions’ to the United Nations.  We are currently seeing all these ‘suggestions’ coming to fruition as current legislation bombards us daily as America is being radically transformed.  This transformation is no accident, and it is not aimless nor mindless.  It has been carefully construed and orchestrated.  It is the work of the Club of Rome.

Their mission can be most readily surmised just by looking at the graphic they designed for their ‘mission statement’ home page….

…and for those with more time on your hands than you care to have, you can expand the synposis and follow the links provided and delve right into their rhetoric:

1.Environment and Resources: This cluster relates climate change, peak oil, ecosystems and water. Radical and rapid social and economic transformations will be needed to avert runaway climate change and ecological breakdown;

2. Globalisation: This cluster relates interdependence, distribution of wealth and income, demographic change, employment, trade and finance. Rising inequalities and imbalances associated with the present path of globalisation risk the breakdown of the world economic and financial systems;

3. World Development: This cluster relates sustainable development, demographic growth, poverty, environmental stress, food production, health and employment. The scandal of abiding poverty, deprivation, inequity and exclusion in a wealthy world must be corrected;

4. Social Transformation: This cluster relates social change, gender equity, values and ethics, religion and spirituality, culture, identity and behaviour. The values and behaviour on which the present path of world development is based must change if peace and progress are to be preserved within the tightening human and environmental limits;

5. Peace and Security: This cluster relates justice, democracy, governance, solidarity, security and peace. The present path of world development risks alienation, polarization, violence and conflict; the preservation of peace is vital in itself but is also a precondition for progress and for the resolution of the issues which threaten the future.


The Club of Rome subsequently founded two sibling organizations, the Club of Budapest and the Club of Madrid. The former is focused on social and cultural aspects of their agenda, while the latter concentrates on the political aspects. All three of these ‘Clubs’ share many common members and hold joint meetings and conferences. As explained in other articles on this website it is abundantly clear that these are three heads of the same beast. The CoR has also established a network of 33 National Associations. Membership of the ‘main Club’ is limited to 100 individuals at any one time. Some members, like Al Gore and Maurice Strong, are affiliated through their respective National Associations (e.g. USACOR, CACOR etc).

I would like to start this analysis of the Club of Rome by listing some prominent members of the CoR and its two sub-groups, the Clubs of Budapest and Madrid. Personally it isn’t what the CoR is that I find so astonishing; it is WHO the CoR is! This isn’t some quirky little group of green activists or obscure politicians. They are the most senior officials in the United Nations, current and ex-world leaders, and the founders of some of the most influential environmental organisations. When you read their reports in the context of who they are – its gives an entirely new, and frightening, context to their extreme claims.

Some current members of the Club of Rome or its two siblings:

Al Gore – former VP of the USA, leading climate change campaigner, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Academy Award winner, Emmy winner. Gore lead the US delegations to the Rio Earth Summit and Kyoto Climate Change conference. He chaired a meeting of the full Club of Rome held in Washington DC in 1997.

Javier Solana – Secretary General of the Council of the European Union, High Representative for EU Foreign Policy.

Maurice Strong – former Head of the UN Environment Programme, Chief Policy Advisor to Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the Rio Earth Summit, co-author (with Gorbachev) of the Earth Charter, co-author of the Kyoto Protocol, founder of the Earth Council, devout Baha’i.

Mikhail Gorbachev – CoR executive member, former President of the Soviet Union, founder of Green Cross International and the Gorbachev Foundation, Nobel Peace Prize winner, co-founder (with Hidalgo) of the Club of Madrid, co-author (with Strong) of the Earth Charter.

Diego Hidalgo – CoR executive member, co-founder (with Gorbachev) of the Club of Madrid, founder and President of the European Council on Foreign Relations in association with George Soros.

Ervin Laszlo – founding member of the CoR, founder and President of the Club of Budapest, founder and Chairman of the World Wisdom Council.

Anne Ehrlich – Population Biologist. Married to Paul Ehrlich with whom she has authored many books on human overpopulation. Also aformer director of Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club, and a member of the UN’s Global Roll of Honor.

Hassan bin Talal – President of the CoR, President of the Arab Thought Forum, founder of the World Future Council, recently named as the United Nations ‘Champion of the Earth‘.

Sir Crispin Tickell – former British Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Permanent Representative on the Security Council, Chairman of the ‘Gaia Society’, Chairman of the Board of the Climate Institute, leading British climate change campaigner.

Kofi Annan – former Secretary General of the United Nations. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Javier Perez de Cuellar – former Secretary General of the United Nations.

Gro Harlem Bruntland – United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Change, former President of Norway

Robert Muller – former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, founder and Chancellor of the UN University of Peace.

The Dalai Lama – The ‘Spiritual Leader’ of Tibet. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Father Berry Thomas – Catholic Priest who is one of the leading proponents of deep ecology, ecospirituality and global consciousness.

David Rockefeller – CoR executive member, former Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, founder of the Trilateral Commission, executive member of the World Economic Forum, donated land on which the United Nations stands.

Stephen Schneider – Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports.

Bill Clinton – former President of the United States, founder of the Clinton Global Iniative.

Jimmy Carter – former President of the United States, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Bill Gates – founder of Microsoft, philanthropist

Garret Hardin – Professor of Human Ecology. Originator of the ‘Global Commons‘ concept. Has authored many controversial papers on human overpopulation and eugenics.

Other current influential members:
(these can be found on the membership lists of the COR (
here, here, and here), Club of Budapest, Club of Madrid and/or CoR National Association membership pages)

Ted Turner – media mogul, philanthropist, founder of CNN
George Soros – multibillionare, major donor to the UN
Tony Blair – former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Deepak Chopra – New Age Guru
Desmond Tutu – South African Bishop and activist, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Timothy Wirth – President of the United Nations Foundation
Henry Kissinger – former US Secretary of State
George Matthews
Chairman of the Gorbachev Foundation
Harlan Cleveland – former Assistant US Secretary of State and NATO Ambassador
Barbara Marx Hubbard – President of the
Foundation for Conscious Evolution
Betty Williams – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Marianne Williamson – New Age ‘Spiritual Activist’
Robert Thurman – assistant to the Dalai Lama
Jane Goodall – Primatologist and Evolutionary Biologist
Juan Carlos I – King of Spain
Prince Philippe of Belgium
Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands
Dona Sophia – Queen of Spain
José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero – current Prime Minister of Spain
Karan Singh – Former Prime Minister of India, Chairman of the
Temple of Understanding
Daisaku Ikeda – founder of the
Soka Gakkai cult
Martin Lees – CoR Secretary General, Rector of the UN University of Peace
Ernesto Zedillo – Director of
The Yale Center for the Study of Globalization
Frithjof Finkbeiner – Coordinator of the
Global Marshall Plan
Franz Josef Radermacher – Founder of the
Global Marshall Plan
Eduard Shevardnadze – former Soviet foreign minister and President of Georgia
Richard von Weizsacker – former President of Germany
Carl Bildt – former President of Sweden
Kim Campbell – former Prime Minister of Canada and
Senior Fellow of the Gorbachev Foundation
Vincente Fox – former President of Mexico
Helmut Kohl – former Chancellor of Germany
Romano Prodi – former Prime Minister of Italy and President of the European Commission
Vaclav Havel – former President of the Czech Republic
Hans Kung – Founder of the
Global Ethic Foundation
Ruud Lubbers – United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Mary Robinson – United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Jerome Binde – Director of Foresight, UNESCO
Koïchiro Matsuura – Current Director General of UNESCO
Federico Mayor – Former Director General of UNESCO
Tapio Kanninen – Director of Policy and Planning, United Nations
Konrad Osterwalder – Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations
Peter Johnston – Director General of European Commission
Jacques Delors – Former President of the European Commission
Domingo Jimenez-Beltran – Executive Director of the European Environment Agency
Thomas Homer-Dixon – Director of Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Toronto
Hazel Henderson – Futurist and ‘evoluntionary economist’
Emeka Anyaoku – former Commonwealth Secretary General, current President of the
World Wildlife Fund
Wangari Maathai – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, founder of the
Green Belt Movement
and many more….

As discussed previously the CoR directly spawned two affiliated ‘Clubs’ – the Club of Budapest (CoB) and the Club of Madrid (CoM). The purpose of these siblings is to “provide spiritual, cultural and political context to the Club of Rome’s technical research.

The Club of Budapest is an offshoot of the CoR designed to promote the Global Green Agenda though ‘Art and Culture’ – The idea of the Club of Budapest stems from discussions between its founder and president Ervin Laszlo, and The Club of Rome founder Aurelia Peccei in the late seventies. Peccei suggested that Laszlo, a fellow founding member of the Club of Rome, should bring together writers, artists and people of high spiritual qualifications to complement abstract theoretical information about current and coming global problems with the insight and creativity inherent in art, literature, and various domains of the human spirit.

However the Club of Budapest seems to have little to do with the Arts and much more to do with the usual themes. The Mission of its WorldShift Network is to address:
– The Governance of Nations
– Education for Wisdom
– Public Health Policy
– The Ethics of Planetary Freedom
– Reverence for Nature
– Approaching a modern Subsistence Economy

The Club of Budapest has also established the World Wisdom Council. It is jointly chaired by Mikhail Gorbachev and Robert Muller and consists of almost exactly the same people as the World Commission on Global Consciousness and Spirituality described below. In 1996 the Club of Budapest released THE MANIFESTO ON THE SPIRIT OF PLANETARY CONSCIOUSNESS which was signed by 16 global environmental leaders, 12 of which are also CoR members!

The Club of Madrid consists of 70 former Heads of State handpicked by the CoR to consider “appropriate forms of governance” and methods of “democratic transition to a new global order.” The Club was officially founded by Mikhail Gorbachev and Diego Hidalgo. They are both given as “executive members of the Governing Council of the Club of Rome.” The CoM is funded by the Gorbachev Foundation and Hildalgo’s organization FRIDE (the European Council on Foreign Relations).

A quick perusal of their membership list reveals that more than half are also members of CoR National Associations and contain the usual suspects such as Bill Clinton, Mikhail Gorbachev, Jimmy Carter, Tony Blair, Mary Robinson, Vaclav Havel, Romano Prodi, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Javier Perez de Cuellar, and Carl Bildt. They state that their top priority is “facilitating a global post-Kyoto climate treaty.” The Club of Madrid, in a similar fashion to the CoR, is an official consultant body to the UN and is contracted by them to produce reports and technical advice.

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

Perhaps the most interesting of all these organizations is the World Commission on Global Consciousness and Spirituality. The purpose of this ‘Commission’ appears to be to perpetuate the spiritual aspects of the Global Green Agenda. It is basically just old-fashioned paganism dressed up as a new eco-theology. I challenge the reader to make sense of this page! The commission is composed mostly of CoR members including Gore and Gorbachev.

The United Nations Foundation was created by prominent CoR member Ted Turner. He donated one billion dollars to support the environmental activites of the UN. A significant proportion of this money was designated for “programmes specifically addressing climate change” and funding the IPCC. The Foundation has also recently created the Global Security Institute to “propose far-reaching reforms of the international system.” As would be expected the Foundation’s Board is full of the same old names including: Ted Turner, Timothy Wirth, Kofi Annan, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Emma Rothschild, and Muhammad Yunus.

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

Global Leadership for Climate Action is a joint initiative of the United Nations Foundation and the Club of Madrid which “aims to design a framework for a new enforceable international agreement on climate change.” The GLCA has editorial input into reports and assessments produced by the IPCC and provides “technical expertise on the implications and communication of climate change science.” By my count more than two-thirds of the GLCA members are also members of the CoR including: George Soros, Ted Turner, Timothy Wirth, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Mary Robinson, Sir Crispin Tickell, Kim Campbell, Wangari Maathai, Petre Roman and Richard Lagos. Now I have to wonder what qualifies George Soros and Ted Turner to provide technical advice on climate change science!!

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

The Gorbachev Foundation was created by Mikhail Gorbachev immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He described the Foundation “as a think-tank whose purpose is to explore the path that global governance should take as mankind progresses into an interdependent global society.” The overall motto of the Gorbachev Foundation is Toward a New Civilization”. The Foundation is deeply involved in many aspects of the modern green movement. They provide advice and funding to many non-government environmental orgaizations. The Board of the Foundation includes CoR members: Mikhail Gorbachev, Robert Muller, Ted Turner, Ruud Lubbers, Wangari Maathai, Sri Chinmoy, Robert Redford, Vaclav Havel and Javier Peres de Cuellar. Who would have thought Robert Redford was involved in all of this! In a similar fashion to the CoR, the Gorbachev Foundation now has several ‘Gorbachev Foundation National Associations’ each with their own management structure.

The Foundation works very closely with the CoR and the Club of Madrid and regularly holds joint conferences. These conferences must be fairly easy to organise since they have so many members in common. In order to carry out their ‘mission’ the Foundation has created a number of susidiary organizations. Chief among these is Green Cross International.

From the Green Cross Charter:
Life is sacred. All forms of life have their own intrinsic value and share our planetary home in an interdependent community. All parts of this community are essential to the functioning of the whole. The beauty of the Earth and its life is food for the human spirit, inspiring human consciousness with wonder, joy and creativity. Human beings are not outside or above the community of life. We have not woven the web of life, we are but a strand in it. We depend on the whole for our very existence. For the first time in history, human beings have the capacity to damage, knowingly or unknowingly, the ecological balances on which all life depends. The crisis is urgent.

The GCI Board contains the same familiar names: Mikhail Gorbachev, Ted Turner, Basma Bin Talal, Jean Michel Cousteau, Ruud Lubbers, Wangari Maathai, Javier Perez de Cuellar, Robert Redford, Karan Singh, David Suzuki

Another Gorbachev Foundation creation is Global Green USA which promotes sustainability and ‘climate action’. Its motto is “fostering a global shift towards a sustainable future.

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

Another organization that is closely linked to the CoR is the United Nations University of Peace. The Chancellor (Robert Muller), Rector (Konrad Osterwalder) and CEO (Martin Lees) are all prominent CoR members. In fact Martin Lees has just been appointed as the CoR Secretary-General. Dr Muller founded the UN’s University of Peace on a mountain in Costa Rica. Why did he choose this location? Because of this ancient prophecy:

“Dear children, the Great Spirit is in every animal, in every bird, butterfly, flower, insect, leaf and grass you see.
The Great Spirit is also in you, the Creator’s children. Please take care of the wonderful nature created by God and some day, from this mountain, you will see the birth of a civilization of peace spread to the entire world.

The ‘Board of Honor’ of the University includes: Betty Williams, Desmond Tutu, Elie Wiesel, the Dalai Lama Nelson Mandela, F. W. de Klerk and David Trimble. The University is also home to Mikhail Gorbachev and Maurice Strong’s infamous Earth Charter Initiative.

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

An excellent source of information is the Kosmos Journal, a publication dedicated to the ‘Global Awakening’ and fostering a ‘New Human Civilisation’. Many of the articles are written by CoR members. It actually makes me feel physically ill after spending a few hours wading through their nonsense. The founding partners of this journal include many of the organisations listed above and show how truly interconnected they are:

Founding Partners:
Club of Rome
Club of Budapest
World Wisdom Council
Gorbachev Foundation
World Commission for Global Consciousness and Spirituality
Goi Peace Foundation
Global Youth Network
The Future 500
Institute of Noetic Studies

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

These are just a few of the influential ‘environmental’ organizations that were either founded by, or are dominated by, CoR members. There are many more that I have come across but it would take forever to describe them all here. The leaders of the Global Green Agenda are deadly serious about their intention to “transform humanity into an interdependent global sustainable Earth Community, based on reverence and respect for Gaia” and they have been spreading their tentacles into every area of global politics. Some other CoR initiated organizations you may wish to research are:

Awakening Mind
Alliance for a New Humanity
Association for Global New Thought
The Ethical Globalization Initiative
Foundation for Conscious Evolution
Great Transition Initiative
The Earth Council Alliance
The World Future Council
The Alliance of Civilizations
The Global Marshall Plan
The Eden Project


THE FUND[1]
Background

Bretton Woods is a name we have all heard of since high school history class, but do we remember what took place there? Quite a lot happened there, but what we are focused on now is what was initially called the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference. At that meeting five institutions were created; we are only concerned with two, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (officially the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) which were conceived in July 1944 and formally organized in July of the following year.

G. Edward Griffin explains the façade and the reality of these two entities, “The announced purpose of these organizations were admirable. The World Bank was to make loans to war-torn and underdeveloped nations so they could build stronger economies. The International Monetary Fund was to promote monetary cooperation between nations by maintaining fixed exchange rates between their currencies. But the method by which these goals were to be achieved was less admirable. It was to terminate the use of gold as the basis of international currency exchange and replace it with a politically manipulated paper standard. In other words, it was to allow governments to escape the discipline of gold so they could create money out of nothing without paying the penalty of having their currencies drop in value on world markets.”[2]

Both the IMF and the World Bank are based in Washington, D.C. The IMF always has a European head while the World Bank’s leader is an American.

Initially, as noted, they were set up to fund the reconstruction of Europe and Asia after World War II, and then to build infrastructure and provide for the basic needs of people in the developing world. But in the 1960s, the World Bank shifted the focus of its loans from infrastructure to social services and other social justice[3] sectors.

As Griffin points out, “The International Monetary Fund appears to be a part of the United Nations, much as the Federal Reserve System appears to be part of the United States government, but it is entirely independent. It is funded on a quota basis by its member nations, almost 200 in number. The greatest share of capital, however, comes from the more highly industrialized nations such as Great Britain, Japan, France, and Germany. The United States contributes the most, at about twenty percent of the total. In reality, that twenty percent represents about twice as much as the number indicates, because most of the other nations contribute worthless currencies which no one wants. The world prefers dollars.

One of the routine operations at the IMF is to exchange worthless currencies for dollars so the weaker countries can pay their international bills. This is supposed to cover temporary “cash-flow” problems. It is a kind of international FDIC[4] which rushes money to a country that has gone bankrupt so it can avoid devaluing its currency. The transactions are seldom paid back.”

“Although escape from the gold-exchange standard was the long-range goal of the IMF, the only way to convince nations to participate at the outset was to use gold itself as a backing for its own money supply – at least as a temporary expedient.”[5]

So now instead of IMF loans for concrete projects – infrastructure, private industry, and other sound investments — the loans are going to governments in pursuit of “humanitarian goals.” Actually much of the money ends up in the pockets of the leaders and bureaucrats. Some, very little, is actually used for aid to the starving citizens of those countries.

Part 1, Purpose

The International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC)[6][7] has now requested that the IMF review “its mandate to cover the full range of macroeconomic and financial sector policies that bear on global stability,” and to report back to the Committee next year. On January 22, 2010, the International Monetary Fund’s Strategy, Policy, and Review Department (in consultation with the Legal Department) prepared an overview of the Fund’s Mandate and what it saw as the problems of control facing the Fund and how they could tweak the mandate “without the politically taxing process of amending the Articles of Agreement.”

What that means is how to make the IMF far more powerful than it already is without having the members vote on the changes, since the members would not be willing to make such far-reaching and drastic changes. For instance, regarding financial data of IMF members:

First, it (the IMF) has only limited and episodic access to supervisory data (e.g., in the context of FSAPs (Financial Sector Assessment Program), and members often decline to provide systemically relevant information on grounds of confidentiality. Second, the Fund has no authority to require confidential data on entities such as large complex financial institutions (LCFIs), a few dozen of which make up the basic plumbing of global finance. The reason is that Article VIII, Section 5 provides that members are under no obligation to furnish information that exposes individual corporations. Yet understanding the linkages between LCFIs, and changing patterns and concentrations in exposure, is crucial to any institution claiming to be a guardian of global stability. As amendment of the Articles to require such disclosure is unlikely to find broad support, alternative arrangements will be needed.

Already we see that the IMF is facing a brick wall if they have to go to the members for permission, but not if they go around the members via executive decisions. The IMF sees itself as a “guardian of global stability,” that is literally how they put it; yet a normal person, even one with little economics savvy, would consider them just the opposite. What the IMF, World Bank, the Federal Reserve, Bank of England, etc. are doing is working toward global instability – not stability – until they can wrest controlling power. Then they will set up stability in a world of masters (them) and slaves (us).

You don’t think so? Here is an interview of Maurice Strong, one of the world’s richest men, the Secretary-General of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, President of the World Federation of United Nations, and on and on, speaking to journalist, Daniel Wood of WEST Magazine:

Each year the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attend meetings and set the economic agendas for the year ahead. What if a small group of these word leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth?

The group’s conclusion is “no.” The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides:isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?

This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about a world collapse. It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists – they’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodity and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock exchanges, and computers, and gold supplies, a panic. Then they prevent the markets from closing. They jam the gears. They have mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostage. The markets can’t close. The rich countries…?[8]

Or as Griffin puts it in Creature, “Destruction of the economic strength of the industrialized nations is merely a necessary prerequisite for ensnaring them into the global web. The thrust of the current ecology movement is directed totally to that end.”[9]


Capital flows

(I)t seems appropriate that Fund surveillance cover more effectively capital flows and related policies. Granting the Fund the authority to approve — or not — capital controls would require amending the Articles, which is never an easy process, especially on an issue on which the membership is highly divided.

As will be shown further into this paper, the IMF wants capital to flow from the U.S. and other First World Countries to Third World Countries – from the “haves” to the “have nots.” Capital flow is not meant to promote technological or industrial growth, but will be used for welfare in order to create dependency; the IMF does not want the poor people of the world becoming strong and healthy economically or physically.

Role in Low Income Countries

In particular, the Fund may need to expand its role as a provider of insurance against global volatility and other shocks, including from the effects of climate change.[10]

Even though the global warming scare has been shown as a fraud to promote onerous legislation like “cap and trade,” to shut down industry in the U.S., and to prevent people from using their private property, all of these actions are still being carried out so the IMF pretends there is still a basis for it.

Also, Agenda 21 – the Earth Charter, calls for the redistribution of wealth between rich and poor countries as seen in section 2.1 on page 19:

“In order to meet the challenges of environment and development, States have decided to establish a new global partnership. This partnership commits all States to engage in a continuous and constructive dialogue, inspired by the need to achieve a more efficient and equitable world economy, keeping in view the increasing interdependence of the community of nations and that sustainable development should become a priority item on the agenda of the international community….

Economic policies of individual countries, and international economic relations both have great relevance to sustainable development. …Neither will it gather momentum if the developing countries are weighted down by external indebtedness…. Therefore, it is the intent of Governments that consensus-building at the intersection of the environmental and trade and development areas will be ongoing in existing international forums, as well as in the domestic policy of each country.”

Reserves

The build-up of international reserves as a buffer against shocks is widely expected to resume as the crisis fades and to some extent already has. While such accumulation can be costly for surplus and reserve-issuing countries alike, there are three underlying problems. First, there are concerns about the availability of international liquidity in times of crisis, prompting a precautionary reserve buildup, especially when heavy capital inflows threaten to overwhelm emerging markets. Second, there is no automatic adjustment of current account imbalances, neither surplus countries nor reserve-issuing deficit countries facing pressure to adjust. Third, the concentration of reserves in US dollars reflects the absence of close substitutes as a global store of value and anchor for asset and price stability. The Fund’s overarching responsibility to promote the effective operation of the international monetary system requires that it seek solutions to the above problems. While it may draw on all its powers for this purpose, a rarely discussed one is to be found in Article VIII, Section 7, which calls on members to collaborate on reserve policies with the objective of “better international surveillance of international liquidity and making the special drawing right the principal reserve asset in the international monetary system.” Consideration may need to be given to reviving this forgotten provision as a basis for action, not least because official reserves have become large enough relative to private flows as to have significant—and potentially destabilizing—market impact from a sudden portfolio reallocation.

A key problem with using a national currency as the main global reserve asset is that instability in its value translates to the entire system. The problem can be ameliorated by the presence of several suppliers of reserve assets—the euro has emerged as an alternative to the dollar and at some point in the future the yen and, further out, the renminbi[11] might also—or by globally-issued reserves. Given the network externalities associated with a single reserve asset, neither solution is likely to emerge spontaneously any time soon. Thus, it may be necessary to consider giving content to members’ obligation, under Article VIII, Section 7, “to collaborate with the Fund and with one another with regard to policies on reserve assets” so as to facilitate a smooth transition to a more stable system.

The IMF is making the point that the U.S. Dollar should no longer be used as the main global reserve asset. While they are considering using the yuan, they actually have other plans:

A global currency. The SDR is not a currency but a right to access freely usable currencies in case of balance of payments difficulties; its stability rests on that of its component currencies. A more far reaching approach would be to introduce a new global reserve currency, similar to Keynes’ bancor[12], issued by an institution with an impeccable balance sheet and a governance structure that gives confidence that it can function as a prudent and independent world central bank. A global reserve currency that is not associated with the economic developments of any particular country would remove the vulnerabilities associated with reserve accumulation in national currencies and could remedy the lack of automatic adjustment. The operational and political challenges, however, would be huge. As such, the idea is clearly one for the long term.

While the IMF’s Overview writers predict only positive effects of a global currency, what about the fact that there is no basis in gold or oil or precious metals for their currency? Without something to define the value of a currency, some standard on which to measure it, it then becomes the monetary equivalent of moral relevancy – it’s worth changing with the whims of the power elite.

That is a quick look at the Overview of the IMF’s Mandate.

Part 2, The Lawyers; or how to get around the rules

A month to the day after that was submitted, “The Fund’s Mandate – The Legal Framework” was offered up to accompany the Overview. Interestingly, it begins with a note on the specialization of the organization and states,

While, at a certain level of abstraction, it may be said that all international organizations have been established to enhance human welfare, the assumption underlying the design of the post-war international architecture was that each organization would make its own distinct contribution to that objective; … since all of the enumerated purposes are of an economic nature, it has been understood that, unlike some other organizations, the Fund is precluded from using its powers for political objectives. (italics mine)

It would be hard to see any other use of its powers. The IMF is one of the tentacles of Agenda 21 which is totally political – working toward a totalitarian socialistic world government through the redistribution of wealth.

The powers conferred upon the Fund under the Articles can be divided into three categories: (a) oversight powers,relating primarily to the Fund’s responsibility to monitor and promote the observance of members’ obligations under the Articles; (b) the power to provide financial assistance; and (c) advisory powersConsistent with the principles of national sovereignty (italics mine) and specialization noted above, the powers conferred upon the Fund are generally limited to those explicitly identified in the Articles.

But they go onto state:

Accordingly, while the key parameters of the Fund’s mandate are established in the Articles of Agreement, it may be said that the operational content of the Fund’s mandate has been updated over time by Executive Board decision.

In other words, the Executive Board has made many changes that the members never would have allowed.

The legal department gripes that regarding domestic policies, including financial sector policies, member obligations are limited in two important respects:

  • First, the relevant text reveals that these obligations (Article IV, Section 1 (i) and (ii)) are of a “soft” nature: taking into account the fact that members retain great sovereignty in terms of the conduct of their domestic policies, they are only required to exercise “best efforts” in this area. In contrast, those obligations that relate to members’ external policies, including exchange rate policies (Article IV, Section 1 (iii) and (iv)), are of a “hard” nature—requiring the achievement of results rather than just the exercise of best efforts—reflecting the direct international impact of these policies.
  • Second, members’ obligations respecting domestic policies only require members to take action to promote their own domestic stability. As long as a member is implementing domestic policies in a manner that ensures such stability, it is under no obligation to change these policies, even if a change would further enhance the stability of the overall exchange rate system.

They are not happy that the members “retain great sovereignty in terms of the conduct of their domestic policies” or that the members’ obligations are to promote their own domestic stability – not that of the rest of the world (and they say this). In order to get around the Articles in the Mandate that they find to be too restricting, the legal department suggests that the constraints could be addressed through the adoption of decisions by the Executive Board.

What they are saying is that even though a country is being fiscally responsible, if the IMF decides that their domestic policies are impacting the “the balance of payments of other countries, even where this effect is not transmitted through the member’s own balance of payment,” then the IMF could step in and make those fiscally responsible countries change their fiscally conservative policies.

In order for the type of situation identified in paragraph 15 above to be made central to bilateral surveillance, it would be necessary to amend Article IV itself. Such an amendment could reconsider the primacy that is given to exchange rate policies over domestic policies and, in that context, expand members’ obligations relating to domestic policies in a manner that would require a member to adjust its domestic policies to support systemic stability—even if the domestic policies in question are not undermining the member’s own domestic stability. This would represent, however, a significant surrender of national sovereignty. (italics mine)

Much of the review is working out how the IMF can broaden its surveillance scope of countries. Right now member countries are under no obligation to furnish information in “such detail that the affairs of individuals or corporations are disclosed.” The IMF would like to change this without having to amend the Agreement (remember member countries are unlikely to want to give up either more information or their sovereignty), so they are looking to the Executive Board to make the necessary changes and to read the Articles in a new light to change “expectations” of information from members to solid demands.

And now to the Reserve Policies of Members:

“[e]ach member undertakes to collaborate with the Fund and with other members in order to ensure that the policies of the member with respect to reserve assets shall be consistent with the objectives of promoting better international surveillance of international liquidity and making the special drawing right the principal reserve asset in the international monetary system.” (italics mine)

As stated by the Legal Department, this provision was one of several new provisions that “were designed to reduce the role of gold and to strengthen the role of SDRs in the international monetary system,” or to put it another way, to have fiat money as the sole reserves.

The Fund would also need to provide further guidance on the meaning of the obligation of members to collaborate towards the objective of making the SDR the principal reserve asset in the international monetary system. Two important features of this objective should be noted. First, making the SDR the principal reserve asset of the international monetary system is identified as an objective, but not necessarily as a result that has been—or is required to be—achieved.

In discussing the Oversight of International Capital Movements, the Legal Department admits that while they want a more active role in overseeing members’ regulation of these movements, designing “an appropriate approach is far more complex and nuanced” than it was when they were just controlling current payments and transfers.

They admit that free capital movements “help channel resources to their most productive uses and increase economic growth and welfare.” But they then blame the free markets for the recent crises.

With that, the Legal Department says it would be open for the Fund to establish policies (which they would call “recommendations” for a softer sell), that provide guidance to members;

as to: (a) what conditions should be in place before a member liberalizes its capital account, and (b) when the imposition of controls on outflows or inflows may be an appropriate response to balance of payments or macroeconomic pressures. In the conduct of bilateral surveillance, the Fund would assess the extent to which members’ actions are consistent with these recommendations. The Fund could also take up the systemic role of capital movements—and the impact of controls on such movements—in the context of multilateral surveillance.

In other words, the IMF would decide what the countries’ fiscal and economic policies MUST be.

Summary

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
— Lord Acton

That sentence sums up this document very well. What happens when a group of powerful people decide that they do not have enough wealth and power and need to find more, is what happened here, or rather at Bretton Woods. Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury and John Maynard Keynes were the designers of the IMF and World Bank on behalf of themselves and their cronies in finance and government in the U.S. and Europe.

These same people also believe that what the world needs now is global governance. As a former U.S. Foreign Service Officer put it in his book, Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity Revisited, the Unraveling of the American Dream, “… the golden age of individualism, liberty, and democracy is all but over. The need for a world government with enough coercive power over fractious nation states to achieve what reasonable people would regard as the planetary common interest has become overwhelming.”[13]

I have quoted G. Edward Griffin a number of times, let me add one more because he puts his finger on it so well. “Although most of the policy statements of the World Bank (and the IMF by extension, author’s note) deal with economic issues, a close monitoring of its activities reveal a preoccupation with social and political issues. This should not be surprising considering that the Bank was perceived by its founders as an instrument for social and political change. The change which it was designed to bring about was the building of world socialism, and that is exactly what it is accomplishing today.”[14]

Remember, the IMF doesn’t want the poor people of the world becoming strong and healthy economically or physically. What they want is control of the world – of both the rich and the poor countries – but they have to make the rich countries far poorer first (through their economic policies) in order to control them.

Footnotes:

[1] While the International Monetary Fund is referred to as the IMF in most media sources, insiders call themselves the Fund.

[2] Griffin, G. Edward, The Creature from Jekyll Island, A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. America Media, 2009 edition, p. 86.

[3] A system of human rights operates in concert with the pursuit of “social justice,” which can be defined as law formulated to obtain government’s social objectives at the expense of individual liberty.

[4] Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

[5] Griffin, op. cit., p. 89.

[6]Quote from the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, The Fund’s Mandate—An Overview, prepared by the Strategy, Policy, and Review Department.

[7] Bank-Fund Annual Meetings and in March or April at what are referred to as the Spring Meetings. The Committee discusses matters of concern affecting the global economy and also advises the IMF on the direction of its work. At the end of the meetings, the Committee issues a communiqué summarizing its views. These communiqués provide guidance for the IMF’s work program during the six months leading up to the next Spring or Annual Meetings. There is no formal voting at the IMFC, which operates by consensus.

[8] Wood, Daniel. “The Wizard of Baca Grande,” West Magazine, May, 1990, p. 35.

[9] Griffin, op. cit., p. 534.

[10] Note that this was written after the Climate Change scandal was exposed.

[11] The renminbi or the Chinese yuan is the official currency of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), with the exception of Hong Kong and Macau.

[12] John Maynard Keynes proposed a global bank, which he called the International Clearing Union. The bank would issue its own currency – the bancor – which was exchangeable with national currencies at fixed rates of exchange. The bancor would become the unit of account between nations, which means it would be used to measure a country’s trade deficit or trade surplus. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/18/lord-keynes-international-monetary-fund)

[13] Orphuls, William, Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity Revisited, the Unraveling of the American Dream, W.H. Freedman & Co., New York, 1992, p. 78.

[14] Griffin, op. cit., p. 95.

Everyone knows what a lobbyist is, but do you know what an “Adviser” is in Washington, D.C.? No matter whom we elect, no matter the person or party, if we don’t shine the light on who really is writing policy, we are in for a rude awakening.

The acronym NGO stands for Non-Governmental Organization. While NGOs go back to the early 1900s, the phrase “non-governmental organization” came into its current use with the United Nations Organization in 1945. It is in Article 71 of Chapter 10 of the United Nations Charter. It established a consultative role for organizations which are neither governments nor member states. There is a conscious effort to replace the term NGO with a more politically-correct term — Civil Society Organization or CSO.

There is a major difference:

  • NGO may apply to any non-profit organization.
  • CSO designation applies only to those NGOs that are accredited by the United Nations and hold “consultative status” throughThe Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)

(For-profit companies and organizations can also be accredited, but we are only writing of NGOs here.)

According to Our Global Neighborhood, the official report of the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance, published in 1995, there were 28,900 international NGOs worldwide and hundreds of thousands of national NGOs. As of late 1994, only 980 were officially “accredited” by the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). However, these 980 accredited NGOs are affiliated with tens of thousands more NGOs in virtually every nation on earth. By virtue of their affiliation with accredited NGOs, these NGOs constitute what the UN describes as CSOs.

Non UN-accredited NGOs are described by globalists as “populist organizations” and the globalist feel that these organizations can upset and even destroy the work of decades of their deliberations in a short period of time. That is the potential of the “Tea Party” grass roots movement currently on the rise in the United States.

Here is some background to aid in understanding CSOs. There are two levels of accreditation:

  • Accreditation by ECOSOC confers what is called “consultative” status.
  • Accreditation by a subsidiary organization of ECOSOC authorizes “observer” status at a specific UN conference or event.

For a current list and locations of CSOs with consultative status go to: http://esango.un.org/irene/index.html

An example of the power of “observer” status was seen at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero. Of the more than 8,000 NGOs represented at the NGO Forum held the week before the Earth Summit, 1,400 NGOs were accredited as “observers.”

NGOs with “consultative” and “observer” status are responsible for the following:

  • Development of the global agenda, i.e., Agenda 21.
  • Enactment of the policies at the international level.
  • Converting international policy into national laws and regulations.
  • Implementing the new policies, laws, and regulations on the ground.

History

The modern NGO story begins with the creation of the United Nations. One month after the UN Charter went into force, Julian Huxley signed the document that created the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, the well-known UNESCO.

Two years later, the same Julian Huxley was instrumental in creating the International Union for the Conservation of Nature or IUCN. The IUCN consolidated the work of the British Fauna and Flora Preservation Society with other conservation groups that worked throughout the British Empire and aligned its work with the activities of UNESCO.

(For a brief discussion of the nature of NGO leaders, see: http://sovereignty.net/p/ngo/ngotut.htm)

To increase funding for its work, the IUCN created another, more public organization called the World Wildlife Fund or WWF in 1961. It was headed by Prince Philip.

During the 1960s, the IUCN lobbied the UN General Assembly to create a new status for NGOs. Resolution 1296, adopted in 1968, grants “consultative” status to NGOs. The IUCN is accredited with six UN organizations.

In 1982, the IUCN and WWF worked together to create still another NGO called the World Resources Institute (WRI). Russell Train, then-President of the WWF-USA, amassed $25 million in grants to create the World Resources Institute or WRI. He selected Gustave Speth, co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) as its first President. This triumvirate, consisting of the IUCN, WWF and WRI, is the driving force behind the rise of NGO influence at the UN and around the world.

The IUCN’s current membership includes: 92 international NGOs; 753 national NGOs; 29 affiliates; 80 state agencies; 93 government agencies with state members; and 23 government agencies without state members.

The U.S. State Department contributes more than $1 million per year to this NGO. President Clinton issued Executive Order #12986 which grants this NGO certain diplomatic “privileges and immunities.”

WWF funding in the USA is interesting. The WWF reported 1995 income in the USA to be $138,874,116 and assets at $62,558,896. In recent years the WWF’s take increased:

  • In 2003 it was $370,245,000
  • In 2004 it was $468,889,000
  • In 2005 it was $499,629,000
  • In 2006 it was $549,827,000
  • In 2007 it was $663,193,000
  • That totals $2,551,783,000

WWF’s take in 2008 was not quite as good. They switched their accounting to Euros, in place of dollars and took in €447,251,000. That’s roughly $584,000,000.

Their total income since 2003 is just over $3.1 billion (this does not include 2009).

Note that the WWF took €73,938,000 ($104,320,000) in 2007 and €76,930,000 ($108,856,000) in 2008 from ‘Governments and Aid Agencies.’

The WRI is perhaps the world’s most influential think-tank. It produces the so-called scientific foundation for the global agenda and coordinates much of the activity of affiliated NGOs as well. Maurice Strong has been or is currently a director or officer of each of these NGOs.

These three NGOs, IUCN, WWF and WRI, in concert with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), jointly published thedocuments from which the global agenda was developed. These documents include:

  • World Conservation Strategy, published in 1980 by UNEP, IUCN, and WWF.
  • Caring for the Earth, published in 1991 by UNEP, IUCN, and WWF.
  • Global Biodiversity Strategy, published in 1992 by UNEP, IUCN, and WRI.
  • Global Biodiversity Assessment, published in 1995 by UNEP, coordinated by WRI.

From these foundational works come such policy documents as:

  • The Convention on Biological Diversity
  • The Framework Convention on Climate Change
  • Agenda 21

NGOs play two vital roles in implementing the policies that are developed by the triumvirate:

  • The ideas are first hammered into policy statements that are adopted by an official UN body.
  • Then the policies are translated into practice on the ground.

NGOs fulfill both of these functions.

Writing in the January/February, 1997 issue of Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, Jessica Mathews wrote:

  • “NGOs set the original goal of negotiating an agreement to control greenhouse gases. They proposed most of its structure and content, and lobbied and mobilized public pressure to force through a pact that virtually no one else thought possible when the talks began.”
  • “More members of NGOs served on government delegations than ever before, and they penetrated deeply into official decision-making. They were allowed to attend the small working group meetings where the real decisions in international negotiations are made. The tiny nation of Vanuatu turned its delegation over to an NGO with expertise in international law, a group based in London and funded by an American foundation. Thus it made itself and other sea-level island states major players in the fight to control global warming.”
  • “As a result, delegates completed the framework of a global climate accord in the blink of a diplomat’s eye—16 months—over the opposition of the three energy superpowers, the United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.”

In this article, Jessica Mathews is referring to NGO involvement that lead up to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. This is just one example: NGOs swarm to and are deeply involved in virtually every conference arranged by the United Nations.

Agenda promoters want you to believe NGO activity is spontaneous as is involvement of CSOs. However, NGO activity is organized and meticulously coordinated by the triumvirate.

NGOs organize into coalitions. Three of the more important coalitions are:

Each of these coalitions is made up of hundreds of NGOs scattered around the world. They are connected by the internet.

With a substantial grant from the Tides Foundation, the Institute for Global Communications (IGC) joined forces with theAssociation for Progressive Communications (APC) in the mid 1980s to form an Internet site, http://www.igc.org which continually morphs into ever-changing affiliate groups. The site became the communications hub for 50,000 NGOs in 133 countries, and reaches tens of millions on the Internet. This specialized NGO has contracts with the UN to provide communication services for UN meetings around the world.

The President’s Council on Sustainable Development, created by President Clinton used this NGO website to disseminate information about its work. To a very large extent, it is responsible for the increased effectiveness of NGOs during the last decade.

Publications are important tools that NGOs provide to delegates at UN conferences. One publication titled ECO, has been published by NGOs at every UN meeting since the first Earth Summit in 1972. (It’s found at: http://www.climatenetwork.org.) At the recent global warming negotiations in Geneva, ECO listed nineteen staffers and thanked its funders which included:

  • The Environment Ministries of Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands
  • Rent-a-Mac
  • EuroFax
  • APC

Another publication, published sporadically and titled Earth Negotiations Bulletin, was published from March, 1993 to March, 1994 by the International Institute for Sustainable Development in Winnipeg. It cost $530,000 of which $279,550 came directly from Canadian taxpayers.

The activities of these NGOs are coordinated through the World Resources Institute which uses their publication titled The NGO Networker. Each coalition has its own coordinating mechanism.

For example, CITNET publishes a newsletter which lists administrative offices in California and a UN Liaison Office in New York, and proclaims that it is a Tides Foundation project. Its internet address is: http://igc.apc.org. Some of the organizations included in this coalition are:

  • The Sierra Club
  • Faith in Action
  • The Humane Society of the United States
  • Greenpeace International
  • The IUCN
  • Friends of the Earth
  • Second Nature
  • The Earth Council (Maurice Strong’s newest NGO)
  • World Resources Institute
  • and many others

One function of these NGOs is to urge their members to support specific policy measures as they are presented to Congress. Because they hold “consultative” status they are contractually required to support any item that is presented to them from their peers. They are also required to support individual candidates who support the overall agenda. The Sierra Club was deeply involved in the 1996 Congressional elections spending millions of dollars in support of candidates friendly to their cause.

Here’s how they are affecting Congress:

  • The Federal Government has been accepting UN promoted policies through advisory committees.
  • These committees are set up to gull the public into thinking that they themselves are involved in Federal decision-making.

In response to the growing number of advisory committees, Congress enacted the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). It established guidelines under which all Federal advisory committees must operate. The number of advisory committees is carefully managed, ensuring that committees are only established when essential to the attainment of clearly defined Executive Branch priorities.

What has transpired since 1972, is that only organizations, businesses, NGOs, or employees of these organizations who hold “consultative” status with ECOSOC are “Registered” to be hired as an Adviser to a Congressional Committee. According to a recent government report, there are no organizations, businesses, or NGOs who represent American Citizens’ interests on this list.

When a Congressional Committee or Federal Agency needs an Advisory Committee, they can only pick from those registered with the Federal Interagency Databases Online (FIDO GOV Database). There are about 1,000 of them listed at:http://www.fido.gov/facadatabase. This means that the NGOs that compile this data base are determining where the money is spent.

Funding:

The underlying coordination of NGO activity is driven by the funding sources. The Environmental Grantmakers Association (EGA) is an informal association of more than 120 foundations and businesses assembled by the Rockefeller Foundation. The EGA meets annually to decide which NGOs and which projects will be funded. Annual grants to NGOs through this organization are estimated to be in the range of $500,000,000.

The federal government also funds NGOs. During a recent eighteen-month period the Department of Interior awarded grants totaling $242,000,000 to more than 800 NGOs.

Even more money comes from the UN. According to the 1996 First Quarter Report of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), a total of $2.3 billion was spent on global warming projects. Most went to accredited NGOs around the world. The report identified thirty-nine such projects which were coordinated by the IUCN, the WWF, or the WRI worth a total of $350 million.

These NGOs are funded to achieve specific objectives. The Tides Foundation operates an “Incubator Program.” This program creates new NGOs to perform specialized tasks. The Environmental Working Group is one such program. Among its tasks is a project called The Clearinghouse for Environmental Research. One of its functions is to identify “populist organizations” that oppose the global agenda and attempt to discredit those organizations.

Another organization created in 1992 is The Greater Ecosystem Alliance. It was created for the purpose of generating public acceptance of the idea of ecosystem management in the Northwest, specifically, to introduce the concept of the Wildlands Project. The Wildlands Project was subsequently renamed the Wildlands Network. See: http://www.twp.org/

Every community has one or more such NGOs. They often consist of only two or three professionals funded by a foundation such as The Tides Foundation. They are placed in a community to build public support for some component of the international agenda.

Currently, Sustainable Communities are the hot item. NGOs have been dispatched to targeted communities to develop what they often call “visioning councils.” They are eligible for federal grants to develop a community plan for a Sustainable Community. The criteria for a Sustainable Community comes directly from Agenda 21. It was adopted in Rio de Janeiro, Americanized by The President’s Council on Sustainable Development, and designed to translate international policy into local ordinances and state and federal law.

NGOs in the Future

The power gained by NGOs in the recent past is nothing compared to what they have planned for the future. At Habitat II, UN Rule 61 gave accredited NGOs full participation in negotiating sessions with official delegates. Our Global Neighborhood recommends the creation of a new Assembly of the People. It is to consist of 300-to-600 representatives of accredited NGOs. The Assembly will meet annually before the UN General Assembly meeting to provide ideas and information to the official delegates on the next steps to implement Agenda 21 policies.

Another new UN entity being recommended is a Petitions Council. The Petitions Council would be a small council of representatives from accredited NGOs whose job would be to receive petitions of non-compliance from NGOs on the ground. The UN calls this an early warning system. Petitions would be screened by the council and forwarded to the appropriate UN organization for enforcement action.

Another recommendation is to restructure the UN Trusteeship Council to be governed by representatives from accredited NGOs. They would have “trusteeship” over the global commons. This is defined to be:

“The atmosphere, outer space, oceans beyond national jurisdiction, and the related environment and life-support systems that contribute to the support of human life.”

NGOs provide the interface between globalists and the rest of society. NGOs not affiliated with an accredited NGO, which confers CSO status, are discredited, discounted, and labeled as populist activists. Every CSO-NGO is empowered by a funding source that pays for a specific function designed to advance a broader agenda. The funding source, whether public or private, works to advance an agenda that is coordinated by, and developed through, the NGO triumvirate working with UN agencies and national governments.

As the NGOs see it, the result is phenomenal effectiveness at influencing policy at the international, national, and local levels. They believe that their effectiveness will increase.

Are You Sustainable?

Posted: June 28, 2010 in De-Population

The basis for the depopulation agenda is a standard all elitist’s hold dear. This standard is called:

The Hegelian Dialectic:

Problem – Reaction-Solution

Create the Problem Cause a Reaction Offer a Solution

You will see exactly how they have created the problem; caused a reaction so widespread it is really quite impressive how successful they have been; and offered a solution: A deadly solution.

I ask that you please make an attempt to distribute this paper everywhere you possibly can. The time grows short and so many are going to be caught unawares. By getting the word out, you may be able to prevent someone from needless pain and suffering.

featured stories   The Move to Depopulate the Planet
featured stories   The Move to Depopulate the Planet
Aldous Huxley

William Benton, Assistant U.S. Secretary of State at UNESCO 1946: (UNESCO is the United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization)

“As long as a child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can produce only precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The schools therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favor jingoism (nationalism)…we shall presently recognize in nationalism the major obstacle to development of world mindedness. We are at the beginning of a long process of breaking down the walls of national sovereignty. UNESCO must be the pioneer.” (Emphasis mine throughout)

Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill (this is absolute proof that man made global warming is a fabrication)…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

Mikhail Gorbachev:

“We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World 1946:

“There is, of course, no reason why the new totalitarians should resemble the old. Government by clubs and firing squads, by artificial famine, mass imprisonment and mass deportation, is not merely inhumane (nobody cares much about that nowadays); it is demonstrably inefficient and in an age of advanced technology, inefficiency is the sin against the Holy Ghost.”

Aldous Huxley, Lecture named Population Explosion 1959:

“…Let us ask ourselves what the practical alternatives are as we confront this problem of population growth. One alternative is to do nothing in particular about it and just let things go on as they are…The question is: Are we going to restore the balance in the natural way, which is a brutal and entirely anti-human way, or are we going to restore it in some intelligent, rational, and humane way…Try to increase production as much as possible and at the same time try to re-establish the balance between the birth rate by means less gruesome than those which are used by nature – by intelligent and human methods?…There are colossal difficulties in the way of implementing any large-scale policy of limitation of population; whereas death control is extremely easy under modern circumstances, birth control is extremely difficult. The reason is very simple: death control – the control, for example, of infectious diseases – can be accomplished by a handful of experts and quite a small labour force of unskilled persons and requires a very small capital expenditure.”

Barry Commoner, Making Peace with the Planet:

“There have been ‘triage’ proposals that would condemn whole nations to death through some species of global ‘benign neglect’. There have been schemes for coercing people to curtail their fertility, by physical and legal means that are ominously left unspecified. Now we are told that we must curtail rather than extend our efforts to feed the hungry peoples of the world. Where will it end?” Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, April 28, 1997, Testimony before Congressional Committee: “There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It’s real, and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that’s why this is so important.”

featured stories   The Move to Depopulate the Planet
featured stories   The Move to Depopulate the Planet featured stories   The Move to Depopulate the Planet
Jacques Cousteau

Jacques Cousteau UNESCO Courier 1991:

“In order to save the planet it would be necessary to kill 350,000 people per day.”

Jacques Cousteau, Population: Opposing Viewpoints:

“If we want our precarious endeavor to succeed, we must convince all human beings to participate in our adventure, and we must urgently find solutions to curb the population explosion that has a direct influence on the impoverishment of the less-favoured communities. Otherwise, generalized resentment will beget hatred, and the ugliest genocide imaginable, involving billions of people, will become unavoidable.”

“Uncontrolled population growth and poverty must not be fought from inside, from Europe, from North America, or any nation or group of nations; it must be attacked from the outside – by international agencies helped in the formidable job by competent and totally non-governmental organizations.”

Bertrand Russell, The Impact Of Science On Society 1953

“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing… War… has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full… The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s… There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority…”

Henry Kissinger, 1978:

“U.S. policy toward the third world should be one of depopulation”

David Rockefeller, 2000:

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”

David Rockefeller: Memoirs 2002 Founder of the CFR:

“We wield over American political and economical institutions. 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 structure, one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

David Rockefeller, Co-founder of the Trilateral Commission:

featured stories   The Move to Depopulate the Planet
featured stories   The Move to Depopulate the Planet
David Rockefeller

“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine & other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plans for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American Case Officer for the State Department’s Office of Population Affairs (OPA) (now the US State Dept. Office of Population Affairs, est. by Henry Kissinger in 1975): “There is a single theme behind all our work -we must reduce population levels,” said Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American case officer for the State Department’s Office of Population Affairs (OPA). “Either they [governments] do it our way, through nice clean methods or they will get the kind of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran, or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it. “The professionals,” said Ferguson, “aren’t interested in lowering population for humanitarian reasons. That sounds nice. We look at resources and environmental constraints. We look at our strategic needs, and we say that this country must lower its population -or else we will have trouble.

“So steps are taken. El Salvador is an example where our failure to lower population by simple means has created the basis for a national security crisis. The government of El Salvador failed to use our programs to lower their population. Now they get a civil war because of it…. There will be dislocation and food shortages. They still have too many people there.” (1981)

Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, April 28, 1997; Testimony before Congressional Committee:

“And advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”

Sir Julian Huxley, UNESCO: its Purpose and its Philosophy:

“Political unification in some sort of world government will be required… Even though… any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” In the early 1950’s, former Communist Joseph Z. Kornfeder expressed the opinion that UNESCO was comparable to a Communist Party agitation and propaganda department. He stated that such a party apparatus ‘handles the strategy and method of getting at the public mind, young and old.’ Huxley would lard the agency with a motley collection of Communists and fellow travelers.

President Richard Nixon believed abortion was necessary as a form of eugenics to prevent interracial breeding

Theodore Roosevelt to Charles B. Davenport, January 3, 1913, Charles B. Davenport Papers, Department of Genetics, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.:

“I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feebleminded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them…The emphasis should be laid on getting desirable people to breed…”

featured stories   The Move to Depopulate the Planet
featured stories   The Move to Depopulate the Planet featured stories   The Move to Depopulate the Planet
Theodore Roosevelt

Theodore Roosevelt:

“Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind…. Any group of farmers, who permitted their best stock not to breed, and let all the increase come from the worst stock, would be treated as fit inmates for an asylum…. Some day we will realize that the prime duty, the inescapable duty of the good citizens of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type. The great problem of civilization is to secure a relative increase of the valuable as compared with the less valuable or noxious elements in the population… The problem cannot be met unless we give full consideration to the immense influence of heredity…” “I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feebleminded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them… The emphasis should be laid on getting desirable people to breed…”

By Carl Teichrib:

“The Georgia Guidestones, a massive granite edifice planted in the Georgia countryside, contains a list of ten new commandments for Earth’s citizens. The first commandment, and the one which concerns this article, simply states; “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”

Robert Walker, former chair of PepsiCo and Proctor & Gamble on water:

Water is a gift of nature. Its delivery is not. It must be priced to insure it is used sustainably.

Ted Turner makes the radical statement that, “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal,”

Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood, funded by the Rockefellers) said in her proposed “The American Baby Code”, intended to become law:

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

This is the woman (Margaret Sanger) whom Hillary Clinton publicly declared she looked up to, during the 2008 presidential debates.

Here is a short list of some advocates of eugenics; Alexander Graham Bell, George Bernard Shaw H. G. Wells, Sidney Webb, William Beveridge, John Maynard Keynes, Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Winston Churchill, Linus Pauling, Sidney Webb, Sir Francis Galton, Charles B. Davenport Futurist Barbara Marx Hubbard (who wanted to create a Dept. of Peace):

“Out of the full spectrum of human personality, one-fourth is electing to transcend…One-fourth is ready to so choose, given the example of one other…One-fourth is resistant to election. They are unattracted by life ever evolving. One-fourth is destructive. They are born angry with God…They are defective seeds…There have always been defective seeds. In the past they were permitted to die a ‘natural death’…we, the elders, have been patiently waiting until the very last moment before the quantum transformation, to take action to cut out this corrupted and corrupting element in the body of humanity. It is like watching a cancer grow…Now, as we approach the quantum shift from creature-human to co-creative human—the human who is an inheritor of god-like powers—the destructive one-fourth must be eliminated from the social body. We have no choice, dearly beloveds. Fortunately you, dearly beloveds, are not responsible for this act. We are. We are in charge of God’s selection process for planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death. We come to bring death to those who are unable to know God…the riders of the pale horse are about to pass among you. Grim reapers, they will separate the wheat from the chaff. This is the most painful period in the history of humanity…”

featured stories   The Move to Depopulate the Planet
featured stories   The Move to Depopulate the Planet
Henry Kissinger

Alexander Haig is quoted referring to the US State Department Office of Population Affairs, which was established by Henry Kissinger in 1975. The title has since been changed to The Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental and Scientific Affairs:

“Accordingly, the Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental and Scientific Affairs has consistently blocked industrialization policies in the Third World, denying developing nation’s access to nuclear energy technology–the policies that would enable countries to sustain a growing population. According to State Department sources, and Ferguson himself, Alexander Haig is a “firm believer” in population control.

Although the above stated quotes should be sufficient to prove that the elitists in power have definite intent to depopulate this planet to what they deem to be a sustainable level. Some will argue these are only opinions and are of no real consequence. I will now move on to providing bits of documentation showing this is a plan that has a worldwide scope of influence.

Most of these documents are at least 10 years old, some older. That however, does not take away from the seriousness of the content. Do not think them invalid due to their age. It takes time to foment plans on such a grand scale. But, if you are honest with yourself you can see glimpses of these things happening today.

I am going to cover some issues stemming from the UN Treaty on Biological Diversity (Agenda 21), which Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993 before it was sent to the U.S. Senate for ratification.

EPA Internal Working Document Ecosystem Management:

“The executive branch should direct federal agencies to evaluate national policies…. in light of international policies and obligations, and to amend national policies to achieve international objectives.”

“In other words, our federal bureaucrats are writing U.S. law, independent of Congress who has Constitutional authority to do that. They are changing regulations and creating laws out of thin air.”

“They are no longer working for the people of the United States. They are working for the international community. There are so many treaties written up that they have (effectively) bound the United States. Whereas a few of the treaties were not a problem, the abundance (100’s) of them have now taken control over all of our lives” -Michael Coffman

UN Treaty on Biological Diversity Assessment on Desirable Culture:

“…Traditional societies have considered certain sites as sacred, where most human activities are prohibited.”

That is the heart of the Convention on Biodiversity. Locking up nearly 50% of the land area of the United States is their idea of protecting biological diversity. -Michael Coffman

UN Treaty on Biodiversity Diversity Usage of Fertilizers Not Sustainable:

“That fertilizers have played an essential part in producing the world’s harvests is undisputed. (It) is estimated that if the use of fertilizers ceased, the world’s harvests would be cut almost in half. However, the negative side of the equation is that the nitrates from fertilizers seep into ground water aquifers and they are seriously implicated in the eutrophication of lakes, rivers and coastal ecosystems causing often drastic changes in the fauna and flora.”

“They are willing to take a course of action that will reduce the world’s food supply by half, or more, as they will likely reduce the use of pesticides knowing full well how many people this will kill”. -Michael Coffman

featured stories   The Move to Depopulate the Planet

UN Biodiversity Assessment on Sustainable Human Population; US Senate September 9, 1994:

“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be one billion people. This must be implemented within 30-50 years, 2/3’s of the population must be cut.”

“The UN says property rights are not absolute and unchanging, but are there for the convenience of whatever government wants to do.” – Michael Coffman

“Nobody owns biodiversity, so everything we do impinges on biodiversity. Property rights become meaningless. At the Rio De Janeiro Summit it was decided that the Global Environmental Facility would be the depository of all property rights.” – Michael Coffman

UN Biodiversity Assessment The Worldview of Western Civilization Section 12.2.3, Page 835:

The western “worldview is characteristic of large-scale societies, heavily dependent on resources brought from considerable distances. It is a worldview that is characterized by the denial of sacred attributes of nature… (which) became firmly established about 2000 years (ago) with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious traditions.”

This same treaty considers rocks to be living beings on an equal plane with human beings. Rocks, many believe, will reincarnate into lower life forms; and gradually into human beings.

Bureau of Land Management Internal Working Document

featured stories   The Move to Depopulate the Planet
soylent green featured stories   The Move to Depopulate the Planet
“Soylent green is… humans.”

Human Dimensions of Ecosystem Management Objective/Purpose: “All ecosystem management activities should consider human beings as biological resources…” (Reminiscent of Soylent Green)

This document was brought before Congress. This statement created such an uproar that it was removed. Regardless of its removal, it still serves to prove the mindset of these people; and just because this was removed from a document it does not mean it was removed from the thoughts and the intended goals of those who penned it; or who believe it.

“For the elite to be able to have management of the ecosystem, humans would have no more value than a rock.” – Michael Coffman

UN Biodiversity Treaty UN Global Biological Assessment Sustainable Human Populations:

“Population growth has exceeded the capacity of the biosphere” (i.e. the earth) “It is estimated that an ‘agricultural world’ in which most human beings are peasants should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people.”

Now I feel is an appropriate time to cover some other areas of government, as well as private organizations that would like to see the population of the world decrease at an astounding rate (up to 90%). This is a dark, bloody agenda that will cause terrible hardship and pain upon millions of people.

World Wildlife Fund, World Resources Institute International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN):

The IUCN involves the EPA, US Fish & Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the United States Forest Service, Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, the National Wildlife Fund, the National Audubon Society, National Resources Defense Council, UNESCO, the Environmental Defense Fund, the U.N. Environmental Program, etc. .

IUCN 1992

Covenant On the Environment and Development: “Eventually a wilderness network would dominate a region and thus would itself constitute the matrix, with human habitations being the islands. The remaining half of the US would be used as buffer zones.”

“The night before this treaty was ratified, Senator Mitchell withdrew it from the calendar and it was never voted on. It took four men, devoted to God in prayer to stop this treaty. The treaty still waits in the wings. Upon ratification, the US will have no ability to protect its own citizens.” -Michael Coffman

Henry Kissinger had a similar plan to use food as a weapon in 1974, found in the National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests; which was adopted as official policy by then President Gerald Ford in November of 1975. This Memorandum outlined a covert plan to reduce population growth in lesser-developed countries by means of birth control, and implicitly, war and famine. Brent Scowcroft, who had by then replaced Kissinger as National Security Advisor, (the same post Scowcroft held in the Bush Administration), was put in charge of implementing the plan. CIA Director George H.W. Bush was ordered to assist Scowcroft, as were the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense and Agriculture.

This document has never been renounced, only certain portions have been amended, leaving it as the foundational document on population control issued in the U.S. Government.

The major players in the founding of this document are as follows:

Henry Kissinger Richard Nixon Margaret Sanger Paul Ehrlich Werner Fornos Timothy Wirth The United Nations Population Fund The United States Agency for International Development Planned Parenthood Federation of America International Planned Parenthood Federation The Club of Rome UNICEF WHO United Nations World Bank

The document can be read here in its entirety, along with the other organizations and individuals complicit in this abomination:

http://www.usmutes.com/NSSM200.htm

featured stories   The Move to Depopulate the Planet
featured stories   The Move to Depopulate the Planet
Adolph Hitler

Let it be noted that Adolph Hitler also used food as weapon, stating that food is “a beautiful instrument…for maneuvering and disciplining the masses.” Food has been used as a weapon of war for centuries. Why then would it be outrageous for the elite to use food as a weapon, both a physical and a psychological weapon, in a declared war on overpopulation? It would not be outrageous at all. As has been said time and time again, history repeats itself.

Now we will cover the Earth Charter.

The Earth Charter; A Radical Global Religion, created by Mikhail Gorbachev and Michael Strong: “The Earth Charter initiative reflects the conviction that a radical change in humanity’s attitudes and values is essential to achieve social, economic and ecological well-being in the 21st century… The commission…plans to circulate a final version of the Charter as a People’s Treaty beginning in mid-1998. The Charter will be submitted to the U.N. General Assembly in the year 2000…(where it will) ensure a very strong document that reflects the emerging new global ethics.” This is unprecedented (it is) the first component of an authentic global governance. We are working for dialogue and peace. We are demonstrating our ability to assert control over our fate in a spirit of solidarity to organize our collective sovereignty over this planet, our common heritage.”

The American people were not allowed to see this. Americans as a whole do not want the UN to be the head of a world government. The one thing the majority of this country values, above most everything else, is their freedom. Or the semblance of freedom we have left should I say.

At the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the Presidential Council on Sustainable Development in 1996 came to the conclusion that the world’s human population should not exceed 500 million people. That is a 93% reduction in population!

According to the UN video, “Armed to the Teeth”; and also in the Freedom From War Policy -put into effect by JFK in 1961-general and complete disarmament and US military power was given over, in full, to the UN. This is a loss of the sovereignty of America. (Read this document at http://www.scribd.com/doc/5009662/Freedom From-War).

The Earth Charter (1992), A Spiritual Vision: “A consensus has developed that the Earth Charter should be…the articulation of a spiritual vision that reflects universal spiritual values, including, but not limited to, ethical values …a people’s charter that serves as a universal code of conduct for ordinary citizens, educators, business executives, scientists, religious leaders, non-governmental organizers and national councils of sustainable development; and a declaration of principles that can serve as a “soft tax” document when endorsed by the UN General Assembly. ”

In its original form, The Earth Charter failed miserably due to open, blatant pantheistic approach. Gorbachev and Strong have worked diligently to change the language and make it appear less obvious. You may be wondering what the Earth Charter has to do with depopulation. It has everything to do with it. Here is a very brief synopsis of what the Charter holds for us.

According to the Charter, we must:

* “Recognize that all beings are interdependent and every form of life has value…” (Unborn children, of course, are not included in the UN’s definition of “every form of life.” The Earth Summit II documents continue to support the UN’s pro-abortion policies.)

* “Affirm faith in the inherent dignity of all human beings.” (UN agencies, however, support policies of euthanasia for those determined not capable of living a “quality” life.)

* “Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations….” (This is a prescription for global socialism in a super-regulated global state.)

* “Prevent pollution of any part of the environment…” (Enforcing this dictum would mean stopping virtually all human activity.)

* “Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price.” (This seemingly harmless sentence would empower the state to price, tax, and regulate all production and consumption.)

* “Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction. (This is a thinly disguised call for that includes abortion and population control.)

* “Eliminate discrimination in all its forms, such as that based on race … [and] sexual orientation.” (This provision is clearly aimed at criminalizing those who refuse to accept homosexuality as positive and good.)

* “Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations. (See;

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+new+world+religion%3a+presented+to+the+world+as+a+mystical… a091968392 for the full article)

featured stories   The Move to Depopulate the Planet
soylent green featured stories   The Move to Depopulate the Planet
Earth Charter

The Earth Charter has not been ratified. Do not make the mistake of assuming it has not been interwoven into our society, however! It is being taught in our schools and promoted shamelessly by Hollywood, the UN, NBC (owned by GE), ABC, CBS, CNN, HLN & all the Fox owned stations, with the exception of Fox News in order to keep the supporters blinded to the machinations of Rupert Murdock. Do not be deceived!

The ability to freely procreate is soon to be removed from us, much as it has been in China for many years. Not only will we not be allowed to have children, anyone who is termed a “useless eater” (A term coined by Henry Kissinger) will be euthanized: Mercilessly culled.

In Sweden , the “Sterilization Act of 1934″ provided for the voluntary sterilization of some mental patients. The law was passed while the Swedish Social Democratic Party was in power, though it was also supported by all other political parties in Parliament at the time, as well as the Lutheran Church and much of the medical profession. -Wikipedia

America is scheduled to become compliant to Codex Alimentarius (CA) as of December 31, 2009.

Codex Alimentarius is going to regulate virtually anything that you put into your mouth that is not a pharmaceutical. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has accepted Codex Alimentarius and any nation that is a member of the WTO must become compliant with CA. In any dispute between 2 countries, the one that is Codex compliant automatically wins. This is quite an incentive for all nations to become compliant. – Rima Laibow

CA guidelines set for vitamins & minerals are said to be voluntary, however, they are scheduled to become mandatory on December 31, 2009. In 1994, Codex Alimentarius declared nutrients to be poisons: See the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act (DSHEA). Yet fluoride is acceptable! Why? It creates complacency. Proper nutrients will ensure a longer, healthier life. Not at all in keeping with a depopulation agenda.

From Esoteric Agenda, a documentary by Ben Stewart:

“In 1962 it was decreed that there would be a move toward total global implementation of Codex Alimentarius. The date set for implementation is December 31, 2009. WHO and FAO are the commissions in charge of CA. They fund it and run it at the request of the U.N.

According to WHO & FAO, epidemiological projections, it is estimated that according to the vitamin and mineral guideline alone; when CA goes into global implementation on December 31, 2009, it will result in a minimum of 3 billion deaths; 1 billion due through starvation. The next 2 billion will die from preventable diseases due to malnutrition.”

“The U.N. has put out dozens of reports calling for an 80% reduction in population (most put the number at 90%). At the 1997 Women’s World Conference in Beijing, the head of the U.N. Food Program said, “We will use food as a weapon against the people.””

In conjunction with Codex Alimentarius, food will be limited and water consumption will be decreased to 10 gallons per day, per person. The average American uses 140 gallons of water every day. The food provided will be Genetically Modified and nutrient deficient.

As of the Codex Alimentarius (CA) implementation date of 12/31/09, if there were a famine anywhere in the world, it will be illegal to send any high nutrient density biscuits. Or to distribute them!!

Once a country becomes CA compliant, CA can never be repealed. Membership with the WTO robs the member nations of any and all sovereignty. Germany is now CA compliant.

Codex Alimentarius goes hand in hand with Agenda 21 and the Kyoto Treaty. The deadline to implement both Agenda 21 and the Kyoto Treaty is 2012.” (Rima Laibow)

Agenda 21 was birthed out of the Rio Summit 1992. Agenda 21 (A 21), a.k.a. Smart Growth, Regionalism, Visioning Processes, Action Plans, Shared Values; 20/20, Best Practices; Community Festivals & Public/Private Partnerships. These are the names you will hear A 21 called, the buzzwords.

Every county must set up a council to oversee the implementation of A 21. A 21 is Sustainable Development. Steven Rockefeller set up the Earth Charter, referenced above. The Earth Charter is the new One World Religion: Earth worship. The earth is considered to be ‘sacred’, and its protection is a ‘sacred trust’. Global responsibility will demand basic changes in values, behaviors and attitudes of government, the private sector, and civil society.

Under Sustainable Development man is considered to be responsible for the pollution of the planet and is subordinate to all other living creatures. This is a direct contradiction to the Bible where God placed man in a position of dominance over the entire earth. The elite will worship and serve the creature, rather than the Creator.

“The environmental agenda is a spiritual agenda with earth worship at its root. As such, the following practices are all considered to be unsustainable: Fossil fuels, artificial fertilizers, modern systems of agricultural production, irrigation water, herbicides, pesticides, farmland, pastures, grazing of livestock, consumerism, dietary habits, salt, sugar, private property, paved roads, dams, reservoirs, logging activities, fencing of pastures”. – Joan Peros

Every environmental resource must be measured. What can be measured can be managed under the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Project.” – Joan Peros

Among the things considered to be unsustainable, as listed above, these are included: Monotheism and the family unit. The health care plan of President Obama is under A 21. Under this health care plan, the family unit is very much being attacked. Anyone over age 65 must undergo ‘end of life counseling’ by their doctor every 5 years. Abortion will be pushed that much harder, especially with the Science Czar wanting sterilants put into our water supply! One of the new appointee’s to the Obama Administration once said in a book he co-wrote that a child could be killed up to the age of 2 years old! What kind of a monster could think that is acceptable?

Nearly the exact language used to define Sustainable Development was taken from the 1977 Soviet Constitution!

The Family Dependency Ratio, under the United Nations, will look at every household. They will gauge what that household has produced in accordance with what it has used (i.e., resources) by the water bills, energy bills, etc. Are you using more than you are producing? Are you adding to the collective, or merely taking away? This is how the powers that be will determine whether you are a productive citizen, or, in the words of Henry Kissinger, “A useless eater”.

In 1990, Prince Charles formed The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum to bring together 50-60 of the world’s topmost multi-national/transnational corporations to start buying up governments around the world. This is Public/Private Partnerships: This is the very definition of fascism.

I must stop here. At the rate things are now moving, I could add to this daily. But, December 31 is not so far away now, only 4 months. I must get this out now. Time is short.

The Obama Carbon Scam

Posted: June 28, 2010 in Economy

Obama Intimately Tied To Carbon Trading Scam 300309ObamaGore

A combination of interesting mainstream and alternative media reports reveal compelling links between president Obama and a privately owned carbon trading group, which also has direct ties with elitist groups such as the Club of Rome and the Trilateral Commission.

Judi McLeod’s excellent article for Canada Free Press, which she expanded from a Fox News piece, highlights how years before he became president, Obama helped directly fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the proposed cap-and-trade carbon reduction program.

The charity was the Joyce Foundation on whose board of directors Obama served and which gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”

Essentially Obama helped fund the profiteers of the carbon taxation program that he is now seeking to steer through Congress.

McLeod also notes that The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has direct ties to both Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering.

Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offset opportunities, is the largest shareholder of CCX.

While Maurice Strong, who is regularly credited as founding father of the modern environmental movement, serves on the board of directors of CCX. Strong was a leading initiate of the Earth Summit in the early 90s, where the theory of global warming caused by CO2 generated by human activity was most notably advanced.

While McLeod’s article highlights the cronyism and corporate dealings behind this set up, we should also add the fact that both Gore and Strong come from a stable of elite groups that have long sought to use the environmental movement to advance their agendas.

Strong, who was groomed by David Rockefeller to eventually serve as Director of the Rockefeller Foundation, is also a member of the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Club of Rome.

Gore too comes from the Club of Rome clique.

Lets take a look at the connections these groups have to the environmental movement.

featured stories   Obama Intimately Tied To Carbon Trading Scam
Obama featured stories   Obama Intimately Tied To Carbon Trading Scam

In 1990, writes veteran reporter Jim Tucker, the Bilderbergers adopted climate change as the preferred model to impose global government and reintroduce serfdom. “Like the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group discovered the issue of environmental deterioration. Bilderbergers embraced a report from the Trilateral Commission that year on the environment, because the potential profit in cleaning up the mess would be immense.”

The following year, the Club of Rome think tank published The First Global Revolution, a book suggesting a draconian neo-Malthusianism approach will solve the world’s “problems”, in fact a problem the global elite has with humanity.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill,” the book states. “All these dangers are caused by human intervention,” and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, expanded on this topic in his article, State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era. According to Haass, a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming and terrorism, both invented as the Club of Rome suggested.

“Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change,” writes Haass. “The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.”

In the past, the Club of Rome has resorted to deceptive tactics in order to support their plans. In 1972, the Club of Rome, along with an MIT team released a report called Limits to growth. The report stated that we were to reach an environmental holocaust by the year 2000 due to overpopulation and other environmental problems. Support for their conclusions was gathered by results from a computer model. Aurelio Peccei, one of the founders of the Club of Rome, later confessed that the computer program had been written to give the desired results.

As we reported two years ago, During the secretive Trilateral Commission group meeting in March 2007, elitists gathered to formulate policy on how best they could exploit global warming fearmongering to ratchet up taxes and control over how westerners live their lives.

Why is this so concerning? Because groups such as the Club of Rome are contracted out by our own governments and the UN to prepare ‘Policy Guidance Documents’ which they use in formulating their policies and programs. How come the Club of Rome gets the gig? Simply because many high ranking UN and government officials are also CoR members, or have direct corporate ties to members. The same goes for the CFR and the Trilateral Commission.

A recently unearthed documentary that sought to expose this agenda at its inception is George Hunt’s excellent research piece on the environmental movement.

Considering the information unearthed concerning Obama’s links to all of this, it is not surprising that he is now pushing the “cap-and-trade” carbon tax program, which in reality represents a war on the middle and working classes.

Prior to the election, Obama called for drastically reducing carbon emissions by 80 per cent, a move that would inflict a new Great Depression, cost millions of jobs, and sink America to near third world status.

The 80 per cent figure is a huge leap towards the ultimate goal, expressed by the Carnegie Institute last year and afforded sober credibility by the corporate media – a complete reduction down to zero carbon emissions.

As we have previously noted, such a move would lead to the near complete reversal of hundreds of years of technological progress and man’s return to the stone age.

The Green Economy

Posted: June 28, 2010 in Economy

Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”

– Maurice Strong, opening speech at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit

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

The Green Economy – A Global Economic Suicide Pact

The global green movement places very little value on the modern industrial society that has produced huge improvements in economic prosperity, health care, human rights, education and standards of living. In fact, the green movement hates and fears western-style capitalism. To them, the loss of industrial civilisation is of no great consequence. In fact, it is one of the top priorities of the Global Green Agenda.

The green movement has been obsessed with capitalism, especially evil multi-national corporations, since its birth in the 1960s. Long before the advent of ‘global warming’, the primary objective of the movement was, and always has been, simply the destruction of energy production. They know that the life blood of the industrial society is energy, especially fossil fuels, and a significant reduction in energy availability will deal a fatal blow to Gaia’s greatest threat – modern human society. Primitive societies are admired for being sustainable and living in harmony with Gaia. Western capitalist nations are reviled as “destroyers of the earth” which must be subdued. They make no attempt to conceal this agenda:

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

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

One of the first targets of green movement was the nuclear power industry. Even though nuclear energy offers enormous energy potential with no CO2 emissions they still revile it. They also fiercely oppose any proposals to build new hydro-electric dams based on perceived negative environmental effects. The same argument is used to oppose any proposals to develop new oil fields. They intend to starve the beast not feed it. The only sources of power that the environmental movement is willing to allow are wind and sunlight. Humans will just have to adapt to living with very low volumes of unreliable energy.

Of course the big prize has always been to find some way to control, or even eliminate, the use of fossil fuels. After all, it is fossil fuels that have allowed the human population to blossom from a mere one billion in 1850 to more than six billion today. A single barrel of oil contains 23,000 man-hours of energy. Hence the 20 million barrels that the USA consumes each day is equivalent to 15 billion additional human workers. Oil has empowered each American worker the equivalent of 45 ‘virtual slaves’. Globally it provides us with the equivalent daily energy of more than 70 billion human workers. Try pushing your car for a few miles to see just how much work oil does for us.

In 1850 more than 85% of people led lives of hard drudgery growing food, today less than 2% of people in western societies are employed in the agricultural sector. In 1850 most people never traveled beyond the next village, whereas we are free to roam the world and learn from other cultures. The average life expectancy in England in 1850 was 34, and infant mortality was nearly 30%. Now the average life expectancy is in excess of 70, and infant mortality is miniscule.

But the green movement looks back with great fondness to a simpler and gentler time. According to them without fossil fuels the world will be transformed into an Ecotopia. We would all live in small sustainable villages, surrounded by lush fields where happy peasants sang love-songs to Gaia as they gently tilled her soil. Without the unbridled power provided by fossil fuels we could no longer dominate the earth, shaping it according to our own will. Humans would learn to once again live humbly alongside all other living beings, and be reconciled with Mother Nature.

The fact that modern ‘industrial’ agriculture would collapse without fossil fuels, and as a result hundreds of millions would starve, seems to be of minor consequence. It’s just a bit of short-term pain for long-term gain. Ted Turner, who donated over a billion dollars to the United Nations specifically to fund the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thinks that “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Hence for the green movement Global Warming presents an opportunity to finally and completely destroy the voracious beast of capitalism. They are demanding the imposition of a massive reduction in global emissions of carbon dioxide accompanied by a freeze on such emissions at the sharply reduced level. This would immediately result in the elimination or radical reduction in the supply of all goods and services that depend on fossil fuel consumption. As Al Gore says it would be a “wrenching transformation of society.” Every aspect of daily life would be dramatically altered.

The much vaunted Stern Report called for a 25% reduction in global carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. Given the fact that the world population is expected to increase by third which means the 9 billion people would have to generate 25% less then 6 billion, or a per capita reduction of 50%. This would devastate the global economy and make the Great Depression look like a picnic.

The two leading Democratic Presidential Candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have both called for an 80% reduction by 2050. Factoring in population growth, this would require a reduction of more than 90%. You really have to wonder if they have thought deeply about the implications of this goal. It even makes the climate doom stories seem pleasant:

According to the Department of Energy’s most recent data on greenhouse gas emissions, in 2006 the U.S. emitted 5.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, or just under 20 tons per capita. An 80% reduction in these emissions from 1990 levels means that the U.S. cannot emit more than about one billion metric tons of CO2 in 2050. Were man-made carbon dioxide emissions in this country ever that low? The answer is probably yes – from historical energy data it is possible to estimate that the U.S. last emitted one billion metric tons around 1910. But in 1910, the U.S. had 92 million people, and per capita income, in current dollars, was about $6,000.

By the year 2050, the Census Bureau projects that our population will be around 420 million. This means per capita emissions will have to fall to about 2.5 tons in order to meet the goal of 80% reduction. It is likely that U.S. per capita emissions were never that low – even back in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood. The only nations in the world today that emit at this low level are all poor developing nations, such as Belize, Mauritius, Jordan, Haiti and Somalia. If that comparison seems unfair, consider that even the least-CO2 emitting industrialized nations do not come close to the 2050 target. France and Switzerland, compact nations that generate almost all of their electricity from nonfossil fuel sources (nuclear for France, hydro for Switzerland) emit about 6.5 metric tons of CO2 per capita.” – Link

And then we have dear old Al Gore. The Goracle has called for a reduction in global carbon dioxide emissions of 90% within 20 years! There is little chance that modern society could function with 25% less oil, just imagine the consequences of a 90% reduction. Cities would be deserted and slowly rot. Infrastructure could no longer be maintained. It would surely result in a massive die-off in the human population.

I’m quite certain Al isn’t serious about his demands for a 90% reduction. That would be uncontrollable, and the whole purpose behind the Global Green Agenda is to gain control over, transform, and reduce human activity. A more likely outcome will be less severe reductions, combined with the imposition of a global system of carbon permits governed by the United Nations. This would give the UN unprecedented power to regulate individuals, businesses and governments, all in the name of ‘saving the Earth’. Carbon markets have already been established in many countries in anticipation of a mandatory system.

In the United States the only operating carbon emissions trading market is the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). Coincidentally, or not, Al Gore’s hedge fund, Generation Investment Management, is the largest shareholder in CCX. Now that’s what I call a conflict of interest! The most vocal Global Warming alarmist is the largest shareholder in the USA’s only operating ‘carbon market.’ On the board of CCX we find our old friend Maurice Strong.

In late 2007 the UN will host a conference in Bali with the intention of formulating an internationally binding Climate Change Treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol. It is widely expected that this treaty will mandate a global carbon trading system, and possibly a global carbon tax. Many green activists know that Global Warming is a vague and hollow threat. However, it is proving to be a very effective tool in implementing their Global Green Agenda which began more than a decade ago with Sustainable Development and Agenda 21.

Master Class Economic Dictatorship

Posted: June 28, 2010 in Economy

Thanks to the endless barrage of feel-good propaganda that daily assaults the American mind, best epitomized a few months ago by the “green shoots,” everything’s-coming-up-roses propaganda touted by Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, the citizens have no idea how disastrous the country’s fiscal, monetary and economic problems truly are. Nor do they perceive the rapidly increasing risk of a totalitarian nightmare descending upon the American Republic.

One stark and sobering way to frame the crisis is this: if the United States government were to nationalize (in other words, steal) every penny of private wealth accumulated by America’s citizens since the nation’s founding 235 years ago, the government would remain totally bankrupt.

According to the Federal Reserve’s most recent report on wealth, America’s private net worth was $53.4 trillion as of September, 2009. But at the same time, America’s debt and unfunded liabilities totaled at least $120,000,000,000,000.00 ($120 trillion), or 225% of the citizens’ net worth. Even if the government expropriated every dollar of private wealth in the nation, it would still have a deficit of $66,600,000,000,000.00 ($66.6 trillion), equal to $214,286.00 for every man, woman and child in America and roughly 500% of GDP. If the government does not directly seize the nation’s private wealth, then it will require $389,610 from each and every citizen to balance the country’s books. State, county and municipal debts and deficits are additional, already elephantine in many states (e.g., California, Illinois, New Jersey and New York) and growing at an alarming rate nationwide. In addition to the federal government, dozens of states are already bankrupt and sinking deeper into the morass every day.

The government continues to dig a deeper and deeper fiscal grave in which to bury its citizens. This year, the federal deficit will total at least $1,600,000,000,000.00 ($1.6 trillion), which represents overspending of $4,383,561,600.00 ($4.38 billion) per day. (The deficit during October and November, 2009, the first two months of Fiscal Year 2010, totaled $296,700,000,000.00 ($297 billion), or $4,863,934,000.00 ($4.9 billion) per day, a record.) Using the GAAP accounting method (which is what corporations are required to use because it presents a far more accurate and honest picture of a company’s finances than the cash accounting method primarily and misleadingly used by the U.S. government), the nation’s fiscal year 2009 deficit was roughly $9,000,000,000,000.00 ($9 trillion), or $24,700,000,000.00 ($24.7 billion) per day, as calculated by brilliant and well-respected economist John Williams. (www.shadowstats.com) Fiscal Year 2010’s cash- and GAAP-accounting deficits will likely be worse than 2009’s, given government bailout and new program spending that is on steroids and psychotic.

Putting Fiscal Year 2009’s $9,000,000,000,000.00 ($9 trillion) deficit another way, 17% of America’s private wealth, accumulated over a period of 235 years, was wiped out by just one year’s worth of government deficit spending insanity.

Given this, is it any surprise that Treasury Secretary Geithner has announced that the release of the nation’s FY 2009 supplemental GAAP financial statements has been delayed? Remember, this is the same Secretary Geithner who bullied people to cover up the sordid details of the AIG, or more accurately, the taxpayer-funded, multi-billion dollar, Santa Claus bailout and bonus bonanza for Goldman Sachs. Do you really think this government, characterized as it is by fiscal and monetary secrecy, lies, chicanery, cronyism and stonewalling, wants the people to know what is actually happening? Obviously, it does not, so it hides from the public the inexcusable facts.

It is estimated that the top 1% of Americans control roughly 40% of the nation’s wealth. In other words, 3 million people own $21,400,000,000,000.00 ($21.4 trillion) in net private assets, while the other 305 million own the remaining $32,000,000,000,000.00 ($32 trillion). 77,000,000 (77 million) Americans (the lowest 25%) have mean net assets of minus $2,300 ($-2,300.00) per person; they live from paycheck to paycheck, or on public assistance. The lower 50% of Americans own mean net assets of $27,800 each, about enough to purchase a modest car. Obviously, it would be impossible to retire on such an amount without significant government or other assistance. Meanwhile, the richest 10% of Americans possess mean net assets of $3,976,000.00 each, or 143 times those of the bottom 50%; the top 2% control assets worth more than 1,500 times those in the bottom 50%. When you combine these facts with Wall Street’s typical multi-million dollar annual bonuses, you get an idea of wealth inequality in America. Historically, such extreme inequality has been a well-documented breeding ground for totalitarianism.

If the government decides to expropriate (steal) or commandeer (e.g., force into Treasuries) America’s private wealth in order to buy survival time, such a measure will be designed to destroy the common citizens, not the elite. Insiders will be given advance warning about any such plan, and will be able to transfer their money offshore or into financial vehicles immune from harm. Assuming that the elite moves its money to safety, there would then be $120,000,000,000,000.00 ($120 trillion) in American debt and liabilities supported by only $32,000,000,000,000.00 ($32 trillion) in private net worth, for a deficit of $88,000,000,000,000.00 ($88 trillion). In that case, each American would owe $285,714.29 to balance the country’s books. (Remember to multiply this amount by every person in your household, including any infant children.)

If the common people suspect that something diabolical was in the works, a portion of the $32 trillion in non-elite wealth could be evacuated as well prior to a government expropriation and/or currency devaluation, resulting in less money for the government to steal. What these statistics mean is that it is absolutely impossible for the government to fund its debt and deficits, even if it steals all of the nation’s private wealth. Therefore, the government’s only solutions are either formal bankruptcy (outright debt repudiation and the dismantling of bankrupt government programs) or unprecedented American monetary inflation and debt monetization. If the government chooses to inflate its way out of this fiscal catastrophe, the United States dollar will essentially become worthless. You can be absolutely certain that a PhD. in economics, such as Dr. Bernanke, is well aware of these realities, despite what he might say in speeches. For that matter, so are Chinese schoolchildren, who, when patronized by Treasury Secretary Geithner about America’s “strong dollar,” laughed in his face. One day, perhaps America’s school children will receive a real education so that they, too, will know when to laugh at absurd propaganda.

The government has announced that during the fiscal years from 2010 through 2019, it will create an additional $9,000,000,000,000.00 ($9 trillion) in deficits, an amount that is almost certain to be understated by trillions given the country’s current economic trajectory. The government assumes that this vast additional deficit will be funded by others, such as the Chinese, as it is a statistical fact that the United States will be incapable of funding it.

Furthermore, with the budgetary equivalent of a straight face, the Office of Management and Budget reports in its long-term, inter-generational budget projection that the United States government will experience massive, non-stop deficits for the next 70 (SEVENTY) years, requiring the issuance of tens of trillions of dollars of additional debt. The OMB does not project even one year of surplus during the entire seventy year budget period.

These deficits and debts are now so gargantuan that they have become surreal abstractions impossible even for sophisticated financiers to begin to comprehend. The common citizen has absolutely no idea what these numbers mean, or imply for his or her future. The people have been deluded into thinking that America’s arrogant, egomaniacal, always-wrong-but-never-in-doubt fiscal witch doctors and charlatans, including Greenspan, Rubin, Summers, Geithner and Ponce de Bernanke, have discovered a Monetary Fountain of Youth that endlessly spits up free money from the center of earth, in a geyser of good will toward the United States. Unfortunately, this delusion is false: there is no Monetary Fountain of Youth, and contrary to the apparent beliefs of the self-deified man-gods in Washington, D.C., the debt and deficits are real, completely out of control, and 100% guaranteed to create catastrophic consequences for the nation and its people.

When government “representatives” deliberately sell into slavery the citizens of a so-called free Republic, they have committed treason against those people. This is exactly what has happened in the United States: the citizens have been sold into debt slavery that they and their descendants can never escape, because the debts piled onto their backs can never, ever be paid. Despite expensive and sophisticated brainwashing campaigns emanating from Washington, claiming that America can “grow” out of its deficits and debt, it is arithmetically impossible for the country to do so. The government’s statements that it can dig the nation out of its fiscal hole by digging an even deeper chasm have become parodies and perversions of even totally discredited and morally disgusting Keynesianism.

The people no longer have elected representatives; they have elected traitors.

The enslavement of the American people has been orchestrated by a pernicious Master Class that has taken the United States by the throat. This Master Class is now choking the nation to death as it accelerates its master plan to plunder the people’s dwindling remaining assets. The Master Class comprises politicians, the Wall Street money elite, the Federal Reserve, high-end government (including military) officials, government lobbyists and their paymasters, military suppliers and media oligarchs. The interests and mindset of the Master Class are so totally divorced from those of the average American citizen that it is utterly tone deaf and blind to the justifiable rage sweeping the nation. Its guiding ethics of greed, plunder, power, control and violence are so alien to mainstream American culture and thought that the Master Class might as well be an enemy invader from Mars. But the Master Class here, it is real and it is laying waste to America. To the members of the Master Class, the people are not fellow-citizens; they are instruments of labor, servitude and profit. At first, the Master Class viewed the citizens as serfs; now that they have raped and destroyed the national economy, while in the process amassing unprecedented wealth and power for themselves, they see the people as nothing more than slaves.

America’s public finances are now so completely dysfunctional and chaotic that something far worse than debt enslavement and monetary implosion, terrible curses unto themselves, looms on the horizon: namely, a Master Class-sponsored American dictatorship.

Throughout history, the type of situation in which America now finds itself has been a fertility factory for tyranny. The odds of an outright overthrow of the people by the Washington and Wall Street Axis, or more broadly, the Master Class are increasing dramatically. The fact that so few people believe an American dictatorship is possible is exactly why it is becoming likely.

Dictatorships have blighted history and ruined lives since the beginning of civilization. In recent times alone, tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Ceausescu, Amin, Hussein, Mussolini, Tojo, Kim, Pinochet, Milosevic, Tito, Batista, Peron, Pol Pot, Mugabe, Marcos, Somoza, Mengistu, Bokassa, Sese Seko, Franco, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, and Castro have power-sprayed blood onto the screen of time and ravaged mankind with murder, torture and human oppression. A full catalog of history’s tyrants would require a book of hundreds of pages. In the past 100 years alone, over 200 million human beings have been annihilated by wars, ethnic cleansings and government assassinations. Just when we think that civilization has been able to rise above tyranny’s inhumanity and disgrace, a new dictator appears on the scene to start the process all over again. Every time this happens, fear and submission paralyze the vast majority of the affected masses, leading them to “follow orders” and lick autocracy’s blood-stained boots.

History has proven to tyrants that oppression works. In fact, it is easy to control a populace, once you control the money, markets, military (including police), media and minions (the recipients of welfare, social security, free health care, government jobs and the like, who are dependent upon the state and likely to be compliant). This is exactly where the United States is today.

Recent American events paint an ominous picture of a Master Class that is now in total control.

When 90% of the American people vehemently rejected the $700,000,000,000.00 ($700 billion) TARP bailout plan, the Master Class put it on a fast track and approved it anyway.

When a clear majority of the American people said no to a government takeover of Chrysler and GM, the Master Class poured billions of taxpayer dollars into those corporate sinkholes and took them over anyway.

When the people said no to multi-trillion dollar crony bailouts for the bankers and insurers whose corruption had caused global financial mayhem, the government pledged to those elite insiders more than $13,000,000,000,000.00 ($13 trillion) of the people’s money anyway.

When the people expressed astonishment and anger that Wall Street planned to pay itself record 2009 bonuses, in the midst of America’s worst-ever fiscal and financial crisis caused by them, Wall Street stuffed its pockets with taxpayer-supported bonus money anyway.

When the people said no to a proposed $40,000,000,000.00 ($40 billion) bailout of AIG and its elite trading partners such as Goldman Sachs (an amount that subsequently exploded to $180,000,000,000.00+ ($180+ billion)), the Master Class went underground, covertly misappropriated taxpayer money and made the payoffs anyway.

When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were nationalized at enormous taxpayer expense, the government approved $6,000,000.00 individual pay packages in 2009 (150 times the average American wage) for the CEOs of both failed companies anyway.

When a clear majority of the people said no to nationalized health care, even after being bombarded by a multi-million dollar, lie-drenched propaganda campaign designed to bamboozle them, the House and Senate passed nationalized health care bills anyway.

When more than seven million American workers lost their jobs and were subsisting on unemployment benefits and food stamps, federal government employees, who now earn DOUBLE what private sector workers earn, were given another round of pay and benefits increases anyway.

When private sector workers’ 401Ks and IRA retirement plans plummeted in value due to economic collapse and endemic Wall Street-orchestrated market corruption (including systemic front running, flash trading, naked short selling and other manipulations), government “defined benefit,” lifetime-cost-of-living-adjusted pension plans, despite already being underfunded by $2,000,000,000,000.00 ($2 trillion), were made richer than ever anyway.

The long, shameful litany of events signaling the total divorce between the Master Class and the people of the United States doesn’t stop there. It goes on and on.

The message from the American Master Class to the American people is simple and clear:

We Defy You.

Governments that openly defy the people are either already totalitarian or in the process of becoming so. Monetarily, the United States clearly functions as a totalitarian dictatorship already, with a Federal Reserve that operates in secrecy, creates limitless amounts of debt and currency at will, and showers trillions of dollars upon favored Master Class insiders with zero transparency or accountability whatsoever. The Federal Reserve is so shameless about its dictatorial powers that it flatly refuses to provide details about multi-trillion dollar bailouts and rescues of privileged elites, in open defiance of Congress and the people. The fact that they get away with these blatant acts of defiance demonstrates the true extent of the Master Class chokehold on America.

If the Master Class were a benign despot and if its policies and programs actually worked, that would be one thing. But that is not the case. Rather, its programs are in a complete shambles.

Every single government entitlement program in the United States is bankrupt. This includes Social Security ($17,500,000,000,000.00 underfunded; $17.5 trillion); Medicare Part A ($36,700,000,000,000.00 underfunded; $36.7 trillion); Medicare Part B ($37,000,000,000,000.00 underfunded; $37 trillion); Medicare Part D ($15,600,000,000,000 underfunded; $15.6 trillion), Government and military pensions ($2,000,000,000,000 underfunded; $2 trillion), Food Stamps (current underfunding difficult to measure because the number of recipients is exploding; hundreds of billions underfunded versus original projections, minimum); and the list goes on. The above underfunding amounts are NET of projected tax receipts over the next 50 years. But the current recession has invalidated virtually all long-term budget and tax receipt assumptions, meaning that the true underfunded amounts are now greater than current, already mind-boggling estimates.

While the above statistics are terrifying enough to any citizen with a functioning brain, what is Twilight Zone-eerie and a far more serious cause for alarm is the casual indifference with which the Master Class is now making the country’s dire and irreparable fiscal circumstances even worse.

The nationalized health care program will cost at least $1 trillion over the next ten years, and most likely multiples of that. It is being crammed down America’s throat by a bankrupt government that does not have the money today and will not have the money tomorrow to pay for it. Worse is the fact that the same government that has bankrupted each and every existing social program now intends to directly or indirectly control the health care of all citizens. Based on the government’s existing track record and the health care program’s enormous complexity, invasiveness and cost, the probability that it will become a national fiscal and humanitarian catastrophe is roughly 100%.

“Cap and Trade” is a multi-trillion dollar tax scam being foisted onto the American public without a legitimate debate or popular referendum. You might be surprised to learn that “Climate Revenues” are already included in the federal budget, starting with $79,000,000,000.00 ($79 billion) in fiscal year 2012, which begins only 20 months from now. During fiscal years 2012 through 2019, the government expects to collect $646,000,000,000.00 ($646 billion) in “Climate Revenues,” a completely new tax category. Have any of your elected traitors told you that they have enacted $646,000,000,000.00 ($646 billion) in “Climate” taxes beginning twenty months from now and continuing forever? These “Climate Revenues” are based on junk science, lies and hysteria, and have been pimped by greed-diseased parasites who seek to make billions from operating and manipulating the Cap and Trade “marketplace.” Favored elitists such as Hank Paulson, Al Gore, General Electric and Goldman Sachs, among others, have positioned themselves to profit from the nation’s upcoming Cap and Trade tax misery and economic debilitation.

The reality is that the giant Ponzi scheme called the United States of America is running out of money. In any Ponzi scheme, money must constantly be poured into the top of the funnel in order to pay the redeemers at the bottom. As the number of redeemers has grown, tax receipts have fallen far short of covering their withdrawals, a problem that has now become an outright government funding emergency further aggravated by the fiscal, financial and economic crises.

If the Washington and Wall Street Axis were not legally able to create and distribute counterfeit American money, the Ponzi scheme would have collapsed already. Trillions of new, out-of-thin-air, printing-press and electronic “dollars” have bought the Axis additional time, but new sources of revenue must immediately be found to keep the scam alive. Congress is fully aware of this reality. Outright tax increases would be bad politics during a recession that is morphing into a depression, and also bad for 2010 re-election campaigns, so they cannot be implemented. Therefore, Congress continues to advance the health care and Cap and Trade agendas, which are nothing but taxation Trojan Horses festooned in righteousness and sanctimony, despite overwhelming popular opposition.

With health care passed, revenues and fees will kick in immediately in 2010, whereas costs will not begin to accrue until 2012 and later. The government plans to spend the revenues immediately to forestall a total fiscal collapse. Nationalized health care has absolutely nothing to do with health care; it has to do with creating an immediate revenue stream to help fix the current government funding crisis. Similarly, Cap and Trade has nothing to do with fixing the environment. It, too, is nothing more than a massive tax increase similarly designed to address the government’s epic funding shortfall, with thick slices of pork thrown in for privileged insiders and deceitful propagandists like bloated “Father of the Internet” and now “Savior of the World” Al Gore.

The last thing the Master Class wants is for the people to understand the disastrous state of the nation’s finances. Master Class brainwashing tells the people that it is “negative” and “pessimistic” to look at the facts, despite the fact that psychological health is characterized by the ability to identify and deal with reality. The Master Class wants the people to put on Bozo the Clown happy faces and let sugar plums and green shoots dance in their brains as they write one check after another to pay for Cap and Trade, nationalized health care, and a mind-numbing assortment of other taxes and fees.

On Sunday night, November 30, 2009, North Korea’s dictator Kim Jong Il (a name that says it all, even better than Made-off’s), an international poster child of Master Class psychological illness, devalued his country’s currency by 99%. This vicious tyrant, who has given birth to a national hell on earth, is chauffeured in Mercedes Benz limousines, drinks the finest imported whiskies and dines in imperial dignity on foods prepared by personal chefs while his citizens starve to death on the streets or, at best, eke out a subsistence living. Kim became paranoid that the people were actually figuring out how to improve their pitiful, impoverished lives in tiny ways, so he decided to wipe them out. The people were given one week to exchange their money at a rate of 100 old Won for 1 new Won. Any lifetime family savings in excess of roughly $700.00 were simply confiscated by the North Korean government. To keep the people in line, the military and police were put on high alert, fully prepared to kill or arrest any protesters.

On January 9, 2010, Venezuela’s strong man Hugo Chavez devalued his country’s currency by 50%, overnight and without warning, causing immediate inflation, shortages of food and supplies, and general financial chaos throughout the nation.

While you might be shaking your head in pity over the plight of the citizens of North Korea and Venezuela, ask yourself this: could this not happen in the United States?

On April 5, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, an Obama hero, outlawed gold ownership overnight by signing Executive Order 6102, which gave the people three and one-half weeks to surrender all privately-owned bullion to the government for a price of $20.67 per ounce. On January 30, 1934, nine months after collecting the people’s gold, Roosevelt devalued the dollar 69% overnight, by raising the gold price from $20.67 to $35.00 per ounce.

Since its founding in 1913, the Federal Reserve has devalued the dollar by 98+% thanks to endless money printing and debt creation, a corrosive and impoverishing process that is now accelerating. In the past year, the Fed has engineered $20+ trillion in bailouts, subsidies and guarantees for well-connected and lucky scavengers and opportunists, an amount equal to roughly 40% of the total private wealth created in this country since its inception. All because a few elitist government man-gods with an almost perfect record of error and failure have deemed in their imperial wisdom that it shall be so. The citizens, whose hard-earned wealth is being systematically destroyed by this continual, government-decreed monetary debasement were never invited to the debate or given a say, which is par for the course for dictatorships. This massive de facto devaluation now hangs over the people’s wealth like a great monetary sword of Damocles.

Conceptually, whether it is a 50% overnight devaluation in Venezuela, a 69% overnight devaluation in the United States, a 98% devaluation in America over time, or a 99% overnight devaluation in North Korea, what is the difference? The fact is: there is no difference; monetary debasements are all the same. In each and every case, the people’s wealth is stolen via government edict, while the people stand by helplessly and in shock.

So one must ask: For whom does the bell toll? A foreign “them,” or a domestic us? Who is to say that you will not be told tomorrow morning that, effective immediately, in accordance with some perversely named mandate such as the “American Monetary Security, Wealth Preservation and Terrorism Prevention Act,” enacted by emergency for “the safety of the nation and the financial well being of the citizens,” all existing currency and bank balances will be redenominated in “New Dollars,” at a conversion rate of 1 new for every 100 old currency units? Would this not simply be another, almost predictable act of defiance toward the American people by the Master Class? And if that happened, do you honestly believe that the Master Class would not have been alerted in advance and allowed to make special preparations for itself ahead of the devaluation? Do you think they intend to go down in the same ship as the people they defy? If such a currency devaluation were announced, what could you do about it? March on Washington? But how would you get there if your money had been wiped out?

Despite what you may hear from State Media, which includes virtually all establishment news organizations, particularly financial ones (e.g., CNBC), America is on the precipice. No bankrupt nation in history has ever defended or preserved the freedoms of its citizens. In fact, it has been the exact opposite: in desperation, bankrupt governments have routinely plundered their citizens’ wealth and imposed totalitarian controls. What will make things different for the United States, the largest debtor nation in all of recorded civilization?

The United States government cannot ever, possibly pay its debts, is pathologically incapable of controlling its spending or curbing its hunger for both domestic and international empire and persistently refuses to tell the American people the truth. If America’s citizens were told the truth and given the benefit of true leadership, as opposed to the guile and dishonesty of an endless array of political liars and hacks, perhaps they could rally and defeat the problems that afflict them. But instead, they are fed by the Master Class a steady diet of narcotic propaganda that deludes, confuses and enervates them. The truth cannot set people free if it is never told, and that is the essence of America’s gathering tragedy.

In a future article, we will detail specific developments you should watch for to chart the course of America’s ominous and potentially deadly national storm. The current, grave situation is already a clear call to action. When the signals become even more urgent, it will be late in the game to take protective action, and possibly too late. Citizens should begin to prepare now not just for financial survival, but for the personal security of themselves and their loved ones should a Category 5 economic and political hurricane rip into the nation, something that becomes more likely every day.

With respect to personal finances, in virtually every national currency devaluation and major political upheaval in the past, gold has represented sanctuary for the affected people. Gold has not just preserved wealth, but personal freedom as well. While governments can devalue fiat currencies, they cannot, by edict, devalue gold. Yes, they can try to manipulate its price, but unless all governments join in the collusion, ultimately the price will return to market. The market for gold is global, and demand exists in all nations and among all peoples. Should the government attempt to confiscate gold, it will be an outright admission that the financial system is collapsing, and the people will know better than to hand over to a corrupt government their only means of survival. The most important point is this: devalued currencies never rise again. Once they are destroyed, they are gone forever, and those whose wealth had once been denominated in them are wiped out. As you have no doubt heard before, not one fiat currency has survived over time, and that is an indisputable fact. More significantly, no fiat currency has ever suffered the abuse that has been inflicted upon the United States dollar, meaning that it is at extreme risk. Gold has been money for 5,000 years. It has not merely survived, it has prevailed over each and every fiat currency collapse throughout history. Given this, the most important financial question a person can ask him- or herself today is: How is my wealth denominated at this time? And given its denomination, is my wealth likely to be safe in current and evolving circumstances?

One thing is certain: as the epic David and Goliath monetary battle unfolds, between the people fighting to defend their hard-earned wealth on one side, and a Master Class that greedily and pathologically wants to plunder them on the other, the price of gold will become extremely volatile for a period of time. Volatility will, in fact, tell you that the War on Wealth has officially been declared, and will be your signal to do whatever you must to protect what is yours. As the government Goliath and its Master Class allies short tonnes of bullion into rigged futures markets in a desperate attempt to make gold look dangerous and risky, the Davids will be coming forth not just in the United States but from all corners of the globe, buying 10 grams here and one ounce there. There are 6.8 billion Davids, versus one diseased Master Class that numbers in the small millions. There is no way the Master Class can defeat the people, if the people finally rise up and say “No More of Your Plunder. No More of Your Cold and Soulless Financial Oppression. No More of Your Cynical and Godless Exploitation.”

If you find the above argument compelling, you should consider how to protect yourself from Executive Orders that could be issued at any time, under any pretext, and that could be extremely hostile to your financial and/or personal health and well being. One simple way to start is to purchase one ounce of gold for yourself and each member of your household, and much more if you can afford it. That is not financial advice; it is merely the common sense generously communicated to you by history.

Copyright 2010 by Stewart Dougherty, with all rights reserved.

Stewart Dougherty is a specialist in inferential analysis, the practice of identifying historic and contemporary patterns and then extrapolating their likely effects upon the future. Dougherty was educated at Tufts University (B.A., magna cum laude), and Harvard Business School (M.B.A. and an academic Fellow). He can be reached at stewartdougherty@cs.com. He is not affiliated with or compensated by those he references or recommends. He does not offer investment or trading advice, and nothing in this article should be construed as such. This article represents the author’s personal opinions, and nothing more. The reader has the author’s permission to share, print, forward or post this article provided that the content is not changed and the author is acknowledged.

This is in response to an article published in American Thinker claiming that the Administration is afraid of the Tea Party movement. [click here for article]

This is speculative and largely fanciful thinking. I don’t think they are scared one iota, and even if they were, it would be foolish to think along those lines and succumb to arrogant complacency. To lend veracity to my counter-point I would remind you that we have appeared en masse at townhall meetings, in D.C., and across the country–and it did not sway either their policies nor the way they rammed them down our throat.

This administration is dancing to the tune of a globalist agenda that has been contrived over the last 40 years, and over the course of the last 10 years has gained so much traction throughout this country that all this Administration has to do is pass 2 more bills (Cap and Trade/and the EFCA) and we will be irreversibly ‘done’. Why is it you think that the CCX was set up 10 years ago? Think it was just a happenchance coincidence?

We have been duped into believing we actually have a 2-party system and failed to recognize that an equal number of Democrats and Republicans both sit on the Board of the CFR, both are on the Board of the Club of Rome, both are on the Board of the Trilateral Commission, and are seated on the Boards of a myriad of similar organizations that entertain global governance.

If we look at the current fast-paced acceleration of this socialist agenda, we can trace (in more modern times) it’s etiologies as having started at the time G.H. Bush signed Agenda 21. Concurrent to Agenda 21 is also a little known and never discussed protocol by the United Nations called the Marrakech Transition Program; which is a timeline that illuminates with great detail exactly when the groundwork for the next stage should be in place.

Once Bush 41 opened the door for this global vision, it was exacerbated by Clinton whom in 1993 by Executive Order set up the ‘President’s Council of Sustainable Development‘. Sustainable Development is a lexicon that is so commonplace nowadays that people have ceased to ascribe it’s nefarious origins to this modern buzz-word. Sustainable Development is the antidote to man-made climate change. This gave rise to ‘smart growth’, which was the outcome of Clinton’s PCSD, and from this sprung up 100’s of NGO’s such as Smart Growth America to capitalize on the new green economy.

Further, while indebting our youth (and thereby enslaving them to government controls in one form or another), they have indoctrinated them into the new-world paradigm by seizing control of the educational system. Maurice Strong wrote the Earth Charter Initiative which is a curriculum for global-stewardship, social justice, economic equality, and biological equity. This was adopted by UNESCO and signed by Bush 44 in 2000.

Smart Growth is promulgated throughout this country by ICLEI, an NGO that embraces United Nations Agenda 21 protocols and embeds them into almost every State, County, and City in this country. Even if we got out of the United Nations, the United Nations has infected us, and their tentacles reach wide and deep.

We conservatives remain forever distracted by allowing our politicians to manipulate us easily with the constant stream of legislation and policies that capture our attention. Thus we mostly remain fragmented and largely ineffective.

Are they scared? Not a chance! We should be scared—and we should have that fear drive us into ‘proper’ action. We need to be aware of what is really happening and why it is happening, we must make sure that those candidates we endorse are aware and build a unified consensus to support them, while at the same time be going to City Council meetings and unfurling the tentacles of ICLEI that strangle us.

Additional Reading:

The United Green Religion

Posted: June 28, 2010 in Spirituality

A United Green Religion

Blending the world’s religions together and bringing them under the umbrella of the United Nations has been high on the Global Green Agendafor many years. Dr Robert Muller, until recently the Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, and its #2 ranked official, appears to be the driving force behind the plan to create a new United Religion. His passion for this spiritual agenda is readily apparent, “My great personal dream is to forge a tremendous alliance between all religions and spiritual groups, and the UNWe desperately need a United Religions Organisation to bring reconciliation, unity and peace to all the peoples of our world.

Dr Muller famously described himself as “A divine motivator … the wise man of the UN … the shaman of the UN … the man through whom God speaks … the spokesman of Christ …” Now this ‘divine motivator’ was the co-founder of UNESCO and a key architect behind many of the UN’s most important environmental policies and plans. Dr Muller is also one of the key figures behind the drive to establish a universal global consciousness. He is the co-Chairman of the World Commission for Global Consciousness and Spirituality and the co-Chairman, alongside Mikhail Gorbachev, of the World Wisdom Council. Dr Muller is also the Chancellor of the UN’s University of Peace, which he founded on a mountain in Costa Rica. Why did he choose this location? Because of this ancient prophecy:

The Great Spirit is in every animal, in every bird, butterfly, flower, insect, leaf and grass you see. The Great Spirit is also in you, the Creator’s children. Please take care of the wonderful nature created by God and some day, from this mountain, you will see the birth of a civilization of peace spread to the entire world.” – link

Dr Muller’s clearly outines his vision for a New Green Religion on his websites http://www.paradiseearth.us/http://www.robertmuller.org/,http://www.goodmorning-world.blogspot.com/ and http://www.goodmorningworld.org/. In one article he recounts a conversation between himself and God, as equals no less. These are quotes from that article (remember this is not some fruitcake standing on a streetcorner, this guy was responsible for formulating many UN policies) :

God: Dear Robert, congratulations for having finished your 4000 ideas. May I ask you: which one do you consider the most important?

I: Well, my most important idea and conclusion after all my adult life as a world civil servant is this: The United Nations must be vastly strengthened to resolve the major global problems henceforth increasingly confronting humanity and the earth. It must be empowered to adopt and enforce world laws and regulations. Let us perform this miracle in the House of Mica, on the shores of the River of the Rising Sun, wherefrom our indigenous brethren prophesized that a civilization of peace will extend to the entire world.

God: Thank you, dear Robert, for what you are recommending. Perhaps after all, the greatest jewel of my Creation, the Earth, can be saved.“ – link

The first attempt at global interfaith dialogue occurred at the first ‘Parliament of World Religions’ held in Chicago in 1893. This conference involved representatives from most established and emerging religious groups and also marked the introduction of the Baha’i faith into the United States. In the early 1990s a group of interfaith dialogue proponents decided to organise a centenary conference to be held in 1993, also in Chicago.

Dr Muller was one of the primary organisers, along with Hans Kung and Dr. Gerald Barney, and was a keynote speaker. Kung is a Catholic priest who previously held the powerful position of ‘Expositor of Theology’ at the Vatican and is the founder of the Global Ethic Foundation, another organization strongly pushing the concept of human global consciousness. The conference included more than 8,000 representatives from 150 different religious and spiritual groups. Dr Muller’s speech was entitled ‘A Proposal to establish a United Nations of Religion‘. It received a prolonged standing ovation and his proposal was endorsed in the conferences joint communique.

Our earth cannot be changed unless in the not too distant future an alteration in the consciousness of individuals is achieved. This has already been seen in areas such as war and peace or economy and ecology. And it is precisely for this alteration in inner orientation, in the entire mentality, in the “heart,” that religion bear responsibility in a special way. Religion must be a unifier and peacemaker, not a cause for violence and separation.” – excerpt, Parliament of World Religions Joint Communique.

The centenary parliament led to the formation of interfaith dialogue initiatives by many religious groups, most notably the Vatican, and secular organisations such as the United Nations, the Gorbachev Foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative, and many UN associated NGOs. However, it was the United Religions Initiative (URI), proposed by Robert Muller during the conference that has made the most dramatic progress.

The URI’s stated aims are “unity among religions” and “manifesting love for the Earth.” Working closely with Muller on this daring initiative is the Anglican Bishop William Swing of Grace Episcopal Cathedral in San Francisco. Although Muller is the visionary behind United Religions and the catalyst between the major parties involved, Swing has become the initiative’s figurehead and spokesperson.

However, the direct involvement of the United Nations in this project has been evident from the beginning. Swing relates how Muller first contacted him in 1993 about heading up a worship celebration on its behalf: “Three and a half years ago, a telephone call arrived in San Francisco from the United Nations asking if we, at Grace Cathedral, would host a great interfaith worship service honoring the 50th Anniversary of the signing of the UN Charter in our city.” This request, and subsequent conversation with Muller, is allegedly what prompted Swing to become involved in the United Religions Initiative. He continues, “I got out of bed the next day determined to commit the rest of my life to an initiative that would create a United Religions which would, in appropriately spiritual ways, parallel the United Nations.”

The URI has attracted a diverse group of followers, and seems to be remarkably skilful in appealing to there different worldviews. Reverend James Davis, an Anglican minister from New York stated “We’ve never seen any organization build coalitions as quickly or as successfully as the United Religions Initiative.” Huston Smith, a scholar of comparative religions and author of The World’s Religions, a standard reference in religious studies, describes the URI as “by far the most significant global interfaith effort.”

The URI claims that more than 1,000 religious groups, representing 600 million people, have endorsed the URI charter. These include the Dalai Lama, state churches in China, various Jewish Rabbis, Sufi’s (a Muslin sect), the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, radical feminists, deep ecologists, creation spiritualists, kaballahists and various neopagan groups. It has also received favourable comments from the United Nations and the Vatican. The preamble to the URI Charter is as follows:

Preamble

We, people of diverse religions, spiritual expressions and indigenous traditions throughout the world, hereby establish the United Religions Initiative to promote enduring, daily interfaith cooperation, to end religiously motivated violence and to create cultures of peace, justice and healing for the Earth and all living beings.

We respect the uniqueness of each tradition, and differences of practice or belief.

We value voices that respect others, and believe that sharing our values and wisdom can lead us to act for the good of all.

We believe that our religious, spiritual lives, rather than dividing us, guide us to build community and respect for one another.

Therefore, as interdependent people rooted in our traditions, we now unite for the benefit of our Earth community.

We unite to build cultures of peace and justice.

We unite to heal and protect the Earth.

We unite to build safe places for conflict resolution, healing and reconciliation.

We unite to support freedom of religion and spiritual expression, and the rights of all individuals and peoples as set forth in international law.

We unite in responsible cooperative action to bring the wisdom and values of our religions, spiritual expressions and indigenous traditions to bear on the economic, environmental, political and social challenges facing our Earth community.

We unite to provide a global opportunity for participation by all people, especially by those whose voices are not often heard.

We unite to celebrate the joy of blessings and the light of wisdom in both movement and stillness.

We unite to use our combined resources only for nonviolent, compassionate action, to awaken to our deepest truths, and to manifest love and justice among all life in our Earth community.

It goes on to say: The root of this ecological crisis is a spiritual crisis. Just as the religions and spiritual traditions of the world teach respectful interaction with a sacred whole, so must spiritual values and moral imperatives help humanity to rediscover a reverence for all life and respect for the sacredness of the whole of Planet Earth. Therefore, we call for interfaith cooperation in furthering this vision for love and protection of the Earth, reverence for life, and harmony with all living beings.

As suggested by Swing, the United Religions Initiative is intended to be to religion what the United Nations has become to global politics, unifying the world’s religions as the UN is unifying the world’s nations. Bishop Swing confirmed these plans, “The URI will be a spiritual United Nations. And what better place to give it birth than the Bay Area, which gave birth to the present UN.”

Bishop Swing also states, “The URI will offer the world a powerful new vision of hope – the vision that the deepest stories we know can now cease to be causes of separation between people, and become instead the foundation for a reunited humanityReligions need the URI. Bombs are exploding in the name of God in cities throughout the world, religious persecution is more prevalent now than ever before, religious extremists are demanding and obtaining nuclear weapons, and still there is no neutral arena where all of the religions can engage each otherThe URI, in time, aspires to have the visibility and stature of the United Nations. It will have global visibility and will be a vital presence in local communities all over the world.

The United Nations has granted the URI official ‘liaison status’, which means that in return for UN financial support the URI will “co-operate closely with the U.N. and its organisations to complement the U.N.’s political, diplomatic and social mandates, influence U.N. policy and support its programs.” At a recent UN-sponsored Interfaith Conference, Bishop Swing issued a challenge for a new global civilisation, “We stand on the threshold of a new world order that may be defined either by an increasing polarisation that fuels a spiral of escalating conflict and violence, or by growing global cooperation that calls the human race to work across national, ethnic and religious boundaries to serve a larger global good.”

Bishop Swing recently apologised for two millennia of Christian evangelism. His apology not limited to ‘religious violence’ committed by Christians, it also includes regret for “proclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior of all” and for seeking “to make the whole world Christian“. The URI strongly condemns all forms of religious fundamentalism; in fact the need for a new spirituality is often based on the intolerant attitude of evangelical Christians and radical Muslims’. Swing states “Because some day, the ascendancy of militant fundamentalist voices of politically aspiring religions might be so pervasive that a United Religions will need to be created in order to save religions from these fundamentalists.”

The URI arose out of, and is the culmination of, the interfaith movement that began with the 1893 Parliament of World Religions. It is inextricably tied to the quest for a new spirituality that would unify the planet in a ‘transformed global society’. The URI is the fullest expression of this movement now. The current model of unity in diversity will characterise the United Religions Initiative for a while. However, the final phase of the Global Green Spiritual Agenda will be the “full end to the great heresy of separateness.

The final green religion will be the blending of all religions into one unified expression of spirituality based on reverence for our shared planet and human interconnectedness with all living beings. No doubt anyone one who refuses to accept this new spirituality will be labelled an intolerant radical fundamentalist. In the wake of an earth-shattering crisis, such as the one described in A United World, ‘fundamentalists’ are likely to be blamed for all the world’s problems. A new world religion, in addition to a new world order, will be gratefully received by most given a crisis of sufficient magnitude.