The Globalism of Climate: How Faux Environmental Concern Hides Desire to Rule the World
Barbara McKenzieUncategorized February 23, 2019
[Edit: it was in 1988, not 1986, that Hansen and Wirth sabotaged the air conditioning in a US Senate committee room in order to make their global warming point]
The primary function of ‘global warming’ alarmism, aka as the ‘climate crisis,’ is to facilitate a one-world government, administered by the United Nations bureaucracy.
Regardless of the science involved (or lack of it), there are a number of indisputable facts about the background to anthropogenic global warming alarmism:
- The long-standing plan for global government by an elite;
- The one-to-one equivalence between the globalists and the creators of climate alarmism, represented above all by David Rockefeller and his protégé Maurice Strong;
- The manifest intention of UN reports on ‘climate’ and the environment to give more power to the UN bureaucracy and to corporate-owned non-government organisations (NGOs).
It was David Rockefeller who, ably assisted by Maurice Strong, created and drove the wildly successful ‘Global Warming’ strategy.
David Rockefeller (1915-2017) was the youngest of John D. Rockefeller Jr.’s six children, and a grandson of John D. Rockefeller. He was well known as chairman and chief executive of Chase Manhattan Corporation and in the words of the obituary published by Rockefeller University, ‘one of the greatest philanthropists of our time’. He is viewed in a somwhat different light by his critics, e.g. David Rockefeller: An Immoral Life of Evil and Treason.
David Rockefeller was heir to the Rockefeller ambition to create global governance by an elite. This almost certainly goes back to the confidential meeting between Alphonse de Rothschild and either John Rockefeller or his agents in 1892, and before that to Cecil Rhodes’ founding of a secret society, the Round Table, of which Nathaniel Rothschild was a member. The purpose of the society was to ‘bring the whole of the civilised world’ under one rulership. To that end, i.e. of creating one-world government, David’s father John D. Rockefeller, Jr, together with Rothschild agents, engineered the creation of first the League of Nations and then, after that project failed due to United States scepticism, of the United Nations. See How Cecil Rhodes Fathered the Modern Globalist Movement: a Timeline.
David Rockefeller in his turn acted to strengthen, expand and control through generous funding the role of the United Nations.
David Rockefeller was the common denominator amongst the groups descended from Rhodes original secret society, the groups of the Round Table, whose function is to plan and achieve global governance by an elite, as intended by Cecil Rhodes.
- 1921 His father John D. Rockefeller, Jr, founded the Council on Foreign Relationsand David Rockefeller was chairman of CFR from 1970 until 1985. At the same time,
- 1921 John D. Rockefeller, Jr founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs, aka Chatham House. Chatham House has continued to receive funding from the Rockefeller Foundation from inception, and is still listed by the Foundation as a grantee today.
- 1954 David Rockefeller was a founding member of Bilderberg, whose primary function is to oversee the ‘European project’. He served on the advisory board and was a regular attendee at its meetings, even at the age of 98.
- 1968 He founded the Club of Rome, the ‘apex of the New World Order’.
- 1973 He founded the Trilateral Commission to bring together high ranking people politicians and business people from the US, Western Europe and Japan to plan one-world government.
The Club of Rome (CoR)
The Club of Rome is a global think tank on behalf of the elite environmental movement. It describes itself as ‘an organisation of individuals who share a common concern for the future of humanity and strive to make a difference’.
The main purpose of the Club of Rome is to formulate crisis through which the world can be united under a world government.’ Compleat Patriot.
From inception, it is apparent that the Club of Rome was seeking a strategy to provide a catalyst for radical change in society, to create Hegelian dialect, or order out of chaos.
The Club of Rome specialises in ‘crisis creation’ using the Hegelian Dialectic to accomplish their goals (Jeremiah Project, video)
The CoR first promoted the population scare of the 1970’s, then, when the promised famine failed to eventuate, environmentalism, and then finally in 1977, anthropogenic global warming alarmism, which has succeeded admirably, if only because of the huge sums of money thrown at it.
The Club of Rome was founded by David Rockefeller.
1965, June 12-19, the Conference on Conditions of World Order is held at the Rockefeller Foundation’s Villa Serbelloni in Bellagio, Italy, with papers given by Henry A. Kissinger and others. Three years later,
1968, April The Club of Rome is founded in Bellagio by ‘a think-tank of financiers, scientists, economists, politicians, heads of state, and industrialists from ten different countries’. Members of the Club of Rome have included Ted Turner, George Soros, Henry Kissinger, Bill Gates, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Bill Gates and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands (a long list here).
Inventing a Common Adversary
The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key that will unlock the New World Order (Mikhail Gorbachev, member of Club of Rome, Monetary and Economic Review, 1996, 5).
The Club of Rome has produced a large number of reportsproposing population reduction and global government on the basis of environmental crisis.
1972 The Limits to Growth warns of overpopulation and the need for sustainable development.
The Club of Rome’s Depopulation Agenda
- “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.” Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point, 1974
- “… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.” Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind, 1976.
- ‘World population needs to be decreased by 50%’ Henry Kissinger, member of CoR.
- “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.” Mikhail Gorbachev, Former President of the Soviet Union, member of CoR.
- ‘A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” Ted Turner, founder of CNN, major UN donor, member of CoR.
- In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it. Jacques Cousteau, French naval officer and explorer, member of the CoR.
- “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.’ Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, according to Green Agenda a member of CoR, father of four. (The Green Agenda)
Scratch a CoR member and there is a global depopulation misanthrope inside (Bill Elder, here in comments)
The current fad of referring to looming extinction, as in the corporate-owned protest group Extinction Rebellion, has therefore a double entendre – the intended extinction is, of course, that of most of the human race.
Environmentalism is used to justify moving people from rural areas into the city, and increased control over people’s lives and property by local and central government. Above all environmentalism, and especially the global warming scare, are being used by the Club of Rome and its members to create acceptance for increasing powers for the corporate-owned United Nations bureaucracy and the corporate-owned NGOs affiliated to the United Nations.
The real purpose of the establishment environmental movement is to build the structures (political, economic, ideological etc) of the ultimate monopoly: a corporate-communist world government. David Richards
1974 Club of Rome published Mankind at the Turning Point: ‘This report develops further the concept on the World Problematique ‘. Mankind is faced by a multitude of crises: ‘the population crisis, the environmental crisis, the world food crisis, the energy crisis, the raw material crisis, amongst others’ […]
“The solution of these crises can be developed only in a global context with full and explicit recognition of the emerging world system and on a long-term basis. This would necessitate, among other changes, a new world economic order and a global resources allocation system…”
Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, 1968, and CoR member, exemplifies the alarmist tactics of the Club of Rome, warning of mass extinction from famine, global cooling, global warming, or pollution:
- “In the 1970s the world will undergo famines – hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death…”– Paul Ehrlich, the Population Bomb, 1968
- “The Population of the U.S. will shrink from 250 million to about 22.5 million before 1999 because of famine and global warming.” – Paul Ehrlich, 1968
- “I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” – Paul Ehrlich, 1969
- “Smog disasters in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles” – Paul Ehrlich, 1969
- “Falling temperatures will cause the ice caps to sink into the ocean, producing a global tidal wave that could wipe out a substantial portion of mankind, and the sea level could rise 60 to 100 feet.” – Paul Ehrlich, 1970
A year after the founding of the Club of Rome:
1969 The Rockefeller Foundation (RF) approved ‘its first full-fledged environmental effort‘, the Quality of the Environment (QE) program. (The program supported for some years the work of the CRU at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, which in 2009 achieved notoriety as the centre of the ‘climategate’ scandal.)
Biographies: Official biography,now ‘crashed’; Sourcewatch(neutral/positive), James Corbett, (highly critical); Ronald Bailey(highly critical)
In James Corbett’s words, Maurice Strong rose from being ‘a dirt poor high school dropout from Oak Lake, Manitoba, to become an international wheeler-dealer who is responsible for shaping our modern day globalist institutions’.
As a Rockefeller asset Maurice Strong (1929-2015) was a major force behind both the global warming narrative and the linking of that narrative with an argument for ever greater powers for the corporate-owned United Nations bureaucracy. His crowning achievement was the 2nd Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero in 1992.
Strong met David Rockefeller at the age of 18, and under Rockefeller’s patronage was given a minor, temporary position with the United Nations. Thereafter continuing sponsorship by Rockefeller led to a career in oil, and in parallel one as a mover and shaker in Canadian politics, including heading the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) – David Rockefeller was grooming Strong for great things.
Apparently impressed by his work at CIDA, UN Secretary General U Thant asked Strong to organize what became the first Earth Summit — the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1972.’
1971 Stockholm: The UN Conference on the Human Environment (the Earth Summit)
In preparation for the Conference Strong commissioned a report on the state of the planet, Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet. The authors were Rene Dubos a microbiologist employed by Rockefeller researching antibiotics, with no previous interest in environmentalism, and BarbaraWard, who during the war had worked for the UK Ministry of Information before becoming the foreign editor of The Economist.
The Stockholm Conference signaled the beginning of modern environmental diplomacy. As an outcome of the Summit Maurice Strong founded and was first director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), to coordinate the UN’s environmental activities and assist developing countries in implementing ‘environmentally sound’ policies and practices.
The Global Cooling Scare
As recently as the mid-1970s the threat of global cooling, rather than global warming, was a recurrent theme in the media. ‘The 140 Year Failed History of “Gorebull Warming” and “Ice Ages Doom”‘ gives some examples:
- 1974 – “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times
- 1975 – Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975
- 1975 – “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientistmagazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
- 1976 – “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report
A 1974 CIA report, A Study of Climatological Research As It Pertains to Intelligence Problemsreferred to cold, floods and also drought, but overall assuming global cooling.
David Rockefeller and Maurice Strong Kick Off the Global Warming Scare
1977 From this point, ‘Scientific opinion tends to converge on global warming, not cooling, as the chief climate risk in the next century’.
1977 One of the first significant reports on ‘global warming’ was the report Energy and Climate, which warned that ‘average temperatures may rise 6 degrees Celsius by 2050 due to the burning of coal’ – perhaps the first example of climate catastrophism.
Energy and Climate was a Rockefeller report, produced by a Rockefeller employee. The report was prepared by the National Research Council (founded in 1916 with the help of John D. Rockefeller). At the time the chairman of NRC, Philip Handler, was simultaneously on the Board of Trustees of Rockefeller University, at a time when David Rockefeller chaired the Board’s Executive Committee.
1980 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), founded by Maurice Strong, produces the WorldConservation Strategy. The strategy declares catogorically:
The most acute climatic problem, however, is carbon dioxide accumulation
as a result of the burning of fossil fuel, deforestation and changes in land use. At present rates of increase, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide may produce a significant warming of the lower atmosphere before the middle of the next century, particularly in the polar regions. This warming would probably change temperature patterns throughout most of the world, benefitting some regions and damaging others, possibly severely .
Thus from a position of warning about global cooling as late as 1976, by 1980, a mere four years later, the ‘science was settled’ by Rockefeller and Strong in favour of global warming, caused by human emissions of CO2, as the most acute climatic problem.
1981 NASA scientist James Hansen predicted that burning fossil fuels would increase global temperatures by 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5 degrees Celsius) by the end of the century. In 1988 Hansen and Senator Timothy Wirth sabotaged the air conditioning in a US Senate committee room, on the likely hottest day of a hot summer, in order to persuade the committee of global warming. This is considered a turning point in the US consciousness of the global warming ‘crisis’ – at least at a political level.
In his Book, Science Under Siege, Michael Fumento quoted Timothy Wirth as saying in 1988,
‘We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.’
The Global Warming-Climate Change Scam
The global warming project has been characterised by fake data, dirty tricks and relentless dishonesty, including a penchant for sensational and ludicrous claims of extreme weather events which foretell human extinction, climate meltdown. There is a shift of emphasis once claims are debunked – the prophesies of a six degree rise in global temperature have given way to warnings that even a two degree increase in temperature will result in catastrophic consequences for life on earth (see Tim Ball, Seven Ways to Spot Climate Change Propaganda).
The many thousands of scientists (see also 10,000 international scientists) who have protested the corruption of science and the demonisation of CO2, through articles, petitions and letters to world leaders, have had no impact in the face of the billions spent at every level of propaganda.
The change in emphasis from ‘global warming to ‘climate’ was not just to duck the issue of the failure of nature to deliver the said warming. It simplifies the terminology, and provides a one word term to describe the cult, i.e.the cult of climate – anyone who disagrees that an increase in CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming is now a climate denier. Suppression of dissent has become normalised, with calls for criminalisation of ‘climate denial’.
In New Zealand, as elsewhere, criticism even of the claim of consensus is censored, for example, NZ’s major source of mainstream news, Stuff.
The adoption of ‘global warming’ as a cause turned out to be a brilliant strategic move for the global government project, backed as it has been by huge sums, total commitment and inspired execution.
The United Nations Bureaucracy Administers the Global Warming Scare
‘Global warming is a global problem, they insist, that national governments alone cannot resolve. […] The only solution, we are told, a one world government’ (Tim Ball).
For twenty years Maurice Strong was involved in the organisation of UN conferences and the commissioning of UN reports which tied in global warming with global government. The reports have certain things in common. They:
- Assume that the claim that CO2 causes global warming is unquestioned and unquestionable;
- Ensure that references to ‘climate change’ appear whenever any aspect of planning is considered;
- Recommend increased powers to the United Nations bureaucracy;
- Recommend increased participation for ‘civil society’, i.e. non-government organisations affiliated to the UN.
United Nations and ‘Civil Society’
Affiliated NGOs include such charities as the Rockefeller Foundation, George Soros’s Open Society Foundation, Carnegie Foundation and a large number of charities funded by the same, such as Greenpeace and Oxfam. The role of the major foundations in the UN is apparent if one looks, for, example at UN Women, which lists as ‘some of our partners’: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Elizabeth Arden, Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundation, Procter & Gamble, PROYA Cosmetics Co. Ltd, Rockefeller Foundation, The Coca-Cola Company, Unilever, and Zonta International Foundation.
Major UN conferences, which are financially supported by NGOs, are increasingly accompanied by a forum of NGO representatives, the NGO’s being selected by UN bureaucrats (like Maurice Strong). (The CGG has benefited substantially from the largesse of the MacArthur, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations.)
‘This kind of international gabfest is, of course, a sinister parody of democracy. Very few of even the larger international NGOs are operationally democratic, in the sense that members elect officers or direct policy on particular issues. Arguably it is more often money than membership that determines influence, and money more often represents the support of centralized elites, such as major foundations, than of the grass roots. (Hofstra University law professor Peter Spiro, quoted by Ronald Bailey).
1987 Our Common Future (the Brundtland Report.)
The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), set up in 1983, was chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Prime Minister of Norway who has held several high posts in the UN; Maurice Strong was a member. In 1987 they published a report named ‘Our Common Future‘.
- defines ‘sustainable development’ for the first time, as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.
- refers to ‘global warming’ throughout, and specifically attributes it to CO2, and also
- assumes an inevitable move to the cities, making no recommendations to counter this.
1987 The 4th World Wilderness Congress, Colorado
The Brundtland report was timed to appear just before the 4th World Wilderness Congress, organised by Maurice Strong, and involving 2,000 delegates from 64 countries (proceedings: For the Conservation of Earth). The whole affair appears to have been a hijack by David Rockefeller, in view of the appearance of himself with associates such as Strong and Brundtland, who had not attended previous Congresses.
There were a number of significant speeches:
- Gro Harlem Brundtlandspoke to the report ‘Our Common Future’ urging a merging of economy and ecology.
- Both Maurice Strong and Michael Sweatmanpresented papers calling for global conservation finance mechanisms(which eventually led to the $1.1 billion Global Environment Facility, founded in 1992).
- Irving Mintzer (with no relevant qualifications and currently chief strategist with the Potomac energy fund) presented ‘Global Climate Change and Its Effects on Wildlands‘, claiming ‘If current trends continue, the rate of global warming over the next 50 years will exceed that of the last 10,000 years’.
- David Rockefeller spoke on ‘The Need for Partnership’. His purpose, however, was to reiterate important points made elsewhere: the role of carbon dioxide, the need for a World Conservation Bank and the importance of making environmental concerns integral to any economic discussion and vice-versa.
According to George Hunt, Edmund de Rothschild spent six days at the conference although his name does not appear in the proceedings – . Hunt recorded Rothschild speaking about the conservation banking programme (video, from 2:00) -(de Rothschild was a founder member of the Wilderness Foundation and had been involved in previous Congresses).
Hunt discusses here the implications of the Conservation Banking Programme, later reincarnated as the Global Environment Facility.
- Interviewer: ‘But what’s really happened is that the Brazilians will have given up title to millions of acres of land and in exchange the Chase Manhattan will get its loan to Brazil paid off by the WCB.’
- Hunt: ‘You got it’
See also How Edmund de Rothschild Managed to Let 179 Governments Pay Him for Grasping Up to 30% of the Earth
1991 CoR publishes the First Global Revolution. According to the CoR website, it offers ‘both a warning and an approach to a possible solution to world problems’. Topics include ‘containment of global warming: the need to reduce global emissions of carbon dioxide, to encourage reforestation, to conserve traditional forms of energy and develop alternatives’. It also has the following revealing quote:
“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. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples.” (Alexander King & Bertrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution p. 115)
1991 April Prince Charles hosts a two day conference on board the Britannia, with in attendance Al Gore, Maurice Strong, senior officials from the World Bank, chief executives from companies such as Shell and British Petroleum, the key NGOs, and other officials. According to what Joan Veon learned from Maurice Strong, Charles’s goal ‘was to bring together key international figures in an attempt to achieve a degree of harmony between the various countries that would happen at the Rio Earth Summit to be held the next year’ ‘Sustainable Development, Agenda 21 and Prince Charles).
The apex of Maurice Strong’s career was the UNCED Conference at Rio. First, however, let us roll back to 1976, to Habitat 1
1976 The First UN Conference on Human Settlements and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat I) was held in Vancouver, Canada, 31 May to 11 June . The Conference organising body ‘drew on the resources of’ amongst others, United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). A separate ‘forum’ for NGOS and ‘ordinary citizens’ was held in conjunction.
The Conference is notable in two ways. Firstly the emphasis in the two conference documents, the report and the Vancouver Declaration on Human Settlements (the latter available for signature), on such issues as urbanisation and how to facilitate it, the problem of population growth, and above all the undesirability of private ownership. The most quoted passage from Habitat 1 concerns private ownership of and public control of land.
Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. […] Public control of land use is therefore indispensable to its protection as an asset and the achievement of the long-term objectives of human settlement policies and strategies.
This view is reflected in the Vancouver Declaration:
Land is one of the fundamental elements in human settlements. Every State has the right to take the necessary steps to maintain under public control the use, possession, disposal and reservation of land.
The conference is also memorable for the choice of poster, which gives an indication of what globalists have in mind for the masses.
The Rockefeller foundation funds UN Habitat on an ongoing basis.
1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (aka Earth Summit 2, UNCED, or simply ‘Rio’), Rio de Janeiro
‘The Earth Summit was a landmark in the career of Maurice Strong.’ (UNEP, Maurice Strong’s 85th birthday)
No previous UN conference had ever received such planning and promotion. Maurice Strong was named to head the conference, which was dubbed “Earth Summit II.” He had chaired the first “Earth Summit” in 1972 and had participated in every environmental commission and conference since. (Strong became Chairman of the Board of WRI in 1994). […]
The NGO community, coordinated through the IUCN and the WRI publication Networking, used the igc.apc.org computer networks extensively to funnel information to and from the UNCED agenda planners, and to plan the NGO Forum. UNCED provided an opportunity for the NGOs to perfect the lobbying process. With the blessings of and assistance from the UNEP, the NGOs scheduled a “Forum” the week immediately preceding the official conference.
Nearly 8,000 NGOs were officially certified to participate in the UNCED Forum, and another 4,000 NGOs were observers, swelling the total attendance at UNCED to more than 40,000 people — the largest environmental gathering the world has ever known. UNCED may be recorded in history as the most significant event the world has ever known; it was the watershed event that began the final march to global governance.
(Henry Lamb, ‘Global Governance: The Final March’)
To guide the agenda for the conference, UNEP and its NGO partners published two major documents, Caring for the Earth, and Global Biodiversity Strategy (Lamb). The Summit resulted in the following documents, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Agenda 21, andForest Principles, and opened for signature the following legally binding agreements (Rio Convention): Convention on Biological Diversity, Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC). United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. (Wikipedia)
In order to ensure compliance to the agreements at Rio (particularly the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and Agenda 21), delegates to the Earth Summit established the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). […] Green Cross International was founded to build upon the work of the Summit. (Wikipedia)
Green Cross International was founded by Club of Rome stalwart and dedicated globalist Mikhail Gorbachev.
Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment (Sustainable Development Goals )
Or to put it another way:
It’s all happy, feely, smiling faces and rhetoric about “how we care”, when the truth is that Agenda 21 is a vicious, brutal, heartless strategy to impose a global Orwellian state and forcibly depopulate humanity. (Agenda 21: the Plan for a Global, Fascist Dictatorship) .
Agenda 21 addresses every aspect of modern life:
- Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management
- Energy and Housing
- Public Health
- Resources and recycling
- Transportation, Sustainable Economic Development
Like all similar UN documents, it is full of positive values that nobody seriously disagrees with in principle, such as care of the environment, or adequate housing for all. Implicit in the document, however, is an assumption of greater control over every aspect of life. For example, from A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 – United Nations Program of Action:
Any movement of population that takes place will be highly controlled, and directed, by government regulations. These so-called population policies, and programs, encouraged by the United Nations, will be used “to bring about demographic transition”(Ch. 5, Sec. 16), as it is referred to in Agenda 21, to reflect more of what the planners have envisioned.
The agenda plans to “expand areas under forest and tree cover,” (Ch. 11, Sec. 12-a) by forcing people out of their quiet rural homes, and into crowded cities: “As appropriate, they should also concentrate on activities aimed at facilitating the transition from rural to urban lifestyles and settlement patterns” (Ch. 7, Sec. 19)
This forced changed will be brought about by causing an increase in the cost of water, sanitation, and other essentials, to higher income neighborhoods, thus making it too expensive to live in these areas: ‘Reducing subsidies on, and recovering the full costs of, environmental and other services of high standard (e.g. water supply, sanitation, waste collection, roads, telecommunications) provided to higher income neighbourhoods;” (Ch. 7, Sec. 16-ci)
People will be forced into, what the Agenda refers to as, “human settlement” areas, which will help transition these populations to new living areas, where your “resource needs, waste production, and ecosystem health” will be controlled by government: “In formulating human settlements policies, account should be taken of resource needs, waste production and ecosystem health.” (Ch. 5, Sec. 29)
The eventual goal of this forced population movement into human settlement areas is to get rid of private property, and have all land accessible, and owned, collectively, by the community: “ensure access to land to all households and, where appropriate, the encouragement of communally and collectively owned and managed land.” (Ch. 7, Sec. 28)
How It Works
Agenda 21, the documents provided to the Summit, and the agreements that arise from the Summit, are dominated by two assumed, overriding and non-negotiable values, the two prongs of the environmentalist strategy – debate of the first never arises, and of the second is never permitted:
- The concept of biodiversity has to take precedence over other rights, even of human life;
- The non-negotiability of the Rockefeller catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative.
There are a number of recurring themes:
- States are constantly reminded of their right and duty to control all land
- No opportunity is lost to expand the numbers and powers of the UN bureacracy and the role of non-government organisations.
The two prongs of climatism, the carbon scare and the biodiversity mandate, each facilitate the movement of people away from the countryside or the coast into high density cities, which is conducive to depopulation and to loss of private ownership.
Agenda 21 is referred to less and less, having acquired negative connotations – instead terms like sustainability, resilience, biodiversity, smart growth are prevalent, see Strzelczyk, Rothschild, UN Agenda 21 – Coming to a Neighborhood near You.
‘Undoubtedly, residents of any town, county, or city in the United States that treasure their freedom, liberty, and property rights couldn’t care less whether it’s called Agenda 21 or smart growth. A recent example of this can be found in Carroll County, Maryland, where a smart growth plan called Pathways was drafted by the County Planning Department. The plan, if enacted, proposed a breathtaking reshuffling of land rights:
- Rezoning of thousands of acres of beautiful, low-density agricultural farmland and protected residential conservation land into office parks
- Down-zoning of agriculture land to prevent future subdivision by farmers
- Up-zoning of low-density residential land around small towns into higher density zoning to permit construction of hundreds or possibly thousands of inclusive housing units, including apartments and condominiums
- Inclusive housing with placement of multi-family construction on in-fill lots within existing residential single family communities
- Endorsement of government-sponsored housing initiatives (subsidies) to ensure healtheir, balanced neighbourhoods.’ (Strzelczyk, Rothschild)
Maurice Strong and David Rockefeller worked hard to ensure that the proposals of Rio would be put into practice. Strong was active on a very large number of global bodies concerned with environment or development (which is always about the environment).
‘Mr. Strong continued to take a leading role in implementing the results of Rio through the establishment of The Earth Council, the Earth Charter movement, his chairmanship of The World Resources Institute, his membership on the Board of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, The Stockholm Environment Institute, [etc, etc, etc …] He has also served as Senior Advisor to the Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio +20).’ (UN Press Release)
Meanwhile David Rockefeller created and funded a myriad of NGOs, all dedicated to pushing pushing the same messages of sustainability, diversity, resilience, very many work to ensure compliance at a local level, such as ICLEI or the Rockefeller founded 100 Resilient Cities – ‘think global, act local’ is the UN refrain. The Rockefeller foundations continue to fund UN institutions and conferences, academic institutions. and of course political movements. According to Inside Philanthropy: ‘Rockefeller’s climate change grants tend to amount to $10 million to $30 million annually, on average’. All in all, the sums spent promoting the globalist narrative and agenda by the Rockefeller family alone must amount to billions, let alone the combined resources of the globalist elite – Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Turner, Gates, etc….
The megalomaniacs working towards a one-world government are contriving or relying on a number of factors:
- Moral blackmail: capitalising on the sense of responsibility humans feel towards the environment, other species, and their descendants, though whether we are supposed to be saving ourselves, or saving the planet from ourselves is unclear.
- Fear: the threats of rising seas and an earth turned into parched desert, though how effective this is is debatable.
- Ignorance about global warming: people avoid the global warming issue because they do not feel confident they will understand the science.
- Ignorance about the implications of signing up to Agenda 21, ‘biodiversity’, ‘sustainability’, ‘resilience’ and ‘smart growth’ for quality of life .
- Apathy: the effects of Agenda 21 are felt locally, and in New Zealand at least there is considerable apathy when it comes to local politics.
- Agenda 21 will affect rural, provincial and coastal dwellers first and foremost, impact on residents of high density cities will be much slower.
- The enormous sums available to globalists to spend on corruption of media, academic institutions, politicians and the UN bureaucracy, and on creating NGOs which work for their agenda.
The Cecil Rhodes vision of global governance is well on track.
Alex Newman, New Report Exposes Rockefeller Dynasty’s Role in “Climate” Scam: ‘Basically, the Rockefeller clan is the head of the climate snake.’
The Political Agenda Behind the Man-Made Global Warming Movement: Investigates inter alia the roles of Maurice Strong and the Rothschild family. Includes a bibliography of criticism of the global warming narrative.
Jamie Spry, Draconian UN Climate Agenda Exposed: ‘Global Warming Fears Are A Tool For Political and Economic Change…It Has Nothing To Do With The Actual Climate’. Spry points to Maurice Strong rather than David Rockefeller as originator of the global warming hoax.
The Invisible Critic, ‘Remember the Ice Age Scare’, video ‘The moral of the story is this: If the ice age scare of the 70s was bullshit then, then the global warming scare of today and the 40 subsequent years is bullshit now’ (6:35).
Dr Eric T Karlstrom, Is Man-made Climate Change a Hoax and a Scam?
Top NZ Scientist Describes “Global Warming” as Pseudo-Science Since the IPCC report came out in 2007, many of New Zealand’s top scientist have worked to expose the global warming narrative as junk science and a hoax (some 60 listed in 10,000 International Scientists). David Kear, former Director-General of New Zealand’s Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR), was one of them.
Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., CO2: The Greatest Scientific
Scandal of Our Time , 2007 (pdf). Jawaroski tackles the claims of the IPCC Report of 2007 and explains the science relating to CO2
Piers Corbyn on latest IPCC report on climate change; also on dubious environmental initiatives such as the destruction of North American forests to make biomass wood pellets:
Agenda 21 – In one easy lesson
Windows on the World has produced a number of broadcasts on how Agenda 21 is being implemented, especially at a local level (which is where most happens).
AGENDA 21 IS FULL-SPECTRUM DOMINATION BY THE 1%.
Nothing has been left out.
- It guarantees both birth control and death control.
- It promises the basic essentials of life in return for submission.
- It exchanges critical thinking for re-education and brainwashing.
- It destroys the epicenter of the family, society, and culture, allowing only one way to live. It groups the population into small contained areas to be more easily controlled.
- It takes away from some to give to others who will be more easily managed by the promise of a full belly and a warm shelter.
It’s a parasitical representation of the 1%, feeding on the 99.
And it’s only going to get worse. (Daisy Luther) Daisy Luther