United Nations, John Key's New Zealand Cycle Way And Fascist Globalist Government In New Zealand - Agenda 21
The vast majority of New Zealanders and the world in general are so distracted by day to day busy-ness, reality television and sports that most are oblivious to the socialism creeping in at the local level through Agenda 21.
"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. "
- excerpt, UN Agenda 21
New Zealanders need to know that although the information presented and documents revealed are mostly originating from the United States, this is a GLOBAL plan that is already starting to be implemented here in NZ. Hamilton City has been chosen as an experimental model city for the Agenda 21 program. RushFM.com
New Zealand is officially an Agenda 21 “country”, and also evidenced by the random push towards national cycle ways which in fact make sense under the requirements of Agenda 21 in moving people away from using cars.
For an excellent and relatively brief overview of the impacts of Agenda 21 for you and some key signs of it's implementation that you will recognise yourself once you are aware of them - listen to this interivew with Rosa Koire who is an international expert on Agenda 21.
The New Zealand Cycle Trail concept sounds like a great and innocent idea and in principle it is. But when you understand where the real reasoning behind it comes from it takes on a rather different tone. It is nothing more than a cover story for part of Agenda 21.
DO your own research. You might want to start with a search engine search for: "new zealand " "agenda 21"
The New Zealand Cycle Trail is just one example of where Agenda 21 has popped up under the guise of something which appears quite positive and benign – although a little random and out of left field.
Honestly – How did an employment brainstorming conference really come up with a national cycle way as a job growth strategy?
The History and Origins of Agenda 21
Agenda 21 was the main outcome of the United Nation's Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Agenda 21 outlines, in detail, the UN's vision for a centrally managed global society. This contract binds governments around the world to the United Nation's plan for controlling the way we live, eat, learn, move and communicate - all under the noble banner of saving the earth. If fully implemented, Agenda 21 would have the government involved in every aspect of life of every human on earth.
Interestingly, in April 1991, fourteen months before Earth Summit, Prince Charles held a private two day international conference aboard the royal yacht Britannia, moored off the coast of Brazil.
His goal was to bring together key international figures in an attempt to achieve a degree of harmony between the various countries that would gather at the Summit . Al Gore was present, along with senior officials from the United Nations and the World Bank.
At the summit 179 nations officially signed Agenda 21 and many more have followed since. Nearly 12,000 local and federal authorities have legally committed themselves to the Agenda. In practice this means that all their plans and policies must begin with an assessment of how the plan or policy meets the requirements of Agenda 21, and no plans or policies are allowed to contradict any part of the Agenda.
Local authorities are audited by UN inspectors and the results of the audits are placed on the UN website. You can see how many local authorities in your country were bound by Agenda 21 in 2001 here. The number has increased significantly since then.
It is easy to overlook local government since people are saturated with too much information in the internet age. Compounding this is the fact that Agenda 21 is a dull topic, and it becomes understandable how it has been able to fly mostly under the radar since 1992, slowly working its way into our cities and counties.
Agenda 21, which reportedly means an agenda for the 21st century, is a United Nations program launched in 1992 for the vague purpose of achieving global "sustainable development."
(Interestingly, the United States Congress never approved Agenda 21, although Presidents Obama, Clinton and George H.W. Bush have all signed Executive Orders implementing it. 178 other world leaders agreed to it in 1992 at the Rio Summit.
Since then, the U.N. has mostly bypassed national governments, using Agenda 21's International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (“ICLEI”) to make agreements directly with local governments. ICLEI's U.S. presence has grown to include agreements with over 600 cities, towns and counties here, which are now copying the land use plans prescribed in Agenda 21.)
“Some conservatives are trying to attract attention to Agenda 21 by labelling it a secret conspiracy to create a one world government. While that will wake some people up, it will turn off others. It does not matter whether it is a conspiracy or not. There are people on the left side of the political spectrum - who may even believe they have good intentions - working together to spread their vision for society worldwide.
Whether they meet in dark rooms or openly in public meetings is irrelevant; they are having great success convincing local governments in the U.S. to adopt their socialist and extreme environmentalist programs under the guise of feel-good buzz words. Left wing billionaire George Soros's Open Society has provided $2,147,415 to ICLEI. Van Jones' Green for All and the Tides Foundations' Apollo Alliance are also reportedly ICLEI contributors."
Agenda 21 ostensibly seeks to promote "sustainability" (the latest revisionist word for "environmentalism," since Americans have learned too many negative things about environmentalism). "Sustainability" is an amorphous concept that can be interpreted to an extreme degree that would regulate and restrict many parts of our lives.
When will the level of carbon emissions be low enough? How much must we reduce our consumption of fossil fuels? Preserving the environment is a dubious science, and what steps are really necessary to protect the environment are anyone's guess.
Agenda 21 promotes European socialist goals that will erode our freedoms and liberties. Most of its vague, lofty sounding phrases cause the average person's eyes to glaze over, making it easier to sneak into our communities. The environmentalist goals include atmospheric protection, combating pollution, protecting fragile environments, and conserving biological diversity.
Agenda 21 goes well beyond environmentalism. Other broad goals include combating poverty, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, and reducing private property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership, and privately owned farms. It seeks to cram people into small livable areas and institute population control. There is a plan for “social justice” that will redistribute wealth.
In the process of implementing Sustainable Development;
You will be required to surrender your individual rights.
Must give up all private ownership of land.
The ‘environment' will be used simply as the means to promote a political agenda.
Restructuring of governmental systems of the world's nations so that all the people of the world will be the subjects of a global collective.
Powerful behaviour control techniques and peer pressure used to make developing children question their individual worth and values, designed to disrupt parental oversight in the upbringing of their children.
Control of our food and water as well as natural seeds to grow our own food.
Once these vague, overly broad goals are adopted, they are being interpreted to allow massive amounts of new, overreaching regulations. Joyce Morrison from Eco-logic Powerhouse says Agenda 21 is so broad it will affect the way we "live, eat, learn and communicate."
Berit Kjos, author of Brave New Schools, warns that Agenda 21 -
“Regulation would severely limit water, electricity, and transportation - even deny human access to our most treasured wilderness areas, it would monitor all lands and people.
No one would be free from the watchful eye of the new global tracking and information system.
" Even one of the authors of Agenda 21 has admitted that it "…calls for specific changes in the activities of all people…"
These steps are already being enacted little by little at the local levels.
Since the U.S. is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and uses more energy than any other country, it stands to lose the most from environmental regulations. The goal of "sustainability," which comes down to using government to heavy-handedly accomplish vague goals of caring for the earth, goes contrary to our free market capitalism.
Even more unfair, struggling third world countries and communist countries that cannot financially afford to comply with the onerous environmental regulations will continue their high levels of fossil fuel consumption, and the U.S. will be forced by U.N. regulators to conserve even more to make up for those countries.
Obama signed Executive Order 13575 earlier this month, establishing a "White House Rural Council" prescribed by Agenda 21. The amount of government Obama has directed to administer this is staggering. Obama committed thousands of federal employees in 25 federal agencies to promote sustainability in rural areas, completely bypassing Congressional approval. Some of these agencies are unrelated to rural areas.
The agencies will entice local communities into adopting Agenda 21 programs by providing them millions of dollars in grants. Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh writing for Canada Free Press analysed the order and wrote, "it establishes unchecked federal control into rural America in education, food supply, land use, water use, recreation, property, energy, and the lives of 16% of the U.S. population."
It will be difficult to defeat Agenda 21 because it requires changing the attitudes of over 600 separate localities across the U.S. Ideally, a conservative president could roll back the executive orders implementing it, but considering Republican President H.W. Bush was a disappointment in this area that may be too much to hope for.
If Republicans take over Congress they could challenge the huge power grab Obama made with Executive Order 13575 and ban Agenda 21 in the U.S. For now, local activists must champion this issue, much like Texans for Accountable Government has done , educating local boards and commissions and serving on them. Agenda 21 is a tedious and overwhelming topic, and until it can be explained in an easy-to-understand way that interests the average American, it will be tough to beat back.
Agenda 21: Awareness And Activism + UN 2030 Agenda Decoded: Blueprint For The Global Enslavement Of Humanity Under Corporate Masters From: AmericanPolicyCenter / NaturalNews / Various
Sustainable Development: The Transformation of the Western World
Some think that the planet is in danger of global warming and over consumption. They really believe that the only way to fix the problem is to control the flow of resources and wealth, which literally means changing human civilization and the way we live.
The problem is, that requires a forced transformation of our entire society to comply, and that ultimately leads to a thirst for power and topdown control – that will eventually lead to tyranny.
In his book, Earth in the Balance, Al Gore warned that a “wrenching transformation” must take place to lead Western countries away from the “horrors of the Industrial Revolution.”
Click on the image above to open a larger version in a new window
The process to do that is called Sustainable Development and its’ roots can be traced back to a UN policy document called Agenda 21, adopted at the UN’s Earth Summit in 1992.
Sustainable Development calls for changing the very infrastructure of the nation, away from private ownership and control of property to nothing short of central planning of the entire economy – often referred to as top-down control.
Where and when did the term Sustainable Development originate?
The term “sustainable development” was born in the pages of “Our Common Future,” the official report of the 1987 United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Vice President
of the World Socialist Party.
For the first time the environment was tied to the tried and true Socialist goals of international redistribution of wealth. Said the report;
“Poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems. It is therefore futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality.”
The term appeared in full force in 1992, in a United Nations initiative called the U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda 21, or as it has become known around the world, simply Agenda 21. It was unveiled at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), ballyhooed as the Earth Summit.
In fact, the Earth Summit was one of the provisions called for in the Brundtland report as a means of implementing Sustainable Development around the world. More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy. President George H.W. Bush was the signatory for the United States.
What is Sustainable Development?
The 1989 Webster’s Dictionary defines “Sustainable Yield” as a requirement that trees cut down in a forest area be replaced by new plantings to ensure future lumber supplies.” That’s what most people think Sustainable Development means.
Proponents of Sustainable Development argue that it is about preserving resources for future generations. What’s wrong with that? Nothing in theory.
That would be sustainable with a small “s.” Just common sense usage of natural resources. The problem is, major forces now promoting it intend for Sustainable Development to be spelled with a capital “S.” They intend for a Socio-economic political movement that probes, invades and changes every aspect of human civilization.
And that’s the problem.
Imagine a world in which a specific “ruling principle” is created to decide proper societal conduct for every citizen.
That principle would be used to consider regulations guiding everything you eat, the kind of home you are allowed to live in, the method of transportation you use to get to work, what kind of work you may have, the way you dispose of waste, perhaps even the number of children you may have, as well as the quality and amount of education your children may receive.
Sustainable development encompasses every aspect of our lives.
According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social, and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity.
Top Sustainability Fallacies:
Lie: Sustainability is about protecting the environment
Reality: It is a political movement to replace capitalism with governement control of everything
Lie: Free market capitalism is the principle cause of planetary degradation and is not sustainable
Reality: It is government control of the economy that is not sustainable
Lie: Private property is a source of social injustice, and too valuable to be subject to free markets
Reality: The right to own and use private property is a fundamental source of wealth creation
Lie: Green energy creates jobs
Reality: Green energy is unreliable, uncompetitive and renders industry unable to compete in world parkets
Lie: C02 is a pollutant
Reality: C02 is the gas that all plants and crops breathe. More C02 = better agricultural production
Lie: The sustainability movement isn't trying to take away anyone's property rights or freedoms
Reality: The sustainability movement is relentlessly attacking property rights and freedoms
Lie: Climate change is catastrophic and anthropogenic and must be addressed through C02 abatement schemes
Reality:Man made climate change is a hoax with numerous provable data points and thousands of scientists going on the record - which is ignored by the cabal-controlled mainstream media
Lie: Compact development reduces pollution
Reality:Reality: Dense development is always correlated with intense pollution levels
Lie: Subways and mass transit can replace cars
Reality: They cannot. If they could there would be no cars in Manhattan
Lie: Compact urban development is more affordable for government
Reality: Empirical evidence proves compace development requires higher tax rates. Urbanisation strains police, fire, educational and social services
Lie: Afforable housing for people of all income levels will ensure healthier better balanced neighbourhoods
Reality: Low income housing usually creates more problems than it solves thereby damaging communities
The Sustainablists insist that society be transformed into feudal-like governance by making Nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society, not human need or wants.
This idea essentially elevates nature above Humans [we are all on this planet, their premise is bullshit]. As such, every societal decision would first be questioned as to how it might effect the environment.
To achieve this, Sustainablist policy focuses on three components; land use, education, and population control and population reduction.
Here is a direct quote from the report of the 1976 UN’s Habitat I conference which said:
“Land... cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributes to social injustice.”
Some officials claim that Sustainable Development is just a local effort to protect the environment and contain development -- just your local leaders putting together a local vision for the community.
Yet, the exact language and tactics for implementation of Sustainable Development are being used in nearly every city around the globe from Lewiston, Maine to Singapore.
In short, Sustainable Development is the process by which the world is being reorganized around a central principle of state collectivism using the environment as bait.
One of the best ways to understand what Sustainable Development actually is can be found by discovering what is NOT sustainable.
According to the UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report, items for our everyday lives that are NOT sustainable include:
Grazing of livestock
Plowing of soil
Single family homes
Paved and tarred roads
Dams and reservoirs
Power line construction
Economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment (capitalism, free markets).
Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Rio Earth Summit in 1992 said;
“… Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work airconditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”
This goal is exactly the policies that are written into such legislation as Cap and Trade, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act.
It is also the policy behind the many corporate commercials seen nightly on television which advocate “Going Green".
They are all part of the efforts to modify consumer behavior to accept less, deal with higher energy prices, restrict water use and place severe limitations on use of private property – all under the environmental excuse.
And one of the most destructive tools used to enforce Sustainable Development policy is something called the “precautionary principle.”
That means that any activities that might threaten human health or the environment should be stopped - even if no clear cause and effect relationship has been established - and even if the potential threat is largely theoretical.
That makes it easy for any activist group to issue concerns or warnings by news release or questionable report against and industry or private activity, and have those warnings quickly turned into public policy – just in case.
Many are now finding non-elected regional governments and governing councils enforcing policy and regulations.
As these policies are implemented, locallyelected officials are actually losing their own power and decision-making ability in their elected offices. More and more decisions are now being made behind the scenes in non-elected “sustainability councils” armed with truckloads of federal regulations, guidelines, and grant money.
According to its authors, the objective of Sustainable Development is to integrate economic, social, and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity.
The Sustainable Development logo used in most literature on the subject contains three connecting circles labeled along the lines of Social Equity; Economic Prosperity; and Ecological Integrity (known commonly as the 3 E's).
Sustainable Development’s Social Equity plank is based on a demand for “social justice.” Social Justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.”
According to Sustainablist doctrine, it is a social injustice for some to have prosperity if others do not. It is a social injustice to keep our borders closed.
It is a social injustice for some to be bosses and others to be merely workers. Social justice is a major premise of Sustainable Development.
Another word for social justice is Socialism or Marxism. Karl Marx was the first to coin the phrase “social justice.”
Most recently the theory of social justice has been used to justify government takeover of health care. Today, the phrase is used throughout Sustainablist literature.
The Sustainablist system is based on the principle that individuals must give up selfish wants for the needs of the common good, or the “community.”
This is the same policy behind the push to eliminate our nation’s borders to allow the “migration” of those from other nations into the United States to share our individually-created wealth and our taxpayers-paid government social programs.
Say the Sustainablists, “Justice and efficiency go hand in hand.” “Borders,” they say, “are unjust.”
Under the Sustainablist system, private property is an evil that is used simply to create wealth for a few. So too, is business ownership. Instead, “every worker / person will be a direct capital owner.”
Property and businesses are to be kept in the name of the owner, keeping them responsible for taxes and other expenses, however control is in the hands of the “community” (government).
Under Sustainable Development individual human wants, needs, and desires are to be conformed to the views and dictates of social planners.
Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chair of the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) said:
“Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective” in the process of implementing Sustainable Development.
Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based on one overriding premise: That the wealth of the world was made at the expense of the poor.
It dictates that, if the conditions of the poor are to be improved, wealth must first be taken from the rich.
[But this mandate does not apply to not the "elite" of course].
Consequently, Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based, not on private enterprise, but on public / private partnerships.
In the free-market of the past, most businesses were started by individuals who saw a need for a product or service and they set out to fill it. Some businesses prospered to become huge corporations, some remained small “mom and pop” shops, others failed and dissolved.
Most business owners were happy to be left alone to take their chances to run their businesses on their own, not encumbered by a multiplicity of government regulations.
If they failed, most found a way to try again. In the beginning of the American Republic, government’s main involvement was to guarantee they had the opportunity to try.
In order to give themselves an advantage over competition, some businesses -- particularly large corporations – now find a great advantage in dealing directly with government, actively lobbying for legislation that will inundate smaller companies with regulations that they cannot possibly comply with or even keep up with.
This government / big corporation back-scratching has always been a dangerous practice because economic power should be a positive check on government power, and vise versa. If the two should ever become combined, control of such massive power can lead only to tyranny.
One of the best examples of this was the Italian model in the first half of the Twentieth Century under Mussolini’s Fascism.
Together, select business leaders who have agreed to help government impose Sustainablist green positions in their business policies, and officials at all levels of government are indeed merging the power of the economy with the force of
government in Public / Private Partnerships on the local, state and federal levels.
As a result, Sustainable Development policy is redefining free trade to mean centralized global trade “freely” crossing (or eliminating) national borders.
It definitely does not mean people and companies trading freely with each other. Its real effect is to redistribute manufacturing, wealth, and jobs out of our borders and to lock away natural resources.
After the regulations have been put in place, literally destroying whole industries, new “green” industries created with federal grants bring newfound wealth to the “partners.” This is what Sustainablists refer to as economic prosperity.
The Sustainable Development “partnerships” include some corporations both domestic and multination. They in turn are partnered with the politicians who use their legislative and administrative powers to raid the treasury to fund and enforce the scheme.
Of course, as the chosen corporations, which become a new elite, stamp out the need for competition through government power, the real loser is the consumers who no longer count in market decisions. Government grants are now being used by industry to create mandated green products like wind and solar power.
Products are put on the market at little risk to the industry, leaving consumers a more limited selection from which to choose. True free markets are eliminated in favor of controlled economies which dictate the availability and quality of products.
“Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual and material) where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living creatures are considered equal.
Therefore the natural way is the right way and human activities should be molded along nature’s rhythms.” from the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty presented at the 1992 UN Earth Summit.
This quote lays down the ground rules for the entire Sustainable Development agenda.
It says humans are nothing special – just one strand in the nature of things or, put another way, humans are simply biological resources.
Funny that, the Cabal see us as "Human Resources" also. What a coincidence...
Sustainablist policy is to oversee any issue in which man interacts with nature – which, of course, is literally everything.
And because the environment always comes first, there must be great restrictions over private property ownership and control.
This is necessary, Sustainablists say, because humans only defile nature. Under Sustainable Development there can be no concern over individual rights.
Individual human wants, needs, and desires are conformed to the views and dictates of social planners.
The UN’s Commission on Global Governance said in its 1995 report:
“Human activity… combined with unprecedented increases in human numbers… are impinging on the planet’s basic life support system.
Action must be taken now to control the human activities that produce these risks.”
Under Sustainable Development, limited government, as advocated by our Founding Fathers, is impossible because, we are told, the real or perceived environmental crisis is too great.
Only government can be trusted to respond. Maurice Strong, Chairman of the 1992 UN Earth Summit said:
“A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally-damaging consumption patterns. The shift will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.”
The politically based environmental movement provides Sustainablists camouflage as they work to transform systems of government, justice, and economics.
It is a masterful mixture of socialism (with its top down control of the tools of the economy) and fascism (where property is owned in name only – with no individual owner control).
Sustainable Development is the worst of both the left and the right. It is not liberal, nor is it conservative.
It is a new kind of tyranny that, if not stopped, will surely lead us to a new Dark Ages of pain and misery yet unknown to mankind.
UN Report: Habitat I Conference:
"Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market.
Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributers to social injustice."
Six months after his inauguration, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order #12852 which created the President’s Council On Sustainable Development (PCSD) on June 29 1993.
The Council’s Membership included:
Twelve Cabinet-level Federal Officials
Jonathan Lash, Pres. World Resources Institute
John Adams, Ex. Dir. National Resources Defense Council
Dianne Dillon-Ridgley, Pres. Zero Population
Michelle Perrault, International V.P., Sierra Club
John C. Sawhill, Pres. The Nature Conservancy
Jay D. Hair, Pres. World Conservation Union (IUCN)
Kenneth L. Lay, CEO, Enon Corporation
William D. Ruckelshaus, Chm., Browning-Ferris Industries & former EPA Administrator
Some of these members were representatives of the same groups which helped write Agenda 21 at the UN level, now openly serving on the President’s Council to create policy for the implementation of Sustainable Development at the federal level.
With great fanfare the Council issued a comprehensive report containing all the guidelines on how our government was to be reinvented under sustainable development.
Those guidelines were created to direct policy for every single federal agency, state government and local community government. Their purpose was to translate the recommendations set forth in Agenda 21 into public policy administered by the federal government.
They created the American version of Agenda 21 called “Sustainable America - A New Consensus”.
The Four Part Process Leading to Sustainable Development
So how is this “wrenching transformation” being put into place? There are four very specific routes being used. In the rural areas it’s called the “Wildlands Project.”
In the cities it’s called “Smart Growth.” In business it’s called “Public / Private Partnerships.” And in government it’s called “Stakeholder Councils.”
The Wildlands Project
"WE MUST MAKE THIS PLACE AN INSECURE AND INHOSPITABLE PLACEFOR CAPITALISTS AND THEIR PROJECTS... WE MUST RELCAIM THEROADS AND PLOWED LANDS, HALT DAM CONSTRUCTION, TEAR DOWNEXISTING DAMS, FREE SHACKLED RIVERS AND RETURN TO WILDERNESSMILLIONS OF TENS OF MILLIONS OF ACRES OF PRESENTLY SETTLEDLAND.”
- Dave Foremen, Earth First.
The Wildlands Project was the brainchild of Earth First’s Dave Foreman and it literally calls for the “re-wilding” of 50% of all the land in every state – back to the way it was before Christopher Columbus set foot on this land.
It is a diabolical plan to herd humans off the rural lands and into human settlements. Crazy you say! Yes. Impossible? Not so fast. From Foreman, the plan became the blueprint for the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty and quickly became international in scope.
But how do you remove people from the land? One step at a time. Let’s begin with a biosphere reserve. A national park will do. A huge place where there is no human activity.
For example, Yellowstone National Park, devoid of human habitation can serve as its center. Then a buffer zone is established around the reserve.
Inside the buffer only limited human activity is allowed. Slowly, through strict regulations, that area is squeezed until human activity becomes impossible.
Once that is accomplished, the biosphere is extended to the former buffer zone borders – and then a new buffer zone is created around the now-larger biosphere and the process starts again. In that way, the Biosphere Reserve acts like a cancer cell, ever expanding, until all human activity is stopped.
And there are many tools in place to stop human activity and grow the reserve.
Push back livestock’s access to river banks on ranches, many times as much as 300. When the cattle can’t reach the stream, the rancher can’t water them -- he goes out of business. Lock away natural resources by creating national parks.
It shuts down the mines -- and they go out of business. Invent a Spotted Owl shortage and pretend it can’t live in a forest where timber is cut. Shut off the forest.
Then, when no trees are cut, there’s nothing to feed the mills and then there are no jobs, and -- they go out of business.
Locking away land cuts the tax base. Eventually the town dies. Keep it up and there is nothing to keep the people on the land – so they head to the cities. The wilderness grows – just like Dave Foreman planned.
It comes in many names and many programs. Heritage areas, land management,wolf and bear reintroduction, rails to trails, conservation easements,open space, and many more.
Each of these programs is designed to make it just a little harder to live on the land – a little more expensive – a little more hopeless, literally herding people off their land and into designated human habitat areas – cities.
In the West, where vast areas of open space make it easy to impose such polices there are several programs underway to remove humans from the land. Today, there are at least 31 Wildlands projects underway, locking away more than 40
percent of the nation’s land.
The Alaska Wildlands Project seeks to lock away and control almost the entire state.
In Washington State, Oregon, Idaho, Montana parts of North and South Dakota, parts of California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Wyoming, Texas, Utah, and more, there are at least 22 Wildlands Projects underway.
For example, one project called Yukon to Yellowstone (Y2Y) – creates a 2000 mile no-man’s land corridor from the Arctic to Yellowstone.
East of the Mississippi, there are at least nine Wildlands projects, covering Maine, Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, Ohio, Virginia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. Watch for names of Wildlands Projects like Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Appalachian Restoration Project and Piedmont Wildlands Project.
How Did We Get Here? J. Gary Lawrence - Bill Clinton's Advisor for Sustainable Development:
"Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many... right wing conspiracy groups... who would actively work to defeat any elected official... undertaking Local Agenda 21.
So we call our process something else, such as "Comprehensive Planning", "Growth Management", or "Smart Growth.""
The second path is called Smart Growth. The process essentially puts a line around a city, locking off any growth outside that line.
Such growth is disdainfully labeled “Urban Sprawl.” The plan then curtails the building of more roads to cut off access to the newly created rural area. Inside the circle, concerted efforts are made to discourage the use of cars in preference to public transportation, restricting mobility.
Because there is a restriction on space inside the controlled city limits, there is a created shortage of land and houses, so prices go up. That means populations will have to be controlled, because now there is no room to contain more people.
Cities are now passing “green” regulations, forcing homeowners to meet strict guidelines for making their homes environmentally compliant, using specific building materials, forcing roof replacements, demanding replacement of appliances, and more.
Those not in compliance will be fined and will not be able to sell their homes. There are now efforts underway to impose so-called “smart meters” which replace thermostats in homes.
Homeowners will not have control of such meters. Instead, the electric company will determine the necessary temperature inside each home.
Government agencies or local policy boards will be tasked with the responsibility to conduct an energy audit in each home to determine the steps necessary to bring the home into energy compliance. In Oakland, California, such restrictions will cost each homeowner an estimated $36,000.
The Cap N Trade bill contains a whole section on such restrictions for the nation, and most local communities are now busy creating development plans that encompass many of the same restrictions.
There is now a new push to control food production under the label of Sustainable Farming. Food sheds are now being advocated.
These are essentially government run farms located just outside the smart growth area circling the city.
Food is to be grown using strict guidelines which dictate what kinds of food is to be produced and the farming practices to be used.
These are essentially based on the blue print of Chinese Agrarian villages that cannot possibly grow enough food to feed the community unless populations are tightly controlled. True Sustainable farming programs discourage importing goods from outside the community.
A Red Agenda Marked With a Pretty Green Name: "Sustainability"
Agenda 21 spread like an INFECTION: UN Agenda 21 > ICLEI > NGO's > Central / Regional Planners
Planning associations provide sample ordinances based on ECLEI doctin that originated in UN Agenda 21
Municipal plans become manifestos
Stake Holder Councils
Inside the cities, government is increasingly controlled by an elite ruling class called stake holder councils. These are mostly Non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, which, like thieves in the night, converge on the community to stake their claim to enforce their own private agendas.
The function of legitimately – elected government within the system votes to create a system of boards, councils and even regional governments to handle every aspect of day-to-day operation of the community.
Once in place, the councils and boards basically replace the power of elected officials with non-elected, appointed rulers answerable to no one.
The councils are controlled by a small minority in the community, but they are all - powerful. They force citizens to seek permission (usually denied) for any changes to private property.
They use such excuses as historic preservation, water use restrictions, energy use, and open space restrictions. They will dictate that homeowners must use special “green” light bulbs and force stores to only use paper bags, for example.
They over-burden or even destroy business, creating stiff regulations on manufacturing and small business in the community. They may dictate the number of outlets a business may have in a community, not matter what the population
demands. For example, in San Francisco there can only be seven McDonalds.
They can dictate the kind of building materials owners can use in their private home – or whether one can build on their property at all.
Then, if they do grant a permit for building, they might not decide to let the property owner acquire water and electricity for the new home – and they may or may not give you a reason for being turned down.
As part of Sustainable health care, they may even dictate that you get the proper exercise – as determined by the government. Again, San Francisco has built a new federal building – the greenest ever built.
The elevators will only stop on every third floor so riders are forced to use stairs – for their own health, of course.
These councils fit almost perfectly the definition of a State Soviet: a system of councils that report to an apex council and then implement a predetermined outcome. Soviets are the operating mechanism of a government-controlled economy.
So Many Things Making So Little Sense: (US)
EPA drives industries overseas where the pollution increases
EPA embraces ethanol while blaming farming for pollution
Master plans across America overtly ignore property rights
Environmental nooses rob property rights and individual freedoms based on unsettled science, distorted statistics and exaggerated predictions
Focus on Social Equity eclipsing life-liberty property (Why?)
Municipal master plans have become manifestos
People in tears across America
Public / Private Partnerships
The fourth path to imposing Sustainable Development is Public/Private Partnerships (PPPs). Unfortunately, today, many Conservative / Libertarian organizations are presenting PPPs as free enterprise and a private answer for keeping taxes down by using business to make a better society.
There are certain areas where private business contracts to do jobs such as running school cafeterias through a competitive bid system. That type of arrangement certain does serve the tax payers and provides better services. That’s not how PPPs are used though Sustainable Development.
In truth, many PPPs are nothing more than government-sanctioned monopolies in which a few businesses are granted special favors like tax breaks, the power of eminent domain, non-compete clauses and specific guarantees for return on their investments.
That means they can fix prices, charge beyond what the market demands, and they can use the power of government to put competition out of business. That is not free enterprise. And it is these global corporations that are pushing the green agenda.
If you can stomach reading this horse shit, click on the image above
PPPs were the driving force behind the Trans Texas Corridor, using eminent domain to take more than 580,000 acres of private land - sanctioned by the partnership with the Texas government. And PPPs are taking over highways and local water treatment plants in communities across the nation.
PPPs in control of the water system can control water consumption – a major part of the Sustainable Development blueprint.
Fueled by federal grant programs through the EPA, the auto industry has produced and forced onto the market “green” cars that no one wants to buy, such as the Chevy Volt.
For its part of the partnership, government passed regulations that keep gas prices high to make them more inviting.
The federal government has entered into many partnerships with alternative energy companies in a move to force wind power and solar power on an uninterested public. Again, such industries only exist though the power and of government determined to enforce a certain political agenda. They would never survive in an honest free market.
Using government to ban its own product, General Electric is forcing the mercury- laden green light bulb, costing 5 times the price of incandescent bulbs. Such is the reality of green industry, which depends more on government subsidy and grants than on customers.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is the root of the “Free Trade” process and the fuel for PPPs between international corporations and government, thereby creating an “elite” class of “connected” businesses – or what Ayn Rand called “the power of pull.”
Success in the PPP world is not based on quality of product and service, but on who you know in high places.
To play ball in the PPP game means accepting the mantra of Sustainable Development and helping to implement it, even if it means going against your own product. That’s why Home Depot uses its commercials to oppose cutting down trees and British Petroleum advocates reducing the use of oil.
It is not free enterprise, but a Mussolini-type fascism of government and private industry organized in a near impenetrable force of power. And it’s all driven by the Agenda 21 blueprint of Sustainable Development.
ICLEI: Charter 1.7 - Principles
The Association shall promote, and ask its individual members to adopt, the following Earth Charter Principles to guide local action:
6. Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection and, when knowledge is limited, apply a precautionary approach.
7. Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safeguard Earth’s regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being. (Communitarianism with forced sterilization?)
(9) Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.
9. Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.
10. Ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promote human development in an equitable and sustainable manner.
11. Affirm gender equality and equity as prerequisites to sustainable development and ensure universal access to education, health care, and economic opportunity.
14. Integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life.
What Kinds of Groups Promote this in the U.S.A.?
Many people ask how dangerous international policies can suddenly turn up in state and local government, all seemingly uniform to those in communities across the nation and around the globe.
The answer – meet ICLEI, a non-profit, private foundation, dedicated to helping locally elected representatives fully implement Agenda 21 in the community.
Originally known as the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), today the group simply calls itself “ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability.”
In 1992, ICLEI was one of the groups instrumental in creating Agenda 21.
The group’s mission is to push local communities to transform the way governments operate, creating a “community plan,” creating a wide range of non-elected planning and councils which then impose severe regulations and oversight policies, affecting every homeowner, every business, every school; literally every aspect of the citizen’s lives.
And it’s having tremendous success.
Currently there are over 600 American cities in which ICLEI is being paid dues with tax dollars from city councils to implement and enforce Sustainable Development. ICLEI is there to assure that the mayors keep their promises and meet their goals. Climate change and the goal to cut the communities carbon footprint is, of course, the ICLEI mantra.
Here’s just some of the programs ICLEI provides cities and towns, in order to spread their own particular political agenda in the name of “community services” and environmental protection, they include:
Software programs to help set the goals for community development – which leads to controlling use of private property;
Access to a network of “Green” experts, newsletters, conferences and workshops – to assure all city employees are in the process;
Toolkits, online resources, case studies, fact sheets, policy and practice manuals, and blueprints used by other communities;
Training workshops for staff and elected officials on how to develop and implement the programs;
And, of course, there’s Notification of relevant grant opportunities – this is the important one – money – with severe strings attached.
ICLEI recommends that the community hire a full time “sustainability manager,” who, even in small towns, can devote 100% of his time to assure that every nook and corner of the government is on message and under control.
Using environmental protection as the excuse, these programs are about reinventing government with a specific political agenda. ICLEI and others are dedicated to transforming every community in the nation to the Agenda 21 blueprint.
In addition to ICLEI, groups like the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy and Audubon Society, NGOs which also helped write Sustainable Development policy have chapters in nearly every city. They know that Congress has written legislation providing grants for cities that implement Sustainablist policy. They agitate to get the cities to accept the grants.
If a city rejects the plan, they then agitate to the public, telling them that their elected representatives have cost the city millions in “their” tax dollars. In the end, through such tactics, the NGOs usually get their way.
The NGOs are joined in their efforts by professional planning groups and associations such as the American Planning Association (APA), The Renaissance Planning Group, and the International City/County Management association (ICMA). IN fact there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of non-profits, NGOs and planning groups living off the grant money, working to enforce Sustainable Development policy at every level of government.
The APA - Professional Planners [or Anti-Capitalist Political Advocacy?] APA embraces ICLEI Programmes(s)
1.1 "The built envoronment is a primary contributor to climate change" ...Business as usual will not suffice."
1.3 Social Equity and Climate CHange (&Environmental Justice)
2.4 #6: "Should reduce reliance on coal..."
2.4 #10: Growe food for local consumption(Starve the world?)
2.4 #14: Reduce VMT (Vehicle Miles Travelled)
2.4 #15: Cap & Trade for carbon ...needed.
Land Use #15: Create city-funded housing repair programs
Transportation #4: Increase CAFE standards
Here Are Just a Few to Watch For:
The American Planning Association (APA) is the nation’s leading enforcer of Sustainable policy. It came into being in 1978 and can be found in literally every community in the nation. It doesn’t have the same open ties to the UN as does
ICLEI, but is every bit as involved, if not more so.
The APA’s “Growing Smart Legislative Guide Book” is found in nearly every university, state and county in the country. It is the planning guide preferred by most urban and regional planners.
The American Planning Association is one of many members of the PCSD. They partner with ICLEI & ICMA in the implementation of sustainable development. ICMA, International City / County Management Association, is an organization
of professional local government leaders building sustainable communities worldwide.
Christchurch, New Zealand
ICMA provides technical and management assistance, training, and information resources in the areas of performance measurement, ethics education and training, community and economic development, environmental management, technology, and other topics to its members and the broader local government community.
They are aided in their efforts through such as the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, the National Association of County Administrators and several more groups that are supposed to
represent elected officials.
The Renaissance Planning Group is an urban planning firm. They played a critical role in Florida’s “Forever Program”. The Forever Program is Florida’s premier conservation and recreation lands acquisition program. Florida Forever is the
largest public land acquisition program of its kind in the United States.
With approximately 9.8 million acres of conservation land in Florida, more than 2.4 million acres were purchased under the Florida Forever and P2000 programs.
Propaganda from idiots for idiots
In 2007, the Virginia state legislature passed HB 3202 mandating that counties with the prescribed growth rate establish high density urban development areas. As a result, to date, 67 counties in the Commonwealth of Virginia are required to establish “urban development areas”.
The process and proposed land use planning that is being implemented, follows the very same policies called for in Agenda 21’s biodiversity plan. This requirement by the state forces local governments to compromise your private property through zoning measures called for in the Smart Growth program for sustainable development.
The American Farmland Trust (AFT) formed in 1980, works to acquire and control farmer development rights and the purchase of Agriculture Easements which drastically reduce, if not eliminate private ownership of the land.
"We believe planning should be a tool for allocating resources... and eliminating the great inequalities of wealth and power in our society... because the free market has proven incapable of doing this."
The Danger is in the “Process”
Sustainable policies are being sold universally to the public as a means to protect the environment and control growth. That is simply the excuse for the policies being implemented in its name.
The real problem is the “PROCESS” through which Sustainable Development is being forced on unsuspecting citizens.
The comprehensive land use plans are being steered by planning groups through manipulation by facilitated stakeholder consensus councils.
Though their meetings are “open” to the public, they are void of any public input.
The predetermined outcome severely restricts land use and compromises private property ownership in an already distressed market.
They answer to no one and they are run by zealots with their own political agenda imposing international laws and regulations.
Local homeowners have no say in the process and in most cases are shut out. Sometimes they are literally thrown out of council meetings because they want to discuss how a regulation is going to affect their property or livelihood.
Communities have dealt with local problems for 200 years. Some use zoning, some don’t. But locally elected town councils and commissioners, which meet and discuss problems with the citizens, are how this nation was built and prospered.
Today, under Sustainable Development, NGOs like ICLEI and the APA move in to establish non-elected boards, councils and regional government bodies.
Despite the Senate’s refusal to ratify the Biodiversity Treaty in 1994, the Agenda 21 policies called for by the convention, are being implemented nationwide. No matter where you live, rest assured Agenda 21 policies are being implemented in your community.
Proponents of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development attempt to ridicule those who oppose the programs as being paranoid radicals who are spreading conspiracy theories about what they call an “obscure 20 year old UN document.”
Yet, in 2012 the UN sponsored Rio+20, in which 50,000 delegates from around the world to celebrate Agenda 21 and find means to complete its implementation.
Sustainable Development is not about “saving the environment.” It is about a revolutionary coup. It is about establishing global governance and abandoning the principles of Natural Law on which America was founded.
The politically-based environmental movement provides Sustainablists camouflage as they work to transform global systems of government, justice, and economics.
It’s a masterful mixture of Socialism, (with its top-down control of the tools of the economy); fascism (where property is owned in name only – with no private control); and Corporatism, (where partnerships between government and private business create government sanctioned monopolies.)
Sustainable Development is the worst of both the left and the right. It is bad policy pushed by both liberal and conservatives.
It is a new kind of tyranny that, if not stopped, will surely lead all human kind to a new Dark Ages of pain and misery.
What has Sustainability Become? Unfortunately, the environmental movement has been hijacked as a convenient excuse to attack capitalism; blame America; transfer wealth; impinge on Constitutional rights; and install a government-run socio-economic system.
United Nations paradigm:Capitalism and private property rights are not sustainable, and pose the single greatest threat to the world's ecosystem and social equity.
How to Fight Back Against Sustainable Development
Be aware of the world in which your elected officials live.
See below: ICLEI doesn't come with flashing lights that say "ICLEI".
It comes wrapped in a plain green package labelled "Smart Growth" or "Sustainability":
You need to know who the players are and you need to understand the political world your officials are operating in.
This may help you to understand that perhaps they aren’t all evil globalists, but, perhaps, good people who are surrounded by powers that won’t let them see the reality of the policies they are helping to implement.
I’m certainly not making excuses for them, but before you rush in and start yelling about their enforcing UN policies on the community, here are some things you should consider.
In most communities, you mayor, city council members and county commissioners are automatically members of national organizations like the National Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, and the national associations for city council members, and the same for commissioners.
Those in the state government also have the National Governors Association and state legislators have their national organization.
For the past twenty years or more, each and every one of these national organizations have been promoting Sustainable
Development and related policies. The National Mayors Conference and the National Governors Association have been leaders in this agenda, many times working directly with UN organizations to promote the policy.
That is the message your local elected leaders hear; from the podium; from fellow officials from other communities; from “experts” they’ve been told to respect; in committee meetings; from dinner speakers; from literature they are given at such meetings.
They are told of legislation that will be soon be implemented, and they are even provided sample legislation to introduce in their communities.
Back home, they are surrounded by a horde of “stakeholder” groups, each promoting a piece of the agenda, be it policies for water control, energy control, development control, specific building materials control, historic preservation and control of “downtown” development, conservation easements and development rights for control of rural property.
These groups like ICLEI, the American Planning Association, the Renaissance Planning Group, and many more, are heavily involved with state and federal plans. They arrive in your community with blue prints, state and federal plans, grants and lots of contacts in high places.
There are official programs for “going Green,” Comprehensive land use plans, and lots of programs for the kids in the classrooms.
There is also a second horde involved in the Sustainablist invasion – state and federal agency officials including EPA agents; air and water quality agents; Interior Department officials, HUD officials, energy officials, Commerce Department officials, and on and on – all targeting your locally elected officials with policy, money, regulations, reports, special planning boards, meetings, and conferences, all promoting the exact same agenda.
And don’t forget the news media, both locally and nationally, also promoting the Sustainablist agenda, attacking anyone not going along, ready to quickly use the “extremist” label against them.
The message is clear - Sustainable Development is reality – politically correct, necessary, unquestionable, and it has “consensus.”
Is your head spinning yet? Think of the affect all of this has on a poor local official who just thought he would run for office and serve his community. This is his reality. This is what he thinks government is supposed to be because, after all, everyone he is dealing with says so.
Now, as he is surrounded by all of these important, powerful folks, along comes a local citizen who tells him that some guy named Tom DeWeese says all of these programs are from the UN and are taking away our liberty.
Who? He said what? Come on, I’m not doing that. And I don’t have time to talk about it. I have another meeting to go to.
If we are going to successfully fight Agenda 21, it is vitally important that we all recognize this reality as we plan to deal with it and defeat it. With that in mind, I offer the following ideas.
How to Fight Back
First and foremost, don’t try to fight alone. If you try to attend local meetings by yourself you will be ignored. You will need others to plan and implement strategy.
You have family and friends. Start with them. Ask them to help look into some local policies. Even if they start off skeptical about your concerns, it won’t take them long to see the truth.
Check out of there is a local tea party or even a local Republican group. Churches are a target of such policies. Alert people at your church and ask them to help fight back.
Find people to help you!
Research: Don’t even begin to open up a fight until you know certain details. First, who are the players in your community. What privately funded “stakeholder” groups are there? What is their agenda?
What other communities have they operated in? What projects? What results? Who are their members in your community?
Are they residents or did they come from “out of town?” (That could prove to be valuable information later in the fight). Finding this information may be the hardest of your efforts. They like to operate out of the spotlight.
It’s not likely that the town will carry official documentation of who it is working with. It probably will require that you attend lots of meetings and hearings. Take note of who is there and their role. Do this quietly. Don’t announce to the community what you are doing. Don’t make yourselves a target. You may have to ask questions and that may raise some eyebrows. But stay out of the way as much as possible.
Second, get all the details on the plans your community is working on. Has there already been legislation passed? Most of this information can be found on the town website. Knowing this information will help you put together a plan of action.
Once you have it, you can begin to take your fight public.
With the information you have gathered, begin to examine the effect the policies will have on the community and its residents. Find who the victims of the legislation or regulation may be. This will be of great value as you confront city council. People understand victim stories – especially if it is them. It is the best way to undermine the process – and help get people to join your cause.
You will find that Conservation Easements have raised taxes as much of the county land is removed from the tax rolls – someone has to make up for the lost revenue and the payment of easements. Are “stakeholder” groups helping to get landowners to sign up for the easements – and if so – do they get any kind of kickbacks?
Who are getting the easements? You may find the rich land owners have found a great loophole to cut their own property taxes as the middle class makes up the short fall. This will help bring usually disinterested people to your cause.
Does the community plan call for reduction of energy use? If so, look for calls for energy audits and taxes on energy use. The audits mean that the government has set a goal to reduce energy use. It may follow that government agents are going to come into your home to inspect your energy use.
Then they are going to tell you what must be done in your home to cut usage. That will cost you money. Don’t fall for the line that it is all voluntary – to help you save money.
They haven’t gone to this much trouble to be ignored. Regulations are not voluntary.
These are just a couple of examples of what to look for as you do your research.
There are many more, including meters on wells to control water use, smart meters to take away your control of your thermostat; non elected boards and councils to control local development and implement smart growth, leading to
population growth; Public / Private Partnerships with local and large corporations to “go Green;” creation of open space; pushing back live stock from streams, enforcing sustainable farming methods that restrict energy and water use in farming practices; and much more.
It all leads to higher costs and shortages, in the name of environmental protection and conservation and controlling growth (anti-sprawl, they call it).
Your goal is to stop Sustainable Development in your community. That means a campaign to stop the creation of non-elected regional government councils that are difficult to hold accountable.
It means to stop local governments from taking grants that come with massive strings attached to enforce compliance.
And it means you must succeed in removing outsider organizations and Stakeholder groups that are pressuring your elected officials to do their bidding. Civic Action: Armed with as much information as you can gather (and armed with the ability to coherently discuss its details) you are ready to take your battle to the public.
First, it would be better for you to try to discuss it privately with some of your elected officials, especially if you know them. Tell them what you have found and explain why you are opposed.
First discuss the effects of the policies on the average citizen. Explain why they are bad. Only very slowly should you bring the conversation around to the origin of such polices - Agenda 21 and the UN.
Don’t start there. It is important that you build the case to show that these policies are not local, but part of a national and international agenda. If this conversation does not go well (and it probably won’t) then you have to take it to the next level – to the public.
Begin a two fold campaign. First, write a series of letters to the editor for the local newspaper. Make sure that you are not alone.
Coordinate your letters with others who will also write letters to back up and support what you have written. These will generate more letters from others, some for your position and other against you.
Be prepared to answer those against you as they are probably written by those “Stakeholders” who are implementing the policies in the first place. This may be a useful place for you to use what you’ve learned about these groups to discredit them.
Second, begin to attend Council meetings and ask questions. The response from the council members will determine your next move. If you are ignored and your questions met with silence or hostility, prepare a news release detailing your questions and the background you have as to why you asked those questions.
Pass the news release out to the people at the next meeting as well as the news media. Attend the next meeting and the next demanding answers. Be sure to organize people to come with you.
Don’t try this alone. If necessary, have demonstrators outside city hall carrying signs or handing out flyers with the name and picture of the officials who won’t answer your questions along with the question you asked – including the details you have about the policy.
The point in all of this is to make the issue public. Take away their ability to hide the details from the public. Expose the hoards of outsiders who are dictating policy in your community. Force the people you elected to deal with YOU – not the army of self-appointed “stakeholders” and government officials. Shine a very right spotlight on the roaches under the rock.
If the newspaper is with you, great, but you will probably find it working with the other side. It may be difficult to get a fair shake in the newspaper or on radio.
That’s why you deliver your news releases to both the media and the public. Get signs, and flyers in stores if necessary. And keep it up for as long as it takes. Don’t stop the public demonstration until you had acquired victory, or at least started a public debate.
The final step is to use the energy you have created to run candidates for office against those who have ignored and fought you. Ultimately, that is the office holders worst nightmare and may be the most effective way to get them to respond and serve their constituents.
As mentioned in the beginning, over the past couple of years, as we’ve educated people on Agenda 21 and its UN origins, the natural reaction by concerned citizens and activists has been to rush into city hall and accuse their elected representatives of implementing international policies on the town.
This has, of course, been met with skepticism and ridicule on the part of some of the elected officials (egged on by the NGO stakeholder groups and planning organizations).
Today, the promoters of Agenda 21, including ICLEI and the American Planning Association (APA) have worked overtime to paint our movement as crazed conspiracy theorists wearing tin foil hats and hearing voices.
So, it’s time to change tactics.
Here is an undeniable fact: Agenda 21 / Sustainable Development cannot be enforced without usurping or diminishing private property rights. So, we need to begin to challenge the plans that affect private property rights.
However, as we move in that direction, we must have a clear understanding of what property rights are. Many people today have little or varying ideas of property rights.
Forty years ago people understood things like “No Trespassing,” “My home is my castle,” and “step across that line and suffer the consequences.” Such ideas today seem quaint and antiquated to many, especially with government invading private property at will.
Sometimes, in order to purchase property or to get access to services, we sign documents that say government or utility agents are free to come on our property at will. The idea of “Keep Out” is almost unheard of.
However, to demand that your private property be honored and protected a definition must be established before you start the effort.
As you stand in front of the elected officials at their regular meeting, ask them simply;
“As you bring these planners into our community and begin to implement their programs, what guarantees do I have that you will protect my private property rights?”
At this point you haven’t mentioned Agenda 21, and you haven’t attacked planning. You are simply asking a non-combative question.
They will assure you that they are in full support of protecting private property.
And then you say;
“Well, I’m happy to hear that. But, I would really like to have that in writing.”
And you present the resolution to them. If you can read it aloud to the meeting, so much the better. They may say they need to take it under consideration and will get back to you. Fine.
Make sure you are back at the next meeting to ask about it. If they say “No.” You simply ask “Why?” and take it from there.
Do not attempt this alone. The key to this effort is persistence and organization.
If they have refused to sign it then you need 5 or 10 people to stand up and ask why. You need to escalate this at each meeting until it becomes a public issue -
“Why won’t your elected officials sign a simple document that says they will protect your private property rights? What are they hiding in the plans they are presenting to us?”
This can and will lead to protests, letters to the editor and other media available to you. Put the elected officials’ names on signs carried by protestors who are rallying outside the next council or planning meeting.
Make them the issue. What you are really doing is laying the ground work for a campaign to defeat them in the next election. It is also important to do research into what planning groups, non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) federal grants and agencies may be involved in the process. All of them have a background.
Find out who they are and what they have done in the past in other communities and present that info to your fellow citizens as a warning of what is to come. I recommend that you create a “rapid response team” to be prepared to immediately respond in the media to anything they do. Make them scared to act.
If ICLEI is in your city, the details about Agenda 21 and the UN connection is easier. Your community is paying them dues with your tax dollars. Here is how to handle them:
If your council derides your statements that their policies come from the UNs Agenda 21, simply print out the home page from ICLEI’s web site: www.iclei.org
This will have all of the UN connections you’ve been talking about, in ICLEI’s own words.
Pass out the web page copies to everyone in the chamber audience and say to your elected officials;
“Don’t call me a radical simply for reporting what ICLEI openly admits on its own web site. I’m just the one pointing it out – you are the ones who are paying our tax dollars to them.”
Then demand that those payment stop. You have proven your case.
Stopping Consensus Meetings
Most public meetings are now run by trained and highly paid facilitators whose jobs is to control the meeting and bring it to a preplanned conclusion. If he is good at his job, the facilitator can actually make the audience think the “consensus” they have reached on and issue or proposal is actually their idea.
This is how Sustainable Development is being implemented across the nation, especially in meetings or planning boards that are advertised as open to the public.
They really don’t want you there and the tactic is used to move forward in full view of the public without them knowing what is happening. There is nothing free or open about the consensus process.
It is designed to eliminate debate and close discussion.
To bust up the process you must never participate, even to answer a question.
To do so allows the facilitator to make you part of the process. Instead, you must control the discussion.
Here is a quick suggestion on how to foul up the works:
Never go alone to such a meeting. You will need at least three people – the more the better.
Do not sit together. Instead, fan out in the room in a triangle formation.
Know ahead of time the questions you want to ask: Who is the facilitator?
What is his association with the organizers? Is he being paid?
Where did these programs (being proposed) come from? How are they to be funded?
One question to ask over and over again, both at facilitated meetings and city council meetings, is this:
“With the implementation of this policy, tell me a single right or action I have on my property that doesn’t require your approval or involvement. What are my rights as a property owner?”
Make them name it.
You will quickly see that they too understand there are no property rights left. By asking these questions you are putting his legitimacy in question, building suspicion among the rest of the audience, destroying his authority.
will try to counter, either by patronizing and humoring you, at first, or, then becoming hostile, moving to have you removed as a disruptive force.
That’s where the rest of your group comes in. They need to back you up, demand answers to your questions. If you have enough people in the room you can cause a major disruption, making it impossible for the facilitator to move forward with his agenda.
Do not walk out and leave the room to him. Stay to the end and make him shut down the meeting.
These suggestions on how to fight back are, admittedly, very basic and elementary. They are meant only to be a guideline. You will have to do your homework and adapt these tactics to your local situation.
These tactics are designed to create controversy and debate to force the Agenda 21 issue out of the secret meetings and into public debate where they belong.
Many of these same tactics can be used at all levels of government, right up and into national legislation.
Our plan is to demand answers from elected officials who want to ignore us.
They must be taught that such actions have consequences. As we learn new, successful tactics, I’ll share them with activists across the world.
The American Policy Center is now a partner in a new effort to create tactics and provide education to activists called Sustainable Freedom Lab - and hopefully it can serve as a resource for thw eorld, not just America. Here activists can share their findings, successful tactics and research with the rest of the movement.
The exciting news is that, finally, people are starting to understand that Agenda 21 is destroying our nations and they are beginning to fight back. The UN Agenda 21 house of cards is being exposed and it will fall with continued efforts and exposure by the people, and for the people - not just America - Worldwide.
The battle to stop the UN’s Agenda 21 is ragging on the local level across the world.
This document describes nothing less than a global government takeover of every nation across the planet.
The "goals" of this document are nothing more than code words for a corporate-government fascist agenda that will imprison humanity in a devastating cycle of poverty while enriching the world's most powerful globalist corporations like Monsanto and DuPont.
In the interests of helping wake up humanity, I've decided to translate the 17 points of this 2030 agenda so that readers everywhere can understand what this document is really calling for.
To perform this translation, you have to understand how globalists disguise their monopolistic agendas in "feel good" language.
Here's the point-by-point translation. Notice carefully that nowhere does this document state that "achieving human freedom" is one of its goals.
Nor does it explain HOW these goals are to be achieved. As you'll see here, every single point in this UN agenda is to be achieved through centralized government control and totalitarian mandates that resemble communism.
Translation of the UN's "2030 Agenda Blueprint for Globalist Government" (Controlled by Corporate Interests)
Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
Translation: Put everyone on government welfare, food stamps, housing subsidies and handouts that make them obedient slaves to global government. Never allow people upward mobility to help themselves.
Instead, teach mass victimization and obedience to a government that provides monthly "allowance" money for basic essentials like food and medicine. Label it "ending poverty."
Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
Translation: Invade the entire planet with GMOs and Monsanto's patented seeds while increasing the use of deadly herbicides under the false claim of "increased output" of food crops.
Engineer genetically modified plants to boost specific vitamin chemicals while having no idea of the long-term consequences of genetic pollution or cross-species genetic experiments carried out openly in a fragile ecosystem.
Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
Translation: Mandate 100+ vaccines for all children and adults at gunpoint, threatening parents with arrest and imprisonment if they refuse to cooperate. Push heavy medication use on children and teens while rolling out "screening" programs. Call mass medication "prevention" programs and claim they improve the health of citizens.
Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
Translation: Push a false history and a dumbed-down education under "Common Core" education standards that produce obedient workers rather than independent thinkers. Never let people learn real history, or else they might realize they don't want to repeat it.
Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
Translation: Criminalize Christianity, marginalize heterosexuality, demonize males and promote the LGBT agenda everywhere. The real goal is never "equality" but rather the marginalization and shaming of anyone who expresses any male characteristics whatsoever.
The ultimate goal is to feminize society, creating widespread acceptance of "gentle obedience" along with the self-weakening ideas of communal property and "sharing" everything.
Because only male energy has the strength to rise up against oppression and fight for human rights, the suppression of male energy is key to keeping the population in a state of eternal acquiescence.
Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
Translation: Allow powerful corporations to seize control of the world's water supplies and charge monopoly prices to "build new water delivery infrastructure" that "ensures availability."
Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
Translation: Penalize coal, gas and oil while pushing doomed-to-fail "green" energy subsidies to brain-dead startups headed by friends of the White House who all go bankrupt in five years or less.
The green startups make for impressive speeches and media coverage, but because these companies are led by corrupt idiots rather than capable entrepreneurs, they always go broke. (And the media hopes you don't remember all the fanfare surrounding their original launch.)
Goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all
Translation: Regulate small business out of existence with government-mandated minimum wages that bankrupt entire sectors of the economy. Force employers to meet hiring quotas of LGBT workers while mandating wage tiers under a centrally planned work economy dictated by the government. Destroy free market economics and deny permits and licenses to those companies that don't obey government dictates.
Goal 9.) Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation
Translation: Put nations into extreme debt with the World Bank, spending debt money to hire corrupt American corporations to build large-scale infrastructure projects that trap developing nations in an endless spiral of debt.
See the book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins to understand the details of how this scheme has been repeated countless times over the last several decades.
Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries
Translation: Punish the rich, the entrepreneurs and the innovators, confiscating nearly all gains by those who choose to work and excel. Redistribute the confiscated wealth to the masses of non-working human parasites that feed off a productive economy while contributing nothing to it... all while screaming about "equality!"
Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
Translation: Ban all gun ownership by private citizens, concentrating guns into the hands of obedient government enforcers who rule over an unarmed, enslaved class of impoverished workers.
Criminalize living in most rural areas by instituting Hunger Games-style "protected areas" which the government will claim are owned by "the People" even though no people are allowed to live there. Force all humans into densely packed, tightly controlled cities where they are under 24/7 surveillance and subject to easy manipulation by government.
Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
Translation: Begin levying punitive taxes on the consumption of fossil fuels and electricity, forcing people to live under conditions of worsening standards of living that increasingly resemble Third World conditions.
Use social influence campaigns in TV, movies and social media to shame people who use gasoline, water or electricity, establishing a social construct of ninnies and tattlers who rat out their neighbors in exchange for food credit rewards.
Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
Translation: Set energy consumption quotas on each human being and start punishing or even criminalizing "lifestyle decisions" that exceed energy usage limits set by governments. Institute total surveillance of individuals in order to track and calculate their energy consumption.
Penalize private vehicle ownership and force the masses onto public transit, where TSA grunts and facial recognition cameras can monitor and record the movement of every person in society, like a scene ripped right out of Minority Report.
Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
Translation: Ban most ocean fishing, plunging the food supply into an extreme shortage and causing runaway food price inflation that puts even more people into economic desperation.
Criminalize the operation of private fishing vessels and place all ocean fishing operations under the control of government central planning. Only allow favored corporations to conduct ocean fishing operations (and make this decision based entirely on which corporations give the most campaign contributions to corrupt lawmakers).
Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
Translation: Roll out Agenda 21 and force humans off the land and into controlled cities. Criminalize private land ownership, including ranches and agricultural tracts. Tightly control all agriculture through a corporate-corrupted government bureaucracy whose policies are determined almost entirely by Monsanto while being rubber-stamped by the USDA.
Ban woodstoves, rainwater collection and home gardening in order to criminalize self-reliance and force total dependence on government.
Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
Translation: Grant legal immunity to illegal aliens and "protected" minority groups, which will be free to engage in any illegal activity -- including openly calling for the mass murder of police officers -- because they are the new protected class in society. "Inclusive institutions" means granting favorable tax structures and government grants to corporations that hire LGBT workers or whatever groups are currently in favor with the central planners in government.
Use government agencies to selectively punish unfavorable groups with punitive audits and regulatory harassment, all while ignoring the criminal activities of favored corporations that are friends of the political elite.
Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development
Translation: Enact global trade mandates that override national laws while granting unrestricted imperialism powers to companies like Monsanto, Dow Chemical, RJ Reynolds, Coca-Cola and Merck.
Pass global trade pacts that bypass a nation's lawmakers and override intellectual property laws to make sure the world's most powerful corporations maintain total monopolies over drugs, seeds, chemicals and technology. Nullify national laws and demand total global obedience to trade agreements authored by powerful corporations and rubber-stamped by the UN.
Total enslavement of the planet by 2030 As the UN document says, "We commit ourselves to working tirelessly for the full implementation of this Agenda by 2030."
If you read the full document and can read beyond the fluffery and public relations phrases, you'll quickly realize that this UN agenda is going to be forced upon all the citizens of the world through the invocation of government coercion.
Nowhere does this document state that the rights of the individual will be protected.
Nor does it even acknowledge the existence of human rights granted to individuals by the Creator.
Even the so-called "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" utterly denies individuals the right to self defense, the right to medical choice and the right to parental control over their own children.
The UN is planning nothing less than a global government tyranny that enslaves all of humanity while calling the scheme "sustainable development" and "equality."
1984 has finally arrived. And of course it's all being rolled out under the fraudulent label of "progress."
However, it is not too late. Awareness is required before action may be taken.
Schools: The New "Animal Farm" June 23 2017 | From: BeyondConformity
In a recent Herald on Sunday was an article about Waitetuna school near Raglan, where the school principal agreed to allow a midwife to show a film about the other side of vaccines on the school premises, but the board of Trustees overturned her agreement, on the basis that the topic was controversial.
I have a question. What are schools for? Education, or social engineering? George Orwell wrote a book called “Animal Farm” Have you read it?
If a parent from Waitetuna school objected to nurses and doctors coming into the school and vaccinating children, would the Board of Trustees agree and stop them coming in because vaccines are controversial?
I somehow doubt it.
But I want to tell you a story of a young child, in a school, who along with some other children, returned a consent form for the HPV vaccine, which said, “No, I do not consent”.
What happened next will illustrate that New Zealand schools are not safe for children, and why the Department of Health vaccination programmes should be barred from schools.
The forms were collected and all the children who had returned “no” consent forms, were gathered in a separate group and the nurses berated the girls telling them that their parents didn’t love them, and that they could consent on their own, without their parent’s permission.
One of the girls caved to that, but then another child who had watched the life of an older sibling be trashed and lead to a quality of life less than desirable, fought back. She refused to sign it. The nurses pushed. But she got angry and told the nurse that she wanted to go now.
The nurse refused. The girl then told the vaccinating nurse that she wanted to call her parents and the police because what they were doing was wrong. Nothing like the experience of your own eyes, to firm up your own convictions!
At this point, she was quickly hustled out of the room in order not to freak out the other girls being pressured into going against their parent’s wishes. How did all this situation come about?
The Department of Health, with school consent, seems to have started using the tactic of not telling the schools when they are coming to vaccinate. Their ostensible reason for this, is so that the children don’t get worried in advance.
The real reason is so that the parents of the non-vaccinators can’t keep their children home for that day, which allows the provaccine including the nurses, teachers and other pupils, to bully and berate children whose parents have chosen differently.
So while parents who don’t consent, would rather not send their children to school on that day, the Department of Health deliberately thwarts that option. This could be called revoking democratic decision making.
Mainstream Media Promotes Chemical VIOLENCE Against Children
A mini-documentary revealing how the pharma-controlled mainstream media promotes chemical VIOLENCE against children, via mind-altering medications, pharmaceuticals and dangerous vaccine ingredients such as mercury, a brain-damaging neurotoxin.
Of course in this mind-numbed unethical climate of bullying, emotional blackmail and … yes … controversy, such tactics are considered to be noble, wonderful and lifesaving.
Vaccinations ARE indeed a controversial topic of discussion. I believe that if schools refuse to allow parents to watch a film at a school, describing another side of vaccination, then schools should ALSO refuse to allow the Department of Health to vaccinate children in schools.
The issue isn’t just “controversy”. It’s one of non-hypocrisy. What is “education”? How do you define learning? Only by hearing one side of a story?
Do you send your children to school, and allow the Department of Health to vaccinate your children in school because you can’t be bothered making the effort to follow through on your own convictions? Shouldn’t parents who chose to vaccinate, be responsible for doing that at their doctors?
Would you like schools to also become places where children can also be prescribed antibiotics, prescription drugs, or even, abortion on demand?
Or should schools SOLELY be places where people are educated and learn to think, in particular to figure out how to make their own decisions without being brainwashed by the school or the state?
Privacy Call To Limit Power Usage Monitoring June 22 2017 | From: RadioNewZealand
Smart meters that relay half-hourly power usage are a potential risk to people's personal security and privacy, and standards should be set to curb data collection, Privacy Commissioner John Edwards says.
The commissioner said about 70 percent of households in New Zealand have smart meters.
The devices automatically record and transmit power usage data in half hourly intervals, but that information can also reveal much about the comings and goings of people in a household at a given time.
The information is collected by electricity retailers like Meridian or Mercury, who use it to prepare their bills. It is then passed on to lines companies under information-sharing pacts.
Mr Edwards said it could indicate when people were out, at home or in the shower - and this could put their security at risk if abused.While this had not yet happened it was important to set standards in advance, he said.
The trend all over the world was to require that collection of data about people's private lives be kept to a minimum, he said.
Click on the image above to open a larger version in a new window
"It's going to be quite easy to figure out whether somebody lives alone, what kind of hours they're most likely to be home, what time they have their shower, what kind of appliances they have in their premises.
So when you're starting to get that level of detail it's time I think to sharpen up your policies on personal information."
He also suggested aggregating data into clusters to cover an entire community, or all the people in a street, rather than recording data on individual homes.
That would be enough to provide information that network companies needed when planning to make economically justified investments.
Lines Companies Defend Data Collection
The electricity retailers' chief lobbyist, Jenny Cameron, said some lines companies had been seeking far more information lately than they usually did, which had caused her group to go to the Privacy Commissioner.
"We see the issue as three-fold," she said.
"One is getting data requests that are large - such as three years of half-hour data at individual level.
The second issue is that we want to be sure that it is legitimately being used for network planning purposes.
The third reason is, how is the data being protected?"
The Electricity Networks Association insisted the data its members gathered was safeguarded.
Chief executive Graeme Peters said there was nothing new in what his members were doing - data on customers has been collected for about a century.
And it was more necessary now than ever because of pending electricity reforms, he said.
"We are looking at more cost reflective pricing and we need to get access to data on customer demand at half-hourly intervals and the peaks [of their usage].
That data will be protected - our companies have got privacy statements - [we want] data around how much power might be consumed in a half-hour interval or the absolute peak of electricity that the customer is using in any one day."
"Smart City" Is Really Government Spying On An Unimaginable Scale
October 19 2016 | From: BlacklistedNews
Columbus, Ohio, actually won $50 million in DOT grant money to turn their city into a "Smart City" calling it "SmartColumbus." The city of Columbus will receive an additional $90 million in pledges from public and private sector partners.
The City of Pittsburgh sees the confluence of transportation and energy as the key to U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Smart City Challenge. To meet the challenge, we will develop an open platform and corresponding governance structure to improve the safety, equity, and efficiency of our transportation network and its interaction with the energy and communications networks.
By building on existing technology deployments and increasing fixed and mobile sensors over a number of major “Smart Spine” corridors that connect with primary commercial centers and amenities, Pittsburgh will collect, analyze, visualize, and act on information to improve mobility for residents.
The non-proprietary nature of our platform allows the City of Pittsburgh and its partners to set an open, national standard for a municipal service delivery platform, which enhances industry and supports innovation.
According to the SCC, 'smart spines' use advanced technology like real-time adaptive traffic signals and vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication at intersections.
"Smart PGH" is working with Uber to spy on customers. (see page 4)
It appears that "smart cities" are part of the government's "Vision Zero" program, see page 6 of SCC's 'Enabling Hierarchy' diagram. Also on page 6, under the subject 'Data Collection Network' they mention, "Social Media Assets" otherwise known as social media spying. (more on that below)
In addition, we [Smart PGH] would like to work with Pittsburgh Bike Share, Uber, Lyft, and others to move towards more robust V2V communications that allow Port Authority buses, City fleet, bike share bicycles, ride-sharing services, etc. to become safer by sensing one another on Pittsburgh’s streets. Bicycle tracking has already begun, Ford Motor Company has given Palo Alto, $1.1 million to equip bicycles with GPS devices.
Joshuah Mello, the city’s chief transportation official, said the main draw of the new smart-bike system, operated by Motivate and sponsored by Ford, is that it will be part of a network growing in Bay Area cities from San Jose to San Francisco, “making it one of the largest systems in the entire world.”
What he should say is, this makes it one of the largest bicycle surveillance systems in the entire world! What follows, are some of the most chilling intrusions of government spying to date. Govt spying on social media.
To address Vision Element #9, SmartPGH will deploy our “Citizens as Sensors” effort aimed at extracting relevant data from social media. Scrubbing these sites and app will provide information on what people are doing in different places across Pittsburgh, data that can be used to infer behavior and data that can detect changes in behavior due to physical modifications made by SmartPGH and the City of Pittsburgh.
Pittsburgh can more easily detect if the modifications it is making are producing the desired changes or if they are leading to unanticipated outcomes or unhappy residents.
For example, changes to the number of check-ins citizens make to restaurants and retail establishments following the parking rate change can provide evidence of how much this change has impacted dining and shopping behaviors, providing valuable feedback not just on residents emotional reactions but also the wider economic impact of such decisions.
The City of Pittsburgh is in conversation with Duquesne Light and partner-company DQE Communications regarding the use of their extensive network of dark fiber. Most of the network capacity is currently “dark” and available for use by partners including the City of Pittsburgh.
To make the most of their network, Duquesne Light recently built a wireless communication infrastructure to support the increased data-flow between their electric meters and the company’s centralized operating center.
This effort has evolved into a high-capacity, resilient, wireless network covering the entirety of the City of Pittsburgh and the surrounding 817-square-mile service territory.
The grid of microgirds will spy on everyone's health, electrical and gas usage.
The grid-of-microgrids is designed to connect critical infrastructure like hospitals, universities, and data and telecommunications centers. Other partners in the effort include the UPMC health system, NRG energy, Duquesne Light and People’s natural gas.
Govt spying on Pittsburgh residents is frightening.
PennDOT’s Western Regional Traffic Management Center includes a fully integrated Centralized Software System, a Media Partner room that broadcasts live on-air reports of traffic conditions, and, a state of the art video wall capable of displaying 160 video images.
The center monitors and/or controls ITS devices on 12 freeway corridors, including many within Pittsburgh's limits.
These devices include: 293 CCTV cameras, 37 Highway Advisory Radio transmitter locations, 86 Highway Advisory Radio signs with beacons, 200 Microwave Traffic Detectors, 24 Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) radios, 93 Digital Wave Radar Vehicular Detector units and many more specific ITS-related items.
List of govt agencies spying on residents:
Penn DOT and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission
Port Authority of Allegheny County
Pittsburgh Parking Authority
Port of Pittsburgh Commission
Pittsburgh Bike Share
Utilities including energy distribution, water, and natural gas
University Partners, particularly University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University
Major freight operators in Pittsburgh
Representatives of the Business and Philanthropic Communities
Citizens and Community Stakeholders Industry partners
The model for the WPRDC is unique because it is designed to be extensible and inclusive, able to host datasets from any municipality, non-profit, or researcher with data to share. By bringing together various levels of government, civil society, and academia around information resources, we have begun to improve our region’s capacity for innovation and evidence-driven policy-making.
The WPRDC’s web resources provide machine-readable data downloads and APIs of key administrative data on topics such as property assessment, building inspection, public health, crime, and asset management.
Click on the image above to open a larger version in a new window
Seven companies work with Surtrac to spy on everyone.
Local Councils, Medical Trials And GMOs: Call For Nick Smith’s Resignation September 8 2016 | From: Scoop
The scaremongering and misrepresentation of the Auckland Unitary council’s long term plan shows that Dr. Nick Smith is deliberately twisting and misrepresenting the facts, and raising fears that important medical research will be banned. Yet he knows any such concern is false.
The AUP expressly excludes medical and veterinary applications stating “Potential GMO activities of relevance include GM food crops, trees, grasses, animals and pharma crops, but,exclude research within contained laboratories involving GMOs, medical applications involving the manufacture and use of GM products…”
In seeking to mislead the public, the Minister is following the lead of Federated Farmers of New Zealand. Federated Farmers challenged the right of councils, who govern under the Resource Management Act (RMA), to place precautionary GE wording in their plans, in the Environment Court.
The challenge was not upheld. They then appealed the Environment Court’s decision to the High Court, which has now dismissed the appeal.
The Minister's anti-democratic panicked response of introducing a new law that expressly prohibits councils to consider environmental and land use protections around GMO’s, shows a cynical contempt for due process and local democracy.
It is an indictment on Dr. Smith and shows that he is not working for the good of the country but is using his powers and influence to pursue an agenda outside of his responsibilities as a Minister.
This serious breach of conduct transgresses his responsibilities as a minister. He is apparently unable to avoid his conflicts of interest around the GE issue.
This terrible situation leads us to call for his resignation as a Minister of the Crown.
Local Councils, Medical Trials And GMOs
Medical trials involving genetically modified vaccines and other GM treatments will still be allowed under planning changes Auckland and three other local councils are making.
Auckland councillors this week agreed to a ban on the general release of genetically modified organisms under the city's Unitary Plan.
That has led to concerns that a medical trial involving genetically modified organisms would be stopped in its tracks.
Environment Minister Dr Nick Smith said that the Government would review the "appropriateness of councils being involved in regulating genetically modified organisms".
“A trial for liver cancer vaccine Pexa-Vec is being conducted at Auckland Hospital which involves a GMO. The new Auckland Unitary Plan prohibits the release of any GMO and would not allow any such future medical treatments,” Dr Smith said in a press release.
The SMC put together the following Expert Q&A with Dr Kerry Grundy, Team Leader (Futures Planning), Whangarei District Council. (Contact Dr Grundy on 09 430 4200)
1: Will existing and/or future medical trials involving GMOs be banned in these regions as a result of the plan changes?
“I can confirm that the GMO provisions in all planning documents do not affect medical applications involving GMOs including present and future applications. These are permitted."
"The plan provisions apply only to outdoor use of GMOs, i.e. GMOs released to the environment or outdoor field trial of GMOs. They do not apply to indoor use in contained facilities, laboratories, hospitals or to medical applications or most veterinary applications."
2. As part of the plan provisions, do the Councils require any additional notification of, or approval for, GM-related trials (medical or otherwise) than is currently required through the likes of the Environmental Protection Authority?
“The councils’ plan provisions make outdoor field trials of GMOs a discretionary activity under the RMA. This means they need a resource consent from council to conduct a field trial in addition to approval from the EPA."
"The resource consent will require strict liability from the party conducting the trial for any environmental or economic damage that may occur as a result of the trial together with a bond to cover any costs should they arise (HSNO does not require this)."
"This does not apply to medical trials as medical applications are specifically excluded from council provisions. In addition, the definition of field trials in the plan provisions refers only to 'outdoor' field trials."
3. Are there any specific provisions relating to patients involved in medical trials who are being treated with GM therapies - such as the Pexa-Vec liver cancer vaccine? For instance, relating to where the vaccines can be administered, or where patients are housed while receiving treatment?
“There are no specific provisions relating to patients involved in medical trials who are being treated with GM therapies presently or in the future. Medical applications are not subject to the plan provisions. They are treated as permitted activities under the RMA. They require no consent from council. Council has no role in relation to them."
4. Are there currently any outdoor trials of GMOs underway in any of the regions governed by the four Councils that have contributed to the plan?
“There are no outdoor field trials that I am aware of underway in any of the jurisdictions covered by the councils in Auckland and Northland who have or are in the process of putting GMO provisions in their planning documents."
5. What provisions have the Councils made for the possible future introduction of new genetic technologies, such as gene-editing techniques, and their evaluation and classification as GM according to the plan?
“Councils have made no specific provisions for possible future introduction of new genetic techniques and their classification as GM according to the plans. Councils only regulate GMOs as defined in the HSNO Act."
"The plans’ definition of a GMO is the same as the HSNO definition. If an organism produced by a new technique is included as a GMO under the HSNO Act it will be treated as such by the plans. If an organism produced by a new technique is not defined as a GMO under HSNO it will not be caught by the plan provisions."
*The GMO plan provisions that are in the Auckland Unitary Plan and in plan changes to the WDC and FNDC GMO plan changes are based on research and documentation produced by the Working Party.
Does The Local Government Act Amendment Bill Result In Amalgamation By Stealth? Local Body Developments August 29 2016 | From: KiwiWatch / NZPCR
After Amalgamation failures in Northland, Hawke’s Bay and Wellington is the National government attempting to do this via the backdoor while everyone was watching the Rio Olympics?
At the recent local government conference widespread concern was expressed about the potential loss of “local democracy” if a revamped Local Government Commission (LGC) is authorised to amalgamate various bodies and require the establishment of commercial agencies with little if any elected directors.
Discussion almost entirely ignored the most radical proposal now before the House: to make the LGC a Crown agent (that is, subject to explicit direction by a minister) and to exempt from the Official Information Act any information from or about the process leading to a decision of the LGC, for example, to amalgamate.
Perhaps the bill is just provocative; perhaps fears of making local government a creature of the central executive are groundless. If not, this is a significant constitutional change.
Retiring Wellington Regional Councillor
I do not recall seeing anything in the HB Today about submissions which have, of course, closed. The bill is before parliament on its second reading before reaching a Select Committee.
This is of great concern because, once again, our democracy is being challenged BEHIND CLOSED DOORS and the unwanted result will be presented to us as fait accompli – too late for us to do anything, again.
"If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There’s no point in being a damn fool about it!" - W.C. Field, American comedian
Not content with the failure of the Local Government Commission to merge councils in Northland, the Hawke’s Bay, and Wellington, National is now proposing to put their amalgamation agenda into effect via the back door, by using a new local government bill to increase the power of the Commission, while removing important democratic rights.
The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2) is now in front of Parliament’s Local Government and Environment Select Committee and is open for submissions until Thursday 28 July – full details can be seen here.
The Bill’s preamble explains that it aims to lift local authority performance, as part of the Government’s overall objective of improving public services and building a more productive and competitive economy. It does this by streamlining the process for combining and co-ordinating services, infrastructure and resources across regions and towns, through a greater use of Council-Controlled Organisations (CCOs).
As the Local Government Minister Sam Lotu-Iiga explained in his first reading speech:
"Communities in Northland, Hawke’s Bay, and Wellington have told us that they do not want full-scale amalgamation, but this bill provides a middle ground. Communities will retain their elected councils; the councils, in turn, will be able to work more collaboratively to manage infrastructure and services across our regions. This will deliver more joined-up, cost-effective services and better value for our ratepayers.”
So while the present legislation promotes council amalgamations as the way to gain the scale required to combine services, the new Bill facilitates the sharing of services between councils, without the need for amalgamation – unless it is agreed by all councils.
While under the present law only individuals, groups, councils, and the Minister can propose amalgamations, the Bill extends that power to the Local Government Commission. To balance that, the Bill includes an automatic poll of citizens over any Commission-led re-organisation proposal, including the transfer of water, transport, or Resource Management Act functions from one local authority to another.
However, there’s a catch. The Bill removes an important democratic safeguard, namely the automatic right of residents and ratepayers to petition councils for a binding poll on any amalgamation proposal – if supported by 10 percent of electors.
As a result, under the new Bill, if a number of councils jointly agree on amalgamation, local citizens will have no right to call for a poll. This has already led to speculation that councils might be encouraged to collude in order to circumvent a public poll.
We strongly recommend that the ability of residents and ratepayers to petition their local authority for a poll on any amalgamation or reorganisation proposals should either be re-instated, or the provision for an automatic poll on Commission-led changes should be extended to cover all amalgamation and re-organisation proposals.
The point is that local ratepayers have a fundamental right to have a say in the structure of representative decision-making in their communities, since they are the ones who fund council infrastructure and assets.
There is also a concern that a central requirement in the current law, that there must be “demonstrable community support” for an amalgamation proposal to proceed, has been removed. Instead, the new Bill focuses on “the likelihood of significant community opposition to any reorganisation…”
In effect, this change in presumption from an amalgamation needing community support to proceed, to the lesser hurdle that it should go ahead, unless there is significant opposition, dramatically lowers the threshold.
We suggest that the old standard is the correct one – new local government re-organisation proposals should have to demonstrate that they have the support of their community in order to proceed.
When community support was used as a benchmark by the Commission in the last three amalgamation attempts, the results were conclusive: in Northland, 93 percent of submitters opposed a single council, in Wellington, 89 percent were opposed, and in the Hawke’s Bay, where a poll was held, 66 percent of voters were opposed.
In defence of the new Bill, the Local Government Minister explained:
"The projected costs of maintaining and building core infrastructure such as water, sewerage, flood protection and roading are growing exponentially faster than the ability of local ratepayers to bear.
The bill enables the development of shared infrastructure ownership and management across regions. This is essential for developing regions and communities”.
But this is also a key reason why communities should remain closely involved in the reform process – the creation of CCOs for the delivery of water and roading services, could remove a major part of the budget of many small councils, signalling their radical downsizing into largely regulatory agencies.
Further, since concerns remain that the Commission, on behalf of the Minister, could create CCOs, without the approval of the council or the community, it is imperative that community involvement and support remains a priority in the Bill – especially given the dreadful problems that are still evident in Auckland, where residents and ratepayers had amalgamation forced upon them.
Meanwhile, the Local Government Commission is wasting no time. Although their plans for Auckland-style super cities and Maori Statutory Boards in Northland, Wellington and the Hawke’s Bay were rejected, they are now informing councils that they intend to reconsider other restructuring options to promote greater efficiencies in the regions. They plan to progress their re-organisation proposals under the new law.
If you are concerned about the potential erosion of local democracy, and the failure of the proposed law to adequately safeguard public involvement in major council reorganisation decision-making, we would urge you to send in a quick submission on the Bill outlining your concerns by Thursday.
With local body elections just weeks away, local government reform is not the only thing being dumped on councils.
This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, Fiona Mackenzie, an Auckland-based political commentator, outlines how councillors in the region are having to battle against a power grab by tribal interests for control of the crucial Hauraki Gulf.
The Hauraki Gulf is a massive coastal area covering 1.2 million hectares from Mangawai in the North, to Waihi in the South, and Great Barrier Island in the East, encompassing Auckland, the Hauraki Plains and the Coromandel Peninsula. It includes the Ports of Auckland, shipping routes, marinas, fisheries, marine farms, and other commercial and recreational facilities.
At the present time, as Fiona explains, the area is controlled by the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act:
"Since 2000, the Gulf has been managed by the Hauraki Gulf Forum with Auckland Council as its administering authority. Its 21-member board includes Ministry bureaucrats, elected representatives of all the region’s councils, plus 6 self-nominated tribal representatives appointed by the Minister of Conservation.”
She outlines how, at their meeting last month, iwi tried to force through a re-organisation proposal for a new 16-member Board, constituted on the 50:50 Maori sovereignty co-governance model, whereby 8 members would represent Maori and 8 members would represent everyone else, giving tribes unassailable control of the Board and the Hauraki Gulf.
Under their scheme, the number of iwi representatives on the new Forum would be increased from 6 to 8. The number of councillors representing the vast Auckland region would be cut from 7 to 1. Representatives of the five other councils in the area – the Hauraki District Council, the Matamata-Piako District Council, the Thames-Coromandel District Council, the Waikato District Council, and the Waikato Regional Council – would be cut from 5 to 2.
And the number of public servants representing the Minister of Maori Affairs, the Minister of Conservation, and the Minister of Fisheries, would be increased from 3 to 5.
All in all, only 3 of the 16 representatives on the proposed new governance body would be elected to represent the public interest and the almost 2 million people who live in the area.
Under the proposal the new iwi-controlled Board would demand statutory authority to enact legislation over the entire area.
Why, in a democracy based on equal rights and the rule of law, such a racist proposal could have progressed to the point where it is being seriously considered, is hard to fathom – although it’s not altogether surprising, given that the long-term agenda of Maori tribal leaders is to gain sufficient status and power to control the country’s major resources.
According to Fiona:
"The meeting became rather acrimonious when some expressed concern at this attempt to shove the recommendations through. Understandably, they wished to have it reviewed by their respective organisations and obtain a mandate before voting. The inevitable claims of ‘racism’ were made.”
She is concerned that those in positions of power on the Auckland Council, who support the sovereignty cause, might manipulate the process so the proposal may not be decisively defeated, as it should be:
"At the time of writing, the Forum’s Auckland City Councillors did not yet know if this Report would be reviewed and voted on by their Council’s governing body. There’s a chance it could be directed to a sub-committee for an easier passage from carefully selected participants, plus the two votes from the unelected, unaccountable and totally conflicted members of the Independent Maori Statutory Board.”
It is clear that the group wanting control of the Gulf were pushing Forum members to approve their new governance model on the spot, ahead of the local body elections, as they clearly believe they have the numbers to get their proposal through and do not want to risk having their compliant representatives replaced by others who might oppose their plan.
If they succeed in gaining support for their 50:50 Maori sovereignty-style co-governance proposal, the next step in their march for tribal control of the Hauraki Gulf, will be to seek the approval of the Government for a change to the Act. With the National Party’s history of caving in to iwi demands, whether they would stand up against this blatant power grab is anyone’s guess.
This whole debacle shows only too clearly how important it is that our local body representatives are prepared to act on principle and stand up for the public interest against radicals.
By offering themselves for office, candidates are pledging to work in the best interests of their community. That means opposing anyone threatening the principle of one person one vote.
With an on-going campaign underway to pressure councillors to support the appointment of un-elected iwi representatives with voting rights onto local authorities, it is important that potential candidates are well prepared. Standing up to iwi and their supporters is not always easy, so we suggest the following questions should be asked:
If you are elected would you oppose iwi representatives being appointed onto your Council with voting rights?
If you are elected and a proposal to appoint iwi representatives with voting rights onto your Council wins majority support, would you propose that the final decision should be made by local electors through a public referendum process?
If your Council has already established iwi representatives with voting rights, will you move that the positions be disestablished so they can be reconsidered by the new council?
If you send email responses from candidates to us, we will add the details to our website here – as a public service in the run up to the elections.
New Zealand needs strong local government politicians. But be warned – as Fiona’s article indicates only too clearly, you need to be prepared to stick to your principles and not cave in to bullying or intimidation.
Most of all you must never forget that you are there to represent the best interests of your community – and those who voted you into office.
On Friday April 22nd, the “historical climate deal” – better known as “Paris Agreement” – was signed by 174 member states of UN, with moderate fanfare. The atmosphere around the event was, of course, forcibly euphoric – if tad awkward – with new designated climate groupie, Leonardo di Caprio, chanting the spent “we must act now!” mantra, and UN luminaries jumping around in somewhat masturbatory orgy of self-congratulating.
However, all this serves to hide the fact that, from the stand point of catastrophic global warming fan club, the deal is a failure. Namely, the main drive behind the 21st Conference of the Parties (meaning: sovereign member states of UN participating in UNFCC) in Paris, which ended on 12.12.2015, producing a 31 page draft agreement, was to impose a binding treaty and not merely an agreement; something that apparently did not materialize.
The proceedings of COP21 and presentation of “historical climate deal” came to pass in a surreal atmosphere of feigned urgency and strange mixture of ecstatic delight which, however, was confined to a tiny circle of participants, environmentalist activists and their mainstream media entourage.
This strange display of few chosen men and women rejoicing at imaginary solution to imaginary crisis was largely overlooked by populous which is, at least semi-consciously, becoming resistant to climate alarmism, if for nothing else, then because every lie has it’s expiration date and global warming scare is approaching 27th anniversary of it’s grand entry into mass media channels.
Be that as it may, Paris agreement is a compilation of “shoulds” while it was obviously meant to be a legally binding codification of “shalls”: while sovereign state is an endangered species in this world, it is obviously not yet extinct to such an extent that majority of world leaders would ratify the treaty that would de jure install the apparatus of global governance on pretext of combating ecological crisis.
The Paris Treaty is, in this author’s opinion, falling short of this aim miserably as it could have been anticipated even in the September of last year, when UN presented it’s latest Agenda, the so called Agenda 2030.
Namely, doctrine of sustainable development, and not empirical research of esoteric “climate science”, is a main purpose, and consequently: the main drive, behind the climate scare road show.
This doctrine, under various names, is being steadily pushed as an official ideology of Euro-Atlantic Bloc from early Seventies of the previous century, and it doesn’t really require global warming to make it work upon the minds of gullible.
If there’s any solid constant in protean “enemy image” upon which the system of sustainable development must be built, then it would be “overpopulation”, the inherently genocidal idea pervading all flavors of this doctrine.
Sustainable development is, simply put, a system of world encompassing control conceived to automatically self-differentiate and develop it’s functions on the basis of fear.
All it really requires is one absolute outside threat which cannot be removed but only infinitely mitigated by unified action of mankind.
This enemy image is, of course, just an image, because such threat doesn’t exist and every basis chosen by sustainability programmers has a definite expiration date. On closer analysis, the Agenda 2030document already indicated that “global warming” scare is reaching this date.
It was not very prominent among other “17 sustainability goals” and now it is slowly giving way to another cosmic Osama bin Laden, invoked to make us survey and control ourselves through fear: global – or to be more precise: European-based terrorism.
Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) in reducing greenhouse gases, which serve as a basis of reaching the goal of keeping the global average temperature – whatever the hell that is – under „2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.“ (PA, 2.1. (a)), are far cry from what global warming dupes would like to see implemented.
"The fact that solar warming is heating up all the planets strongly suggests that global warming on our planet is not being caused by human activity at all. "
While we can detect some sporadic attempts to link “climate catastrophe” with demographical shifts from Middle East towards Europe, it is all too obvious, even to the dupes, that those shifts, while obviously man-made, have nothing to do with climate.
Moreover, while until now each and every draught, warm winter or forest fire was pointed out as an unmistakable sign of coming end times, the warm European winter of 2015/2016. apparently flew under the radar of alarmists.
This is also one of the clear signs that climate scare is finally spent, admittedly not by efforts of critics, nor by crumbling of pseudo-scientific edifice of advocates, but simply by quite banal passage of time.
However, here we are presented with difficulty. The publicly visible “world leaders”, grouped roughly around UN and Davos summits, are acting as if everything is still business as usual. The situation is surreal: while majority of people are ridiculing them – that is, those that pay them any attention at all – individuals like Christina Figuerres or Bill Gates are still chanting their same old mantras.
This is quite worrisome. Namely, someone could infer that they are simply delusional, finalizing their detachment from reality, and leave it at that. However, this is only half-true.
The whole truth, as it seems, is that their detachment from reality is the result not of mere mental blindness, but of power inflicted darkening of the minds. This is unmistakable sign of complete detachment of power from the “people”, i.e. masses of humanity or self-conscious groups in their midst.
The global elites are not deluded by their stupidity, but by their confident belief that they cannot be challenged. And, judging by signs of the times, they are quite right. So, when they continue to push global warming scare despite the fact that most people are becoming conscious of it being a sham, this could very well mean that they don’t feel any need to deceive anyone anymore.
Moreover, sustainable development is a true reason for existence of global warming scare and it is a doctrine that can gradually discard it for the sake of some better and more convincing principle, if need be. After all, this is why the Paris treaty exists in the first place:
“This Agreement, in enhancing the implementation of the Convention, including its objective, aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty (…)“ (PA, 2.2)
The main novelty of Agenda 2030 is the first of it’s 17. sustainable development goals: “1. End poverty in all it’s forms everywhere” (A2030, pg. 12), which is to be accomplished until 2030. So we are expected to believe that the main constituent of human condition – namely, material misery – will be decommissioned from existence in 14 years period.
Those who believe that UN luminaries really buy into this crap are sporting minds of ten to twelve years old children; anyone, with just a modicum of common sense, must conjecture that something else is afoot here.
However, for our purpose, it is sufficient to point out that intersection of climate change, sustainable development and final solution of poverty is a basis for Paris Treaty.
And in this intersection, there exists hierarchy where sustainable systematization of world resources – human, environmental and economical is at the top, encompassing the other two. Both lower aims are expendable, because they’re merely pretexts for accomplishing sustainable development world-wide.
The very fact that globalist spokespersons are seriously spinning yarns no one in his right mind can believe in, goes to show that the power of lower strata of society – and that’s approximately everybody under the level of mainstream media pundits and professional politicians eligible for employment in global institutions – is at the all times low. And the members of higher strata are, explicitly or implicitly, aware of it.
So there’s no reason to gloat about idiocy of our rulers, because it is not really an idiocy but just a normal conduct stemming from the fact that they are not paying us any attention anyway.
Admittedly, the stories are getting thinner and narratives crumble as they are being written.
But is it because we are so smart?
Or is it because we are so detached from any kind of control over our livelihoods that those that have a firm grip on it, via control of media, politics and finance, really don’t bother to deceive us anymore?
To learn more about Agenda 2030, listen to this interview with Branko Malić on the Sunday Wire radio show with host Patrick Henningsen…
New Solar Panel Charge Kicks In April 4 2016 | From: RadioNewZealand Hawke's Bay lines company Unison is introducing an extra charge for solar panel users, in a move Greenpeace says is wrong.
People install the panels to reduce their power bills. But Unison fears this will reduce its income and make its assets hard to maintain, so it is bumping up its charges to make up the difference.
The electric lines industry has said many times that people using solar panels and batteries pay lower power bills, making less money available to pay for the electricity grid. Yet most solar panel users still need that grid to be available as a fallback when solar power dries up overnight or on cloudy days.
Senior Unison manager Nathan Strong said his firm was acting now to protect its income and make sure the customer got a good idea of the real cost of providing an electricity network.
"Currently it costs us about $900 a year to serve a typical residential customer," he said.
"Under our old pricing approach, someone putting a solar panel on a roof would reduce their contribution by $300 and that $300 would have to be made up by someone who does not have solar panels on their roof."
Mr Strong said changing the rules brought fairness. Unison said it was still calculating the exact figure, but network charges could rise by up to $150 each year.
From today, the scheme would affect the company's 110,000 consumers in Hawke's Bay, Taupo and Rotorua who put solar panels on their roof. It would only happen if they used their panels to generate surplus power and feed it back into the national grid.
Greenpeace's Russel Norman said Unison was doing the wrong thing.
"The impact of Unison's solar tax is to change the economics around the installation of solar panels, when in the interests of climate change what we want to do is make it easier."
The move was incompatible with recent international pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Mr Norman said. But the idea of charging solar power users extra money was an anathema to the Sustainable Electricity Association of New Zealand.
Chairman Brendan Winitana called the Unison action a solar tax.
"That solar tax is a 26 percent increase in a lines charge and we believe that is a very strong move to make, especially when the Electricity Authority called for submissions on distribution pricing," he said.
Unison said that was not correct and people would still save money on their power bills.
Solar panel installation company Solar City chief executive Andy Booth said Unison was being disingenuous and imposing an unfair tax.
"Customers who use low-energy light bulbs and energy efficient fridges to reduce their consumption aren't getting taxed, customers who put solar systems that generate power to reduce their energy consumption are. We believe fundamentally that's anti-competitive," he said.
Unison would be the first lines company to do something like this, but others were understood to have similar plans in train. The company is a member of the the Electricity Networks Association and Its chief executive Graeme Peters said Unison was acting within its rights.
"Distributors are entitled to make their own decisions about pricing in their own areas," he said. "But collectively, we are trying to bring about a menu of pricing options they can choose from."
There are 28 lines companies in New Zealand all facing falling revenue and static fixed costs.
Green Climate Fund: Where Big Banks Profit Again from Crisis They Helped Create April 1 2016 | From: CommonDreams Letting big financial institutions manage climate adaptation funds 'would pose serious reputational and moral risk' to global body
"There is no profit to be made in building the resilience of those adversely impacted by climate change," says Sam Ogallah of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance.
As the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the financial mechanism for the UN climate agency, meets this week in South Korea, more than 170 civil society groups are calling on the international body to reject bids from big banks HSBC and Crédit Agricole to receive and manage funds to help poorer nations tackle climate change.
Comment: This is poetry. A farce within a farce. Zombie banks, completely unnecessary fossil fuels and fraudulent man-made climate change (minus the chemtrails) all mixed up into a NWO clusterf*ck.
Given their role in financing climate pollution and their poor records on human and environmental rights, approving the financial giants' applications would run counter to the Fund's goals, the groups say.
"Creating new business for big banks with large fossil fuel portfolios and poor records on human rights and financial scandal would undermine the very purpose of the Fund,"said Karen Orenstein of Friends of the Earth U.S. on Monday.
"There is no profit to be made in building the resilience of those adversely impacted by climate change," added Sam Ogallah of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance.
"Public funds must be used to support local communities in developing countries, not to subsidize big banks."
What's more, "accrediting HSBC and Crédit Agricole would be inconsistent with...the Paris Agreement," said Annaka Peterson of Oxfam, referring to the deal hammered out at the COP21 climate talks.
"Any private sector partner of the GCF must have a credible strategy in place to make its entire portfolio and operations consistent with keeping global temperature rise to no more than 2 °C, let alone well below 1.5 °C."
Friends of the Earth, Pan African Climate Justice Alliance, and Oxfam are just three of 172 NGOs that released a statement (pdf) earlier this month arguing that offering accreditation to HSBC and Crédit Agricole:
"Would pose serious reputational and moral risk to the GCF" due to the banks' historic conduct.
Well-documented involvement in recent money laundering or other fiduciary mismanagement scandals;
Large exposure to the coal industry and other climate polluting sectors; and
Poor-quality policies and weak compliance arrangements meant to manage the social, gender, and environmental impacts of their lending, and consequent harm on-the-ground.
For example, a report from BankTrack has shown that HSBC and Crédit Agricole provided $7 billion and $9.5 billion, respectively, to the coal industry between 2009 and 2014, "and their coal financing does not show a clear downward trend," notes BankTrack's Yann Louvel.
The Fund's board meeting runs Tuesday through Thursday in Songdo, South Korea. GCF executive director Héla Cheikhrouhou told the Thomson Reuters Foundation last week that she will ask for an increase of between 80 and 120 new staff in order to meet its targets. She also said it was too early to say whether the Fund could meet the board's goal to allocate $2.5 billion in 2016.
This isn't the first time the Fund has engendered criticism from climate justice groups or frontline communities, who say developed nations, despite their role in driving global warming, have been slow to pony up the necessary - and just - financing.
Last year, environmental and social justice organizations expressed outrage when the Fund accredited Deutsche Bank, one of the world’s largest financiers of coal, to receive and distribute climate adaptation and mitigation funds.
"We want the Green Climate Fund to succeed," groups wrote at the time. "But for it to do so, it needs to change direction away from accrediting controversial big banks that are heavily invested in fossil fuels and thus actually exacerbating climate change. If the [Green Climate Fund] continues in such a direction, this would reinforce our fears that in the near future we may have to protest an institution we have thus far been supportive of and integral to creating."
Things You Know That Ain't So - Carbon Dioxide Is A Pollutant March 25 2016 | From: BreakingViewsNZ
According to the US Environmental Protection Agency and many environmental groups and governments around the world carbon dioxide is a pollutant that needs to be regulated because it may endanger public health or welfare.
But is it? To most people, “pollutant" is something that we would be better off without. Carbon dioxide is a trace gas that is essential to life on earth.
If the level falls below about 180 ppm plant growth will suffer and, at lower levels, will cease.
So what happens if the level increases? At the time of the dinosaurs carbon dioxide levels were at least five times higher than they are now. Herds of dinosaurs devoured grasses, trees and other plant life that, under the influence of the high levels of carbon dioxide, was growing at a hugely greater rate than it does now.
The high levels of carbon dioxide didn't cause the world to reach a “tipping point" and burn to a crisp. Instead, the high levels produced a world of plenty that could sustain the voracious appetites of huge numbers of enormous creatures.
So we can conclude that insufficient carbon dioxide would end life on earth and, at five times the present concentration, the ecosystem thrived. How can it be a pollutant?
Confirmation of the agriculturally beneficial effects of high levels of carbon dioxide comes from commercial greenhouses that burn large quantities of natural gas to boost the carbon dioxide levels from the current 400 ppm to 900 ppm. As a result, productivity is increased by about 40% without any increase in the amount of water needed.
There is also ample evidence that the increase in carbon dioxide levels has reduced desertification and benefited agriculture worldwide.
The EPA’s claim that carbon dioxide is a pollutant is based on its belief that it could cause dangerous global warming.
We now know that this is not true because the world has not warmed as predicted over the last 18 years.
According to the climate model predictions that the EPA relied on, the world should be 0.5° hotter than it is now.
Trillions of dollars have been squandered over the last 20 years subsidising wind and solar power, shutting down modern and clean coal-fired stations whose main emissions were water vapour and carbon dioxide, subsidising electric cars and promoting massively fraudulent carbon trading. This has made no detectable difference to the steady increase in carbon dioxide levels.
Their solution is to squander even more money on the same expensive and futile attempts to limit the emissions of an entirely beneficial gas that has made a major contribution to reducing poverty around the world.
The campaign against coal-fired power generation has increased the price of electricity and, in many countries, limited the access of poor people to an adequate and affordable supply of electricity.
To make the whole thing even more crazy, the same people that oppose coal-fired power generation also oppose nuclear power generation which is carbon dioxide free and is the safest form of power generation in the world.
It is the only technology that can make a big reduction in carbon dioxide emissions at little or no additional cost. Are these people in the pay of the renewable energy industry?
Right now, the New Zealand government is contemplating ways of extending our idiotic Emissions Trading Scheme even though it will make no difference to our carbon dioxide emissions and increase the cost of electricity and transport.
It will increase the cost of electricity from the Huntly coal-fired station and, because of the way our electricity market works, all the renewable energy generators will receive windfall profits.
So if they respond to market signals (as they should), they will be rewarded for shutting down hydro power generation so that Huntly continues to burn coal and keeps the price high. You can't get crazier than that!
GMO's - A Planned Human Sterility Program March 5 2016 | From: GlobalResearch
Severe health risks of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) are not new. Studies by scientists among others in France, Germany, Austria, since at least the 1990s, pointing to several levels of health dangers to mankind abound.
A recent study released by Egyptian researchers found that rats fed a GMO diet suffer from infertility, among other health issues. In the US similar studies were muzzled by Monsanto and the Monsanto staffed FDA.
In a 2011 paper the Institute for Responsible Technology - IRT refers to 19 animal studies linking GMOs to mostly liver and kidney organ disruption.
In the early 2000 the first Russian studies revealed reduction in fertility and birth defects in hamsters and rats. In a 2013 Russian study, scientist have discovered that mammals that eat GMO foodstuffs have difficulties to reproduce.
The study concluded that “Campbell hamsters that have a fast reproduction rate were fed for two years with ordinary soya beans which are widely used in agriculture and those contain different percentages of GMOs.
Another group of hamsters, the control group, was fed with pure soya [found in Serbia, as 95% of soya in the world is transgenic].”
According to Dr. Alexei Surov, who led the study on behalf of the National Association for Gene Security;
“We selected several groups of hamsters, kept them in pairs in cells and gave them ordinary food as always. We did not add anything for one group, but the other was fed with soya that contained no GMO components, while the third group [was fed] with some content of GMOs and the fourth one with increased amounts of GMOs…..
Originally everything went smoothly. However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs’ growth rate was slower, and [they] reached their sexual maturity slowly. When we got some of their cubs, we formed the new pairs of the third generation.
We failed to get cubs from these pairs which were fed with GMO foodstuffs. It was proven that these pairs lost their ability to give birth to their cubs."
Sterilization from GMOs is not an accident. Henry Kissinger, the protégé of the Rockefeller Foundation and one of the driving forces – still today – of the Bilderberg Society, not only is the author of the infamous proclamation in the early seventies:
“Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; and who controls money can control the world;"
He also said;
“Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the Third World."
This is still a (mostly unspoken) key objective of the elite, associated through different semi-secret organizations like the Bilderbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Trilateral Commission, the British Chatham House, the Economic Forum (Davos), and others.
GMOs are based on two strands; one involves insect resistance, the other is herbicide resistant and more dangerous, because it is glyphosate-tolerant. Glyphosate, known under its trade name ‘Roundup’, is however absorbed in the food fibers and has devastating health effects.
The herbicide is an endocrine-disruptor, a chemical that at certain doses can interfere with the hormone system of mammals. These disruptions may cause cancer, infertility, miscarriage, birth defects and full sterility by the third generation, as the Russian study clearly demonstrated.
A less populated Third World will give the US and world elite easier and cheaper access to needed raw materials, allowing the ‘chosen few’ to maintain a lifestyle of exuberant luxury and resources abuse.
“We are leading the world into the sixth mass extinction of life on this planet... Human behavior is undermining the web of life.”
Worse is to come, if and when the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement is ratified by the US and its eleven Pacific partners. The TPP – much like the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, linking the US with the 28 EU countries) – is negotiated behind closed doors.
The chief agricultural negotiator for the US is the former Monsanto lobbyist, Islam Siddique. The two monster trade agreements would deprive governments from regulating transnational corporations’ activities, to the point where the rights of corporations would supersede sovereign nations laws.
Corporations would be able to set up private courts that may rule a country liable for lost profit due to legislation that may interfere with their activities.
This would particularly apply to biotech agriculture. GMOs could no longer be forbidden by individual countries.
They are integral parts of the two giant trade agreements which the US is attempting to ram down the throats of their ‘partners’ – and may do so in the general realm of vassalage which has been cultivated by Washington’s threat and sledgehammer politics – “You are either with us or you are against us” – and the latter is usually punished with devastating sanctions, if not with death of errant, non-compliant leaders.
The objective of depopulation is alive and well – and being implemented under our eyes; and We, The People, are blinded by the steady drop-by-drop of propaganda that makes us believe that these trade agreements will resolve the world’s food problems, will eliminate famine.
What they will eliminate after a few generations is peoples’ fertility.
This, coupled with the constant and continuous wars on terror and financial assassinations of entire countries (see Greece) by the so-called Bretton Woods Organizations, IMF and World Bank, working hand-in-hand with the FED and Wall Street, may eventually succeed in drastically reducing world population – if We, The People, do not wake up.
Waking up to a new form of agriculture is crucial. Back to nature and earth-friendly farming, as well as away from globalization to the notion of ‘local production for local consumption’. Russia has a strict ban on GMOs. Russia is producing about 40% of its food by permaculture methods on simple garden plots.
According to Natural Living, 80% of the country’s fruit and berries, and 66% of vegetables and about 50% of the nation’s milk are produced on dacha-type plots.
It is not too late to get away from GMOs, from planned sterility and from depopulating the globe for the benefit of a tyrant elite.
But, We the People, have to wake up, take back the sovereign control of our nations from the vassal leadership which Washington has discretely, almost imperceptibly placed at the helm of the 11 TPP and the 28 TTIP nations by stolen or manipulated elections or outright ‘regime change’.
The breaking up of the Eurozone and the European Union – both of which are in dire straits – might be the beginning of a new era of self-determination.
GMO: Seeds of Death
COP21 Revealed: Read Full Text Of Climate Summit Plan Designed To Break Smaller Nations December 20 2015 | From: IntelliHub
Full text of COP21 agreement shows worldly plan to keep smaller nations indebted.
Carbon reduction plans will be put in place by all 196 participating countries who reached an agreement during COP21.
Additionally $100 billion in loan guarantees to smaller nations will be made available in the latest multi-pronged global scam that continues to perpetuate the use of nuclear power worldwide.
“In Paris, American Nuclear Society President Gene Grecheck said that “policymakers need to not be afraid to say they support nuclear technology at conferences such as COP21” because every serious look at the energy technologies required to mitigate climate change has concluded that large amounts of nuclear energy must be part of the mix,” Forbes reported.
Do you see what the powers-that-be are doing here? They are essentially forcing smaller nations to go nuclear and larger ones to upgrade their current nuclear facilities. These tyrannical masterminds behind the curtain are operating in a mafiaesk manner and are using a union-like blueprint to salt unwitty nations.
To learn more please watch a very important documentary film called Shade, now available on DVD video.
Indian Doctors Sue Bill Gates For Harming Children With Deadly 'Humanitarian' Vaccines + Dr. Robert Rowen Reveals The Raw Truth About Vaccines At The Vaccine World Summit December 16 2015 | From: NaturalNews / GlobalResearch
If Monsanto, the most evil corporation in the world, were a person, his name would be Bill Gates.
Yes, the Microsoft founder-turned-icon of Third World humanitarianism is an absolute crook, and an utterly vile one at that.
Reports indicate that Gates' many crimes against humanity in the form of illegal vaccine testing on innocent children are finally being addressed in a new lawsuit filed by the Indian government, which seeks to stop this demon of death from killing any more babies.
The Supreme Courts of India are currently conducting an extensive investigation into the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's devious actions abroad, which mainly involve testing deadly vaccines on poor, and oftentimes illiterate, children in developing nations without informed consent.
According to Health Impact News, the case focuses specifically on illicit human experimentation that occurred with the two available vaccines for HPV, Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline) and Gardasil (Merck & Co.).
Back in 2009, the Gates Foundation quietly funded trials of Gardasil on some 16,000 tribal school children living in Andhra Pradesh, India. According to a report published in Economic Times India back in August, many of the children fell violently ill not long after receiving the vaccine, and at least five of them died.
In a separate trial of Cervarix that took place around this same time, also funded by the Gates Foundation, an estimated 14,000 tribal children in Vadodara, Gujarat, were vaccinated for HPV. The result of this trial was two children dead and possibly hundreds of others severely injured. In both trials, many of the consent forms used were obviously forged, and many of the children's illiterate parents were coerced into signing consent forms with their thumbprints, not really know what they were doing.
A petition condemning these atrocious crimes against humanity notes that the Gates Foundation, as well as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), both of which supported the trials, were "criminally negligent" for testing deadly vaccines on:
“a vulnerable, uneducated and under-informed population [of] school administrators, students and their parents who were not provided informed consent or advised of potential adverse effects."
It wasn't until a non-governmental organization known as SAMA began investigating the two trials that these Nazi-like experiments on human beings were finally brought to light. But none of the controlled media in the U.S., or anywhere else in the West for that matter, agreed to cover it. The only country that took notice was India, which is now seeking justice against Gates and his band of vaccine terrorists.
Gates Foundation also responsible for killing kids with untested meningitis, polio and 5-in-1 pentavalent vaccines
Sadly, this isn't the only time that Gates and his crew were found to have committed evil acts against the world's most vulnerable.
In December 2012, five children in the small town of Gouro, Chad, were forcibly vaccinated with a meningitis A vaccine that was still in trials and not even approved for commercial use.
The children were told that if they didn't agree to the vaccine, which was administered without parental consent, they would not be allowed to receive any further education.
And again in 2013, both the Gates Foundation and GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, were exposed for forcing untested polio vaccines and 5-in-1 pentavalent vaccines on innocent children in Pakistan. Many of the children developed so-called "non-polio acute flaccid paralysis," or NPAFP, which reports indicate is twice as deadly as polio itself.
More on the Gates Foundation's extensive legacy of killing children with vaccines is available here: VacTruth.com.
Dr. Robert Rowen Reveals the Raw Truth About Vaccines at the Vaccine World Summit
Vaccine “science” as it’s most typically presented to the public is a hollow house of cards propped up only by deception and lies. Ask any doctor out there to show you even just one all-cause morbidity and mortality study proving the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and you’ll never get to see it, because such a study is nonexistent.
Johns Hopkins University graduate Dr. Robert Rowen has been investigating the claims surrounding the “safety and effectiveness” of vaccines for many years, and his undeniable conclusion is that vaccines don’t work and they aren’t safe. The measures by which the modern medical profession claims that vaccines are safe and effective don’t hold water, he maintains, and are easily disproven.
“In China, well over 90 percent of large populations are getting vaccinated, and allegedly they have immunity, and they measure immunity by immunoglobulins,” explained Dr. Rowen during a recent interview with NaturalHealth365.com host Jonathan Landsman, which is available online for free through the Vaccine World Summit.
“It turns out that that’s not a good way to measure immunity because people with immunoglobulins are getting measles. It just doesn’t seem to work.”
Vaccines provide only temporary immunity at best, and come with a high risk of permanent health damage.
A widespread misconception holds that vaccines are the only way to attain immunity and avoid infectious disease. But quite the contrary is actually true, as vaccines only provide temporary immunity, at best, while simultaneously and significantly increasing the risk of immune dysfunction, behavioral disorders and other major health problems.
“There’s a graph of how these communicable diseases have fallen since the introduction of vaccines, and a corresponding, parallel, identical rise in chronic immune dysfunction, like asthma, arthritis, multiple sclerosis, and others,” warns Dr. Rowen, who used to advocate for vaccines before he understood their true risks.
“No one has ever done an all-cause morbidity and mortality study on the effectiveness and safety of vaccines, and that’s what I’ve called for since 1990 when I first got alerted to the situation.”
Chronic disease has skyrocketed among children alongside massive additions to vaccine schedule.
Dr. Rowen cites a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) back in 2010 that highlights a doubling in the rate of chronic health conditions among children between the years of 1994 and 2006 — from 12.8 percent to 26.6 percent. This directly corresponds with substantial increases in the number of vaccines added to the government’s vaccine schedule.
Another study he references demonstrated that infant mortality rates are higher among vaccinated children.
“Do we want to be trading a few less problems with measles, or these other illnesses which are far more benign - mumps is benign, chicken pox is benign, German measles, rubella is totally benign [unless it's caught by a pregnant woman] - do we want to be trading a few less complications from that for a doubling in chronic [immune] diseases that we can’t treat?” asks Dr. Rowen.
“I’d rather have lifelong immunity than deal with getting a shot when I’m 18 months old and then get temporary immunity, at best, and then have it wear off when I’m 30 or 40 and be far more susceptible to a problem because these are disease that you don’t want to get when you’re an adult.”
“If the vaccine is safe and effective, then you go get your vaccine. I have no problem with that. You take the 26 percent risk of chronic, intractable, untreatable diseases, or autism, for your child… But don’t blame me, because your child is immune based on your choice, if what you say is true. And if what you say is a lie, then you have a problem.”
Be sure to listen to the full, eye-opening interview with Dr. Rowen by signing up for the Vaccine World Summit: VaccineWorldSummit.com.
Good Hearts, Fooled Minds: 4 Fallacies Of The (Hijacked) Environmental Movement November 17 2015 | From: WakeUpWorld
The hijacked environmental movement is a symptom of the current general, collective state of humanity: good hearted but ignorant.
Many people in the environmental movement are in it for the right reasons: they see the ongoing poisoning and destruction of the planet, led by corporations, and are determined to defend and speak out for the Earth. Yet, in spite of their good intentions, they have unwittingly allowed themselves to be channeled in a direction that is not really going to help the Earth, unintentionally supporting the very forces that are responsible for the pillaging of it.
By continuing to push notions that carbon dioxide is a poison, that global warming exists and all of mankind is responsible for it, that we need a worldwide carbon tax and that we require Agenda 21-style global governance, these people are unknowingly promoting the New World Order program – and unwittingly placing elite controllers in power who don’t care about the environment and view it merely as a resource to be exploited.
Welcome to Planet Earth. If your opinion diverges too much from the mainstream, you could get locked up for thinking “wrongly”.
With the current focus being on the outcomes of the recent 2015 UN Summit, the hackneyed buzzword of sustainability is being thrown around like there’s no tomorrow. In this context, it’s worth revisiting how the environmental movement came to be so hijacked and co-opted.
Basis for the Hijack: Conspiracy Reports from The Iron Mountain and The Club of Rome
The basis for the hijacked environment movement lies within formerly secret military reports, and one of the elite Round Table groups that run the world: the Club of Rome.
The Club of Rome meeting in Salzburg in 1972. "The Club of Rome, the prestigious think tank founded in 1968, is for the first time meeting in the Dutch capital Amsterdam. Key guest is former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachov, who is to speak on Monday. Other guests include Queen Beatrix, former Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers and Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer.The think tank, which comprises economists, scientists, politicians and business people, meets once a year to discuss environmental pollution, the depletion of natural resources and the growth of the world population." As pointed out by an astute reader, the man fifth from the left is the Prime Minister of Canada - Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliot Trudeau.
I wonder if those who believe in AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) or Manmade Global Warming have any idea that the elite came up with the idea of using mankind itself as the global threat against which we are all supposed to gather behind a One World Government?
The 1966 Report from the Iron Mountain was commissioned by John F. Kennedy and considered by Lyndon B. Johnson as too dangerous to reveal to the public at the time when it was completed. This excerpt from it discusses how a global government could be imposed without war, and suggests the threat could instead be environmental pollution:
“The possibility of war provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long remain in power… An effective political substitute for war would require “alternate enemies,” some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system.
It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species.
Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power.
But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis… [however] the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for this purpose”.
The Club of Rome’s 1991 document entitled The First Global Revolution? contains this passage:
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, 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 their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together …
all these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
Are You Being ‘Green Washed’?
The current environmental movement we see today was hijacked a long time ago. Let’s take a look at the top 4 fallacies the NWO conspirators have managed to get ‘greenies’ to believe.
The Hijacked Environmental Movement Fallacy #1: Carbon Dioxide is a Poison
Let’s start with the basics: carbon dioxide (CO2) is a nutrient, not a poison. We breathe out carbon dioxide every breath, but we also take some of it in on the inbreath. According to the IPCC (Interplanetary Panel on Climate Change), we are therefore poisoning ourselves every breath!
Think about it – if CO2 were really a poison, why does it help plants grow so much?
Why is it a key part of the fundamental equation of biology: sugar + oxygen = carbon dioxide + water + heat?
How is it that those in the environmental movement are ignorant of basic biology?
As the website PlantsNeedCO2.org states, the more CO2 around, the better plants grow:
“In Idso and Idso’s (1994) analysis of soil nutrient limitations, the percentage growth enhancement due to a 300-ppm rise in the air’s CO2 content actually did exhibit a slight (but statistically non-significant) decline, dropping from 51% to 45% when nutrients went from non-growth-limiting to limiting in a group of 70 experiments.
But when the atmospheric CO2 enrichment was 600 ppm, this slight negative trend reversed itself, going from a CO2-induced growth stimulation of 43% when nutrients were present in abundance to a 52% enhancement when their supply was sub-optimal.
And for a 1200-ppm increase in atmospheric CO2, the percentage growth enhancement jumped from 60% when the soil nutrient supply was adequate to 207% when it was less-than-adequate.”
It’s a simple equation: the more CO2 you have, the more the plants like it, and the faster they will grow.
The demonization of carbon dioxide is not about helping the environment.
The NWO idea has always been to attach the worsening condition of the environment to an individual’s energy usage – and even his or her breathing – so as to introduce a carbon tax.The Government literally wants to tax you for breathing – for merely being alive.
The Hijacked Environmental Movement Fallacy #2: The Manmade Global Warming Hoax
That is why the term global warming got changed to climate change – this way, no matter what happens with the weather, the IPCC can say the climate is changing. But climate change is a slick truism – you can’t argue against it. Of course the climate is changing. When has it not changed?
The Hijacked Environmental Movement Fallacy #3: The Carbon Tax and Global Governance as Eco-Solutions
As pointed out above, all this focus on carbon is for one reason: taxation. The whole scheme to get people and corporations fixated on their carbon footprint – rather than how much actual benefit or harm they are doing the environment – is to pave the way for more taxation and centralization of power.
To have a worldwide carbon tax, of course, you need a One World Government to enforce and collect it. The UN, ICLEI and its other subdivisions are constantly talking about global governance for this very reason.
It also means extending the reach of the United Nations so that local bodies such as local councils and municipalities that belong to ICLEI, (the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, created in 1990 as a non-governmental spin-off of the United Nations) can implement its global directives and make it look ‘grassroots’, or like it was locally decided.
For further information on this topic, check out George Hunt’s work in exposing how Evelyn Rothschild and David Rockefeller were cooking up the cap-and-trade scheme in the 1980s. Hunt was present at some of the meetings where the carbon tax was first being discussed.
The Hijacked Environmental Movement Fallacy #4: Overpopulation
Mahatma Gandhi once said: “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed.” There is no doubt that rising populations can put a strain on resources, yet where is the proof that the Earth cannot support 7 billion people? Or 9 billion people? Is it really population that is the problem here, or is it rather self-centered greed and destructive environmental practices and technologies?
We can accept the world’s rising population not as a threat or a reason to justify killing (which goes by the euphemism of depopulation) but rather as a challenge. It can propel us into living more from the heart, to having more compassion for those less well off than us, to doing a better job of sharing, of distributing resources equitably.
It can stimulate us into better modes of efficiency. Could the rising population help a critical mass of people awake to the truth of free energy, and the fact that free energy or over unity devices already exist which provide practically unlimited energy for free or very cheaply?
When people gain a higher education, they organically choose to have less kids. If the conspirators really cared about the planet’s population, why not use their money to help everyone access better education? The answer is, of course, that they don’t.
Underpinning the propaganda of overpopulation is eugenics. It’s the idea that some humans are superior to others, and that some humans don’t deserve to be here.
This is really the philosophical and spiritual basis of the hijacking. As they have confessed, the conspirators in their delusions view the rest of the population as a virus that must be rid from the planet. Yet, the real virus is the fear mindset that runs the show in the brains of the elite controllers.
“In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”
Some of the most powerful and wealthiest environmental organizations have… led the climate movement down various dead ends: carbon trading, carbon offsets, natural gas as a “bridge fuel” - what these policies all held in common is that they created the illusion of progress while allowing the fossil fuel companies to keep mining, drilling and fracking with abandon.
When it comes to our environment, as David Icke says, we need streetwise spirituality.
We need to have our hearts in the right places, but also put our thinking caps on, otherwise we will easily by led astray by tricksters.
Only once the leaders of the environmental movement have their hearts and brains in alignment can we effect real change on the ecosystems of Planet Earth.
In September 2015, Agenda 21 Will Be Transformed Into The 2030 Agenda August 22 2015 | From:EndOfTheAmericanDream
If you didn’t like "Agenda 21", then you really are not going to like “The 2030 Agenda”. Next month, the United Nations is going to launch “The 2030 Agenda” at a major conference that will be held from September 25th to September 27th in New York City. [There are efforts underway to prevent this from happening - but there needs to be awareness of the presence of this plan].
Download the 2030 Agenda directly from the UN website here:
The Pope is actually traveling to New York to deliver an address which will kick off this conference. Unlike Agenda 21, which primarily focused on the environment, the 2030 Agenda is truly a template for governing the entire planet.
In addition to addressing climate change, it also sets ambitious goals for areas such as economics, health, energy, education, agriculture, gender equality and a whole host of other issues. As you will see below, this global initiative is being billed as a “new universal Agenda” for humanity. If you are anything like me, alarm bells are going off in your head right about now.
This new agenda is solidly rooted in a document known as “Agenda 21″ that was originally adopted by the United Nations back in 1992. The following comes from Wikipedia.
"The full text of Agenda 21 was made public at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit), held in Rio de Janeiro on June 13, 1992, where 178 governments voted to adopt the program. The final text was the result of drafting, consultation, and negotiation, beginning in 1989 and culminating at the two-week conference.
Since that time, Agenda 21 has been modified and amended numerous times. Noteworthy changes occurred in 1997, 2002 and 2012.
But now the UN’s sustainable development program is being given an entirely new name, and the scope of this agenda is being broadened dramatically. The following is what the official United Nations website has to say about it…
"The United Nations is now in the process of defining Sustainable Development Goals as part a new sustainable development agenda that must finish the job and leave no one behind. This agenda, to be launched at the Sustainable Development Summit in September 2015, is currently being discussed at the UN General Assembly, where Member States and civil society are making contributions to the agenda.
Just a few days ago, the core document for the 2030 Agenda was finalized. When what is in this document starts getting out, it is going to create a huge stir among Americans that are concerned about the ambitions of the globalists. The following comes from the preamble of this document.
This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity. It also seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom. We recognise that eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development.
All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan.We are resolved to free the human race from the tyranny of poverty and want and to heal and secure our planet. We are determined to take the bold and transformative steps which are urgently needed to shift the world onto a sustainable and resilient path. As we embark on this collective journey, we pledge that no one will be left behind.
The 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets which we are announcing today demonstrate the scale and ambition of this new universal Agenda. They seek to build on the Millennium Development Goals and complete what these did not achieve. They seek to realize the human rights of all and to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls.They are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental.
As you can see, this is not just a plan to fight climate change. This is literally a blueprint for transforming global society.
The core of the plan is a set of 17 specific goals:
Goal 1 End poverty in all its forms everywhere
Goal 2 End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
Goal 3 Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
Goal 4 Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
Goal 5 Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
Goal 6 Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
Goal 7 Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
Goal 8 Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all
Goal 9 Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation
Goal 10 Reduce inequality within and among countries
Goal 11 Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
Goal 12 Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
Goal 13 Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*
Goal 14 Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
Goal 15 Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
Goal 16 Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
Goal 17 Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development
Many of those sound very good. After all, who wouldn’t want to “end poverty” or “halt biodiversity loss”?
But as you read through that list, ask yourself what forms of human activity would be excluded from it.
Personally, I have a hard time coming up with much of anything.
As I discussed earlier this week, the globalists want to use “sustainable development” as an excuse to micromanage the lives of every man, woman and child on the entire globe.
We are told that individual liberty and freedom are “dangerous” because when everyone just runs around doing whatever they want it is “bad for the planet”.
For example, one of the goals of the sustainable development crowd is to push the human population into giant “megacities” and to allow nature to recapture much of what has already been settled by humanity.
The following map that comes from America 2050 is one example of what they want to do. A recent piece by Dave Hodges alerted me to this map, and it shows what the United States may look like in a few decades if the globalists have their way…
And of course this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Eventually, the globalists want to fundamentally transform virtually everything about our society. This includes our economy, our government, our entertainment, our social interactions, our families and even our religious beliefs.
So don’t let all of the nice language fool you.
This “new universal Agenda” is far, far more dangerous than Agenda 21 ever was, and it is a giant step forward into a one world system governed by bureaucratic control freaks.
Hawke's Bay's Merger Mayor And Agenda 21 June 28 2015 | From: BreakingViews
Hastings merger mayor Lawrence Yule’s speech to the Commonwealth Local Government Conference in Botswana last week showed the link between local government reorganization in New Zealand and the United Nations Agenda 21 policy.
Yule is the only mayor in Hawke’s Bay to back a five-council amalgamation of the sort that was stingingly dumped in Wellington earlier this month and slowly evaporated in Northland. A final proposal for a merger in Hawke’s Bay will be voted on in September.
Agenda 21 is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development. It is a product of the Earth Summit (UN Conference on Environment and Development) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992.
This agenda has been embedded in New Zealand’s institutional framework for over 20 years, manifesting itself through such buzzwords as “sustainable development”, “biodiversity”, “smart growth”, “waste minimization”, and “population control”.
Through this agenda a foreign group like the United Nations effectively dictates policy through our central and local government and will ultimately siphon money from our local and central government to fund their master plan involving the global redistribution of resources.
As Commonwealth Local Government Forum chair, Yule told Botswana president Lieutenant General Seretse Khama Ian Khama, United Nations Development Programme administrator Helen Clark, forum secretary general Carl Wright, Botswana Association of Local Authority president Mpho Moruakgomo, and the large room full of conference delegates, that:
“ . . it was encouraging that there is a formal agreement that all levels of government, including the subnational, have a role in implementing the sustainable development goals, that there is support for addressing the issues of capacity and resources, and that a dedicated sustainable development goal on cities and human settlements is proposed.
The forum represents local government at Commonwealth level, including to the Commonwealth Secretary-General and at meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government and with other Commonwealth partners. It also makes written submission to consultations and other policy development forums."
Sustainable development goals are a new, universal set of goals, targets and indicators that UN member states will be expected to use to frame their agendas and political policies over the next 15 years.
They follow, and expand on, the millennium development goals, which were agreed by governments in 2000, and are due to expire at the end of this year.
The eight millennium development goals – reduce poverty and hunger; achieve universal education; promote gender equality; reduce child and maternal deaths; combat HIV, malaria and other diseases; ensure environmental sustainability; develop global partnerships – failed to consider the root causes of poverty, or gender inequality, or the holistic nature of development.
What are the proposed 17 sustainable development goals?
1) End poverty in all its forms everywhere
2) End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture
3) Ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all at all ages
4) Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
5) Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
6) Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
7) Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
8) Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all
9) Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation, and foster innovation
10) Reduce inequality within and among countries
11) Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
12) Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
13) Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts (taking note of agreements made by the UNFCCC forum)
14) Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
15) Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification and halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss
16) Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
17) Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalise the global partnership for sustainable development.
The Hastings mayor who is on a salary of $120,000 is mostly away from Hastings working on his other jobs being the president of Local Government New Zealand, as well as Commonwealth Local Government Forum chair.
For those who think local government is all about roads, water, sewage, parks, libraries, and building consents, think again.
Merger mayor Lawrence Yule appears to think that Hawke’s Bay ratepayers have a further obligation to end poverty and hunger, to promote education and gender equality, to promote sustainable energy and industrialisation, to reduce inequality, to make cities and towns inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable, to combat climate change, to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, manage forests, combat desertification, provide access to justice for all, and so on.
Local government in Hawke's Bay would have to be much bigger, and therefore, much more costly, to take on all of that.
When voting in September, Hawke’s Bay residents should be very careful in choosing whether or not to endorse the five-council amalgamation that the largely absentee Hastings mayor Lawrence Yule is promoting.
Whether They Know It Or Not; A Positive Anti-Centralisation / Agenda 21 Move:
Hastings Resists Amalgamation February 24 2015 | From: BreakingViews and NZCPR
As decision time looms with the proposal to merge the five Hawke’s Bay councils into one super council based in Napier, a new group has formed in Hastings to fight amalgamation.
Hastings Against Amalgamation is holding an initial meeting at the Havelock North Community Centre on Tuesday, February 24 at 7pm, to plan the next step should the Local Government Commission opt to proceed with amalgamation.
That next step is to collect around 4,400 Hastings signatures to trigger a poll on the issue.
As a bit of background, a group of wealthy business people under the banner of A Better Hawke’s Bay started pushing for amalgamation about two years ago by letter-boxing a colour brochure throughout the region.
Although this group gave the appearance of a grassroots desire for change, the emergence of a similar group in Northland at the same time sparked speculation that local government amalgamation is a central government plan that would lead to the privatisation of local government assets and increase in local government debt.
The Auckland councils amalgamated on November 1, 2010. Amalgamation there:
Hiked rates by 8 percent in the first year. (1)
Increased debt by 30 percent in year one.
Set up powerless local boards.
Set up a Maori board that produced a $295-million spending plan for Maori.(2)
Amalgamating the five existing councils in Hawke’s Bay into one super council with five local boards and a Maori board all based in Napier is likely to:
Replace Hastings’ 14 councillors with six councillors and nine local board members.(3)
Introduce a Maori board and race-based spending.
The proposal from A Better Hawke’s Bay two years ago envisaged a unitary authority with one mayor elected district-wide, 16 councillors (Hastings six, Napier six, Wairoa two, Central Hawke’s Bay two), and five community boards (Hastings, Napier, Wairoa, Central Hawke’s Bay, and rural) with five members on each, and a five-member Maori Leader’s Forum.
The Local Government Commission presented a draft proposal for amalgamation in Hawke’s Bay and invited submissions that were presented in June of last year.(4)
That proposal envisaged a unitary authority with one mayor elected district-wide, nine councillors elected from five wards (Hastings, Napier, Wairoa, Central Hawke’s Bay, and Ngaruroro), five community boards (Hastings, Napier, Wairoa, Central Hawke’s Bay, and Ngaruroro) with a total of 37 elected members, and a Maori board.
Submissions showed a high degree of opposition, with 83 percent against. The commission produced a position paper last November with a revised scheme.
That envisaged a unitary authority with one mayor, 18 councillors elected from five wards (Hastings six, Napier six, Wairoa two, Central Hawke’s Bay two, and Ngaruroro two), five local boards (Hastings – nine elected, two appointed; Napier – nine elected, two appointed; Wairoa – six elected, two appointed; Central Hawke’s Bay – six elected, two appointed; and Ngaruroro – seven elected, two appointed), and a Maori board, presumably appointed.
Noosa, a seaside township of some 30,000 residents on Australia’s Sunshine Coast, was established as a local authority in 1910. In 2008, following the recommendations of the Local Government Reform Commission, it was disestablished by the Queensland Government and amalgamated into a Sunshine Coast Council. A total of 157 councils were consolidated into 73 during Queensland’s reform period.
Noosa residents were deeply unhappy about the forced amalgamation and the removal of local democracy. They vowed to fight back, and in the lead up to the State Government elections in 2012, they, along with three other Queensland communities, won the right to de-amalgamate.
The “de-amalgamation” vote in 2013 was supported by over 80 percent of Noosa residents. They rejected the forced amalgamation agenda of the central planners, who saw super-councils as the way of the future. The other three Queensland communities also succeeded in their battles to restore local democracy.
In Canada there were similar controversies over forced amalgamations in Toronto and Montreal. In both cases the provincial governments were attempting to reduce the number of local bodies to save costs. Amalgamation was extremely unpopular in both cities, particularly in Montreal. In 2006 residents forced de-amalgamation and just four years after Montreal’s amalgamation, at a massive cost, the city de-merged into 15 municipalities.
Not all countries believe bigger local government is better. France has developed economies of scale for infrastructure such as roads and water (five water companies manage supplies for the whole of France), but not for local government. There are around 130,000 local bodies and a Mayor for every 300 or so residents. In Switzerland, one of the most successful economies in the world, where great emphasis is placed on both efficiency and democracy, the average Swiss Commune (local authority) has two thousand residents.
Assessing amalgamation proposals in New Zealand is the responsibility of the Local Government Commission. Established in 1947, the Commission is an independent statutory body with three members appointed by the Minister of Local Government. The present Chairman is Basil Morrison, a former Mayor of the Hauraki District and President of Local Government New Zealand, who is also a member of the Waitangi Tribunal.
Quite striking in this increasingly complicated arrangement is the appearance of appointees acting as representatives. There are 10 appointees on community boards as well as the entirely appointed Maori board. The questions are who is doing the appointing and who do these appointees represent?
Other more basic points include:
The Local Government Commission predicts transition costs of around $19-million which would bring annual ongoing savings of around $10-million from year five.
Transition to a Hawkes Bay Council as proposed by the Local Government Commission is viable with a payback period of around four years. Table 6 shows that annual ongoing savings build to around $10-million from year five, requiring transition costs of around $19-million. (5)
Undiscounted gains over thirty years are expected to total $260-million.
Information technology is expected to cost $12.6-million. Redundancy costs were unstated in the transition cost report
In Auckland, staff cost savings came from a combination of: reduction in staff, unfilled vacancies and filling positions at lower rates of remuneration. Around $80 million in staff cost savings were associated with $27-million in redundancies. Redundancy costs were therefore around 33 percent of staff cost savings.
A $4-million budget over 12 months is assumed for a Hawke’s Bay transition body.
Why is this being pushed now? What is the urgency?
The commission also stated an intention to survey 2000 residents across Hawke’s Bay, and parts of Taupo and Rangitikei, to gauge support for the revised position, arguing that the 83 percent opposition found in submissions only represented 1 percent of residents.
That survey is taking place around now.
According to the November 2014 position paper, the commission is expected soon to release its position regarding existing council debt and how this should be treated in an amalgamation. The Hastings District Council external debt is from $55-million to $79-million depending on whose figures you rely on, and Napier, $4-million.
By the end of March, the commission will decide whether to issue a modified draft proposal as the final proposal, largely reflecting the Nov 2014 position or if deciding not to issue a final proposal, will instead issue a public notice, and the re-organisation process in Hawke’s Bay would cease.
If a modified draft proposal is issued, residents have 60 days in April and June for 10 percent or more of affected electors in the district to demand a poll Around 4400 signatures would be required for Hastings.
If no valid petition is received, the final proposal would be implemented by an order in council establishing a transition body with an interim chief executive to prepare the required scheme.
But if a valid petition is received, a regional poll would be held after any successful petition from July to September. We would know if the regional poll supported or opposed the final proposal by October. If it supported the final proposal, then this would be implemented by an order in council establishing a transition body as detailed above.
If it opposed amalgamation, the re-organisation process would cease and the existing councils would continue.
While the other three mayors are all anti-amalgamation, Hastings Mayor Lawrence Yule is a very vocal supporter of amalgamation and the Hastings District Council is spending around $50,000 to convince Hastings residents to back him. However, whether Hastings residents support amalgamation remains unknown.
This issue should go to a regional vote. The starting point for a vote is a petition calling for a vote. Around 4,400 Hastings signatures are required to trigger a poll on the issue. A total of 5,000 signatures could be collected by 50 people each collecting 100 signatures.
While organising this group I have not found a single person who supports the proposal to absorb the councils of Hastings, Napier, Wairoa, and Central Hawke’s Bay, plus the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, into one super council with five local boards, and a Maori board, with the headquarters in Napier.
For those living in Hawke’s Bay, your say is critical. Find out what you can do to help by coming to the Havelock North Community Centre on Tuesday, February 24 at 7pm (admission free) or by visiting www.amalgamatehbnot.com
Wellington Supercity Proposed By 2016 - The Agenda 21 'Supercity' Rollout Continues December 5 2014 | From: NationalBusinessReview
The Local Government Commission’s report on Wellington’s supercity proposes a new council and mayor by November 2016.
While the Auckland 'Supercity' adventure has been a PR-whitewashed abject failure that costs more, and diverts funding to vested interests - most do not realise the details and that they are irrelevant so long as the UN Agenda 21 gets implemented.
Comment: I once knew a person who worked in the Audit Office of the Auckland City Council who told me that if the people knew the amount of fraud, overspending and inefficency going on there would be an uproar that would topple the council.
The report was released at noon today, despite Wellington city councillor Helene Ritchie already spilling the news.
The commission has suggested the establishment of one Wellington council with eight local boards. This would mean one mayor, 21 councillors, and 60 local board members.
It forecasts financial savings of just over $30 million a year through amalgamation.
The commission says in its report it expects the Wellington local boards will have greater power than Auckland local boards for non-regulatory functions such as development consents. It also says councillors will be appointed to boards unlike Auckland, to improve communication.
The report acknowledges the case for change is not as compelling as it was in Auckland due to population figures. The proposed Great Wellington Council will serve a population comparable to Auckland City Council before the 2010 amalgamation, it says.
“Wellington does not face the growth pressures of Auckland."
“Nor does it have the level of dysfunction between current councils that was evident in Auckland prior to amalgamation,” - the report says.
The report notes that, in the 10 years to 2013, the Wellington region performed worse than the national economy on all indicators except employment growth and business unit growth.
“The Wellington economy is dominated by the government sector. To perform better it needs to diversify and significantly lift its national and international competitiveness."
“Leadership and the ability to deliver a single plan for the region will be critical to improved competitiveness and better economic outcomes."
The proposal is now open for submissions.
Australian Ex-Politician Whistle-Blower Ann Bressington Exposes Agenda 21 July 1 2014 | From: Youtube
After years in Australian politics Ann Bressington bided her time, gathering intel and real evidence till she had enough information to go public about Agenda 21, and the reality of it.
In a radio interview on June 29th 2014 Ann reveals the truth about how the government is controlling you, their plans for world depopulation, control of food supply, ways they are poisoning people, chemtrails, how voting is rigged, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.
If you still think your government loves you, and is there to help and protect you, think again. This is a real eye opener, with real evidence. Agenda 21 is an official document with a world plan of total control and oppression of humanity.
Comment: Unfortunately Ann seems to have become embroiled in the OTTP / Swissindo scam but hopefully she will figure this out in due course. That is a separate matter however, and should not detract from her first hand experience with Agenda 21 matters in the Australian political arena.
Ann Bressington Exposes Agenda 21, Club Of Rome Published on Feb 3, 2013
Ann Bressington Exposes Agenda 21, Club of Rome, Sustainable Development, at the Lord Monckton Launch 2 Feb 2013 at the Adelaide Convention Centre.
Agenda 21: What Sustainable Development Really Means For You Februay 7 2015 | From: StephenBlackheath
The following is a (slightly) condensed version of the book by the same name from New Zealand researcher Stephen Blackheath [Intro is available below]. The full version of this free ebook (with references and footnotes) may be downloaded here.
Sustainable Development is not an environmental movement. It's a political and economic policy masquerading as an environmental movement. And it has everything to do with an unprecedented expansion and centralisation of global power.
I wrote this book for New Zealanders because I am worried that environmentalists are accepting Sustainable Development uncritically as a solution to our problems, when it is anything but.
To obtain the truth, you have to negotiate a minefield of disinformation. The reason for this is that it is very important to the powers-that-be to control the information people receive. So it's not surprising that they put a lot of effort into promoting the idea that the mainstream is the only reliable source of truth. This, of course, is folly, because they have every reason to lie. So we have no option but to navigate this minefield. Sadly there is no shortcut to the truth.
I tried to strike a balance between research quality and conservation of my time, and I did not always get this right:
It turns out I was wrong to use the Holly Greig case as an example of a high-level paedophile ring. You can read more about that here. The Jimmy Savile case is a fertile area for this kind of investigation, because it is pretty clear that he was "protected" in his activities.
I'll correct this in a revision of the book, and try to progressively improve the book overall. I especially want to improve the whole police state chapter (where I mentioned Holly Greig). To most people, the emerging police state is a new and shocking subject, but to me it's old news and easily provable, so that's where I spent the least time. I would have avoided it altogether if I could have, but it was essential to the argument of the book.
You might have heard of Sustainable Development, but you may not know that the term describes a comprehensive and detailed global plan by the United Nations. This plan is being implemented right now by stealth in your city, and it is picking up pace by the day.
Would you like to know how it will affect you? Then read on, because that is the subject of this book.
Sustainable Development – or what it represents – is big. The American, French, Russian and Chinese Revolutions, the rise of Hitler, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the rise and fall of Rome, the conquest of the New World, the dominance of the British Empire are nothing in comparison.
Sustainable Development is not an environmental policy, but it masquerades as such.
The time scale is in decades. By my estimation, the effects will be felt greatly by 2020, and it will be utterly in place by 2050.
The clearest way to put it is that Sustainable Development is both a massive political shift and a global corporate take-over, but this description doesn't quite do it justice.
2.1 The Nature of the Subject
The nature of the subject Research into this subject is in its infancy. To understand it, a lot of commonly held assumptions
need to be overturned, and this can't be done in a short article. That's why most introductions fail to convince, and overcoming that is the difficult task I have set myself for this 64 page book.
The topic is also vast, so much is necessarily left out. I have written this for New Zealanders, because many commentators on it are right-leaning Americans, and their political language translates badly into a New Zealand context.
[In the book, Stephen prefaces the Agenda 21 material with an introduction to psychology and psychopaths (which you can read as a separate article here), in order to better understand how the elite are capable of implementing such plans as Agenda 21. This abridged version will go straight into the Agenda 21 Sustainable Develoment material.
3.0 Debt Money
There are some very important facts about the monetary system that people are still largely ignorant about. I don't want to go into detail here. However, this information is essential to understand any hard-core geo-politics, and that, of course is what this book is about.
So I highly recommend you watch a 40-minute video called Money As Debt by Paul Grignon..
There are also many, many web pages explaining the subject. Search for “debt money” or “debt- based monetary system”.
Here is a summary, with the main points that are relevant to this book:
Money is created out of thin air when it is “loaned into existence” by normal trading banks. This adds to the total amount of money in circulation.
The money to repay the principal is created along with the loan, but the money to pay the interest is never created.
As a result of the above, the amount of debt always exceeds the amount of money in circulation, resulting in a situation where the economy is in permanent debt (though individuals can be out of debt).
In times of relative stability, the banks use this mechanism to slowly acquire ownership of real resources. In recessions, assets can be stripped from the economy on a large scale.
Since we don't have enough money (as a society) to repay our debts, we must continuously create new loans to repay old ones, sliding further and further into debt from which there is no escape. An expansion of commerce is the automatic result, and this is referred to as “economic growth”.
Because it must grow in real terms every year, a debt economy cannot be environmentally sustainable. Any attempt to make it so by taxation will cause it to go insolvent, allowing the banks to acquire ownership of real assets. Remember this – because this is exactly what Sustainable Development seeks to do.
As mentioned, if the economy fails to grow by a certain percentage each year, it goes insolvent and its assets are then stripped by the banks. A sudden drain on the economy of a few percentage points (such as a new tax, oil price increase, or reduction in the issuance of new loans) over a year or so is all that's required to create this effect. It is trivial to engineer recessions such as the one beginning in 2008 by means of seemingly small changes in bank lending policy.
A debt economy does not operate in a steady state. It constantly builds up pressure in real terms: The average household debt is steadily increasing relative to the average salary.
As a society we cannot buy the products of our own labour outright. We must borrow money to do so.
If you trace them through to their destination, debt servicing costs make up almost all of the cost of products we buy.
A large chunk of our taxes openly go to debt servicing, but by the same reasoning as for products above, the bulk of the remainder also goes ultimately to debt servicing.
We work for the banks.
The debt money system pushes the economy into a vast hierarchy of control, with banks at the top. Almost everyone is simultaneously master and slave.
The debt money system is extremely effective at making people work.
The debt money system is completely parasitic and totally unnecessary. Its only purpose is to give the banks vast power over us.
The debt money system automatically and mathematically creates unemployment and poverty, driving down the cost of labour.
The debt money system creates an illusion that there is a lack of physical resources. Many people buy into this illusion and blame it on “overpopulation”.
The debt money system is the main driver of environmental destruction.
The debt money system slowly absorbs all human activity into the influence of commerce. For example, there used to be an expectation that water was free, but now you are often forced to buy it in bottles.
By running our economy in credit instead of in debt, we could make people masters of their own destiny and eliminate poverty tomorrow.
In a debt economy, there is an artificial scarcity of money. This means we buy everything we can afford. In a credit economy, we can instead buy everything we want
It is a fallacy that big business largely motivated by greed. Certainly this is not true for managers. Managers are required by law to maximise shareholder value, and their actions are compelled by finance. If they don't act with maximum acquisitiveness, they will go to jail . Business owners on the other hand, can choose between different companies all operating on the “maximum acquisitiveness” principle. Assuming no government subsidies, ethical investments can only survive in this environment if they don't cost more than non- ethical ones. If they don't compete, they die.
I would emphasise that this is all provable. I urge you to learn more.
4.0 Funding a Global Emergency
“We have entered the uncharted territory of global emergency, where 'business as usual' cannot continue.”
- His Holiness the Dalai Lama (who actually workd for the Cabal)
“We have reached the critical moment of decision on climate change. Failure to act to now would be deeply and unforgivably irresponsible. We urgently require a global environmental revolution.”
- Tony Blair (who everyone knows works for the Cabal)
Despite claims to the contrary, there is much debate about the factuality or otherwise of human-induced climate change, peak oil, water shortage and overpopulation. This is a big topic and I won't discuss it in this book. However, there is an assumption held by many, that big oil interests are funding those who say the environment is not in crisis, and that no similar big money exists on the environment's side.
This isn't true. The idea of human-induced climate change is very well funded indeed, as I hope to demonstrate.
4.1 Big Conferences
Rio de Janeiro hotel owners have agreed to cut prices during a major UN summit next month, amid fears that spiralling costs were putting off visitors.
The Brazilian government said room rates should now be at least 25% lower. Some 50,000 visitors are expected in Rio for the UN sustainable development conference, taking place 20 years after the first Earth Summit was held there.
The summit begins on 13 June, with the main events taking place 20-22 June. 
Rio is a fun town. While you're there, you might want to catch American Hip-Hop star Phonte performing at the Viaduct Negrao de Lima on Saturday the 23rd, or take in a full-day tropical island tour.
So let's take a reasonable rate of USD$300 per night , and assume a (conservative) two extra days to take in the sights, that's 5 nights. ($300 x 5 nights + $2000 airfares) x 50,000 delegates.
That comes to USD$175 million dollars in travel expenses. That money has to come from somewhere, specifically from governments and corporations. On the government side, your elected representatives will be there, along with a horde of government department policy makers you didn't elect, and you will be paying for it.
Someone estimated  that aircraft use 5.5 gallons of fuel per mile, which works out to 13 litres per kilometre. Let's roughly estimate an average distance of 4,500 kilometres (half the distance from London to Rio).
That's 13 litres/km x 4,500 km x 50,000 delegates / 500 passengers in a Boeing 747, which comes to 5.85 million litres of aviation fuel. At $5/gallon – $1.32 per litre, that's USD$7.7 million dollars worth. According to David Suzuki , air travel accounts for four to nine percent of total climate change impact of human activity.
Incidentally, at 101g of CO2 emissions per passenger km , that's 4,500 km x 50,000 delegates x 101g = 22,725 metric tonnes of CO2 emissions. The Rio conferences are only once every ten years, but the yearly UN climate change conferences attract 15,000 delegates.
A Freedom of Information request gives some figures for Australia:
Documents released to the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance under Freedom of Information laws revealed that bureaucrats in the Department of Climate change flew 6,528,616km last financial year, costing us a staggering $3,274,286.40!
And while these very people are lecturing us to act like we’re back in the dark ages the carbon emissions of these flights equal over 1000 tonnes! 
Comparing these figures, Rio+20 delegates would have flown 4,500 km x 50,000 delegates = 225 million km. The passenger kms and CO2 emissions roughly check out, showing ratios of 1:34 and 1:22. So, Australia spent roughly 1/28th of the cost of the Rio+20 conference on Sustainability jetsetting in 2011.
4.2 The Lorax
Universal Pictures produced a film in 2012 based on Dr. Seuss's book, the Lorax. The film had a strong environmental message and many anti-corporate elements, for instance:
The bad guy was O'Hare of the evil O'Hare Air company that sold people bottled fresh air.
To increase demand, O'Hare had his factories belch out more and more smog and smoke.
O'Hare ran the whole town, with surveillance cameras everywhere, especially if people wanted to go out of town (which wasn't allowed).
O'Hare conspired to prevent anyone growing trees, because they make fresh air for free (so he would sell less).
Universal Pictures is 80% owned by General Electric, the sixth largest corporation in the US. It is also one of the US's largest and most notorious polluters. For example, according to EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) documents, General Electric is the fourth largest producer of toxic waste sites as defined by the Hazardous Waste and Containment Act of 1980.
It fought a media and political battle to evade responsibility for producing 1.3 million pounds of toxic PCBs between 1947 and 1977. Why is General Electric effectively promoting a movie criticising itself? I hope the answer to this question will be clear to you by the end of the book.
4.3 The Sustainability Industry
The Byzantine edifice of United Nations treaties that countries have signed up to can be breathtaking, and one might argue that this is, in fact, the point. In one of them, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 40 countries (including New Zealand) agreed to this:
A mechanism for the provision of financial resources on a grant or concessional basis, including for the transfer of technology, is hereby defined. It shall function under the guidance of and be accountable to the Conference of the Parties, which shall decide on its policies, programme priorities and eligibility criteria related to this Convention. Its operation shall be entrusted to one or more existing international entities.
...and agreed to agree on arrangements for...
determination in a predictable and identifiable manner of the amount of funding necessary and available for the implementation of this Convention and the conditions under which that amount shall be periodically reviewed.
That is, we handed power to a United Nations committee to decide in its infinite wisdom how much tax we should be required to pay it every year. Under this framework;
Fast-start finance refers to the collective commitment agreed by donor countries (in the Copenhagen Accord in 2009 and Cancún Agreements in 2010) to provide new and additional resources approaching US$30 billion over the period 2010-2012 (for Australia FY2010/11 – FY2012/13) to developing countries.
This finance will support a range of actions to reduce carbon emissions (mitigation), enhance technology development and capacity building, and help developing countries adapt to the effects of climate change (adaptation). 
Australia's contribution for this 2010-2012 period is A$599 million.  New Zealand's is NZ$89.2 million.  But this is just the beginning. It goes up tenfold over 8 years from USD$10 billion/year in 2012 to USD$100 billion/year by 2020:
Another goal in the Copenhagen Accord - in addition to fast start finance - is to jointly mobilise USD 100 billion per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries, in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation. This will enable developing countries to take climate actions beyond 2012. 
So – a USD$100 billion per year global tax on the rich countries. Note that money to “address the needs of developing countries” really means money paid to contractors from rich countries to build projects in developing countries.
“Technology transfer” means that the local workers get to learn how to make tea for the American and European contract workers. Big corporations pay tax, too. But not very much of it. The realities of foreign investment are well documented in books by Susan George, Michael Rowbotham and many other globalisation researchers.
Outsourcing is a major source of government corruption. This will become more important in the future, as I will discuss later.
The June 2012 issue of PwC Green Policy Insights  describes it like this:
The Green Climate Fund is a US$100 billion per year fund to assist poorer nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change. The Durban summit last year saw agreement over the broad design of the Green Climate Fund and a commitment to “operationalise the Fund in an expedited manner”, however, there is still no agreement on the exact source of the funds.
Carbon taxes, perhaps?
8 May 2012
Australia Predicts A$24.7 Billion Carbon Revenue (Bloomberg)
Australia expects to raise A$24.7 billion (US$25.2 billion) in four years from the carbon tax coming into effect July 1, as the government seeks to reduce emissions and spur investment in cleaner energy.
The levy on Australia’s biggest polluters starts at A$23 per ton of carbon and rises by 2.5 percent in real terms in each of the following two fiscal years. Treasury projects they will reach A$29 in 2015-16, when the mechanism moves to a price set by the market, the government said in the budget yesterday. The tax is expected to increase consumer prices by 0.7 percentage point in the 12 months starting July 1. 
There have been carbon taxes before, but the Australian one is pretty big, and its timing ties it to the Green Climate Fund. And...
Carbon tax on the cards for Italy
The Italian Government unveiled plans in April to introduce a set of environmental taxes and incentives, including a tax on the carbon content of fuels. 
At the time of writing, the Australian carbon tax has been law for 12 days, and already this:
Erica Maliki and her family were burying her father-in-law at Springvale Cemetery when she was told the price per burial plot had increased because of the carbon tax.
“I thought to myself, 'What carbon could possibly be used by putting a man in a grave?'” Ms Maliki said.
“All they did was put the dirt back in. How can they charge us a carbon tax for burying someone?” 
They are not just mucking about. They mean to collect this money.
SHOPS and restaurants could face fines up to $1.1 million if waiters or sales staff wrongly blame the carbon tax for price rises or exaggerate the impact. 
And let's keep it quiet. What business will even mention the carbon tax with that kind of fine? Those funeral directors may have just broken the law.
The UN bills for this $100 billion per year will take some paying. Carbon taxes would seem pretty attractive to governments as a way to come up with it, since there haven't been riots in the streets in Australia – yet. How much extra strain do you think your country's economy can take?
Another data point to gauge the size of the sustainability industry is that in 2011, the total value of the worldwide emissions trading (ETS) market was US$176 billion. 
Green climate fund (per year from 2020)
Total value of ETS market in 2011
To help you grasp how large this is relative to the world economy, here are figures for world exports per year by sector for 2005: 
Office and telecom equipment
Machinery excl. office, telecom & transport
Other commercial services
Chemicals excluding pharmaceuticals
Iron and steel
Scientific and controlling instruments
Personal and household goods
Agricultural raw materials
Ores and other minerals
There is a big, big industry growing up around convincing you there's a major ecological crisis and taxing you because of it.
Ottmar Edenhofer is a German economist, who has chaired committees for the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which is the world's central authority on the science of climate change. Here are some excerpts from an interview he gave to Neue Zurcher Zeitung (New Zuricher Newspaper) in 2010:
Climate change has hardly anything to do with environmental protection, says the economist Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually a business summit relating to the distribution of resources. Interview: Bernhard Poetter
But one must say clearly that we are de facto redistributing the world's wealth through climate policy. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about it is obvious.
One must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has nothing to do with environmental policy, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole, almost nothing. 
4.4 Big Business Buy-In
Earlier I discussed the Global Reporting Initiative, which seeks to enlist big business in having their progress towards sustainability monitored in minute detail. The GRI literature informs businesses that they will save money by adopting green policies! If you were not born yesterday, then it's pretty obvious that green policies are associated with up-front costs, and in most cases will cost more long term.
We'd all like to believe that business managers have families too, and therefore they'd put the world's environment before profits. Businesses are always worried about their competitors, especially if their competitors are financially gaining by adopting green policies more slowly (or not at all). So, these kind-hearted business managers would need toactually go out on a limb and take risks and agree to be micromanaged by government bodies, all so that they can put the environment before their own profits.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, businesses would need a fairly persuasive inducement before they would agree to all that.
In the last section I discussed the USD$100 billion per year Green Climate Fund that comes straight out of your pocket and is handed to the United Nations. I also talked about how businesses make an awful lot of money when governments are spending on big projects in poor countries. That's quite some inducement. The poor country itself gets a minor spin-off in its service sector and a pittance in tax.
Another thing to consider is this: We have established the following things:
Australia pledged A$599 million to the Green Climate Fund for the 2010-2012 period. That's A$200 million per year.
The Green Climate Fund contributions are intended to be increased tenfold by 2020.
Australia intends to levy A$24.7 billion in carbon taxes over the four year period 2012-2016. That's A$6.2 billion per year.
The talk of the price per tonne of carbon increasing slowly by the year tends to suggest that this tax will only increase over time, though there is no hard evidence for that.
So let's do some sums:
Let's triple the A$200 million/yr figure to A$600 million/yr as a roughly estimated contribution for the 2012-2016 period, given that they're expected to increase tenfold by 2020.
This means that Australia is levying A$6.2 billion carbon tax per year, and paying A$600 million (9.7%) of it straight to the UN for the 2012-2016 period, though this figure is approximate.
Where is the remaining 90% going? According to the Herald Sun, this is where the carbon tax money goes:
Q: How much money will that raise? A: About $24.5 billion over three years.
Q: Where does that money go? A: About $15.3 billion will be given back to workers as tax cuts, household energy efficiency measures and welfare payments. The rest of the money will be used to support jobs and help industry transition, and on other green programs. 
Note - Bloomburg said it was A$24.7 billion in four years, not three, so we'll go with Bloomburg.
If we assume that every Green Climate Fund country will bring in a carbon tax by 2020, and that the figures will be similar for every country, we can estimate the world's carbon tax take by 2020. Let's further assume that Australia's tax take remains at A$6.2 billion per year:
As we read earlier, the Green Climate Fund increases from USD$10 billion/yr to USD$100 billion per year by 2020.
We can expect Australia's contribution to also increase tenfold from the current A$200 million/yr to A$2 billion/yr.
Australia's carbon tax take is A$6.2 billion per year (A$24.7 divided by 4 years).
That means Australia is taxing ($6.2 billion) three times the contribution ($2 billion). One third of Australia's carbon tax will go straight to the United Nations. But the Herald Sun said $15.3 billion (62%) goes back to workers than the remaining 38% is “used to support jobs and help industry transition, and on other green programs”. They omitted to mention that they are not talking about Australian jobs! Presumably “30% of the tax goes straight to the UN” wouldn't fly with the electorate.
Now if Australia is representative of the world, it means the worldwide carbon tax take will similarly be approximately three times the Green Climate Fund, which is US$300 billion/yr. The remaining two thirds could be called the undeclared portion of the sustainability industry.
This provides hard cash to a sustainability economy, but it is important to understand how this is magnified by the financial sector. As a result of the way money is created as debt, if someone has, say, $10 million dollars of debt-free cash, financiers can use that as a basis to create many times that amount in credit.
Therefore, the USD$300 billion is really just the beginning of the power of the sustainability industry to create change in the world. The real effects could be five to ten times greater. Taken together, I hope these points solve the mystery of how businesses – most importantly, multinational corporations – can be induced to join the Global Reporting Initiative. There will be big money in it for them.
And, I hope this chapter has dispelled in your mind the myth that “sustainability” is a grass-roots movement.
4.5 The Goals of Finance are Political Ones
A common fallacy is that finance is all about making money.
At the highest levels, decisions can be – and, in fact, must be – far more political than is possible in a multinational corporation that is bound by the profit motive alone. The explanation for this is that, since the financial sector dwarfs the goods and services economy by a factor of five to ten (or even more when you get into derivatives), the big financiers are not the least bit concerned with the acquisition of money.
These people have the power to create money out of thin air at will. What they are concerned with is maximising the value of money.
The value, or purchasing power, of money is fundamentally based on the extent to which it can compel people to perform labour (also to command the expenditure of natural resources). So, money is more valuable the more that people are enslaved to it.
Enslaving people is thus the true motivation of finance – a political goal. Finance expresses this with depersonalised terminology such as “market dominance.”
A large factor in enslaving people to money is the elimination of sources of self-determination, such as freehold home/land ownership, back-yard gardening, and local barter within a strong community. If money is plentiful, then the loss of this or that form of independence doesn't seem significant. But once all forms of independence are eliminated, there is no longer any need for bankers to keep money plentiful.
The jargon term “austerity” is used to describe this state of affairs. It really means “poverty”.
No discussion of geo-politics is complete without mentioning the world's second largest national economy, China.
The Green Climate Fund is described in some detail at the website Fast Start Finance. It tells you which countries are:
1. Contributing countries– the rich countries, United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand, etc.
2. Recipient countries – the poor or “developing” countries as they're called, which need help in achieving sustainability.
It is rather important to note that China isa recipient country.Does China really need our help?
The Western countries have been systematically de-industrialised over the last three decades, and China has been industrialised. The West has been sliding into debt to buy Chinese products – in fact, sliding into debt to a large extent to China, and China now has so much cash it doesn't know what to do with it. That's why it's doing the only thing it can – investing worldwide, for example, buying up land in New Zealand.
The United States and China are competing for dominance of the world economy. One big thing they're doing is racing to lay claim to important natural resources such as oil and rare earths (rare minerals required for electronics).
USD$100 billion per year Green Climate Fund that comes straight out of your pocket and is handed to the United Nations
The Green Climate Fund, including, perhaps the undeclared portion whose existence I infered in the previous section, in reality amounts to a tax on the West to pay for the rise of China to global economic dominance. The de-industrialisation that has taken place in the West has “hollowed out” these countries' economies so they are utterly dependent on multinationals continuing to bankroll their middle classes, and the service economies that are dependent on that.
Carbon tax will drive energy costs up, and Australia's economy will be crippled. The other donor countries have to come up with their Green Climate Fund contributions somehow or other, so carbon tax or not, they will be crippled too. Multinationals will shift their operations to countries with cheap energy and low taxes, that is, not the likes of Australia. The companies that pull out won't be paying those middle class salaries any more.
The middle class will default on its mortgages, and the suburbs will be acquired by the banks. Towards the end of the book I explain what will happen to those suburbs.
The technology sector is an exception to this because it doesn't require much energy, and because surveillance and defence are dependent on it, and the rulers can't rule without those. Once the economy is squeezed, medium-sized businesses and farms will be crippled by energy costs, land-related compliance costs (covered in detail later), and a shortage of middle class customers. They'll be acquired, and their assets stripped – in particular, land. Land acquisition will brings the multinationals back to the country, but this time the jobs on offer won't be middle class ones.
If you want to look into the [planned] future, study Greece, where the bank-created suicide epidemic continues. 
Now recall the question I asked earlier. If you accept that we are ruled by psychopaths, and you accept that they are primarily concerned with the question “Can I get away with it?”, I ask again:
We are fairly powerful now, but what would happen if the people were made truly powerless?
Or to put it another way, for a country under “austerity” where the people can offer no effective resistance, what limiting factor remains to prevent a psychopathic ruling class from performing, say, an act of mass murder, if it should be of benefit to them?
The point I am trying to make is this: If we submit to being made powerless, we are placing our very lives in the hands of people who provably cannot be trusted.
From the Australian business press:
The federal government caused a furore this week saying it will allow multi-billionaire Gina Rinehart's Hancock Prospecting to import up to 1715 foreign guest workers for her Roy Hill iron ore mine in WA.
Programmed Maintenance Services, a company that has tripled its profit by providing staff and services to booming mining industry, says it has no trouble finding Australian workers for resources projects. 
But Australian workers are so heavily taxed (directly and indirectly), they can't afford to work for peanuts. A foreign worker must only support him- or herself at Australian prices. Their family is much cheaper to support, because they are not in Australia.
I saw the young Chinese middle classes when I went to China in 2011, coming back on the train from their day trip to Shanghai loaded with bags of shopping, giggling and and texting. In the future, China will build factories in Australia, New Zealand, Europe and the United States like it has already done across Asia (because Chinese labour prices are creeping up).
Trade agreements are removing any legal barriers to this. And our children will work in the sweatshops that make the cheap plastic products for Chinese parents to buy for their children. We keep shopping at the Warehouse, so it's pretty clear we don't give a damn about Chinese workers. And neither will the Chinese middle class give a damn about us when the tables are turned. And why should they?
Compartmentalisation, denial and psychopathy.
Other major economies that are “recipient countries” and will become dominant over the West are
5.0 Wind Farms
Wind farms don't burn coal or leak deadly radiation, and that is, of course, a very good thing. And government and industry are happy to tell you just how marvellous wind farms are. But they're leaving some rather important details out:
Glenn Schleede of the United States Science & Public Policy Institute wrote a booklet called “The True Cost of Electricity from Wind is Always Underestimated and its Value is Always Overestimated” 
In a nutshell,
The true costs are hidden by complexity, subsidies and assumptions (which means 'guesses'). The cost is “huge compared to electricity from reliable generating sources.” Cost estimates are “entirely dependent on factors that are and will remain unknown.”
Investment money goes straight to turbine manufacturers and wind farm owners, and doesn't “create jobs”.
Electricity cannot be stored in significant amounts. The value of generated electricity is based on when it is generated relative to when it is needed. Because wind power is so sporadic, its value is “much lower”.
Reliable traditional sources are needed to fill the gap and provide “capacity”.
Therefore, wind power can never supplant traditional generation to any great extent. The environmental benefit can only ever be a small one overall, while the cost is “huge”.
wind power is highly visible
So it looks like government and electricity companies are doing something about the environment
What wind farms really generate is subsidies.
As Schleed puts it:
There is no longer any serious doubt but that tax breaks and subsidies – not environmental, energy, or economic benefits – are the primary reasons that “wind farms” are being built.
I hope you are starting to see the emerging theme here. Like every aspect of the “sustainability” that is being sold to you, it is all about getting money out of your pocket, and into the pockets of government and industry.
This is how big business buy-in is achieved. The government has lots of your tax money, and it generally ends up being handed to favoured industries. Any industry that doesn't play this game will be left out in the cold to die.
And this is all leading up to something very, very big.
6.0 Trade and Food
New Zealand and eight other nations are negotiating a “trade agreement” with the United States called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The negotiations are being held in secret. So secret in fact that they're not even telling the United States government:
Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) introduced legislation on Wednesday that specifically targets the Obama administration by demanding that the White House open up on details about the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive, international trade agreement that, if passed, would greatly affect consumers from coast-to-coast.
The lawmaker isn’t alone in his opposition against the administration, either — more than 60 House Democrats and at least one Republican have objected to provisions of the TPP, and more are expected to line up as details are made public.
According to the senator, President Obama and his cabinet have gone out of their way to keep Congress uninformed on the details surrounding the TPP, including even members of his own political party, such as Sen. Wyden.
What’s more, argues the senator, is that if anyone should be kept update on the issue, it’s him — as chair of the United States Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness, it is his job to be up to snuff on proposals such as this. 
An earlier version of the TPP was agreed between a smaller group of countries, and one thing it said was that members would harmonise with a group of food standards called Codex Alimentarius.
World Trade Organisation membership also requires harmonisation with Codex, through the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement which all members must sign.
Codex Alimentarius is a committee of the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation, which New Zealand has participated in since the 1960's. It's a set of “soft” food standards, or “best practices.”
However, one thing you learn when studying these things is that rules always start “soft” or voluntary, and as sure as the cartwheels follow the horse, they become legally binding.
Meanwhile, New Zealand has already passed the Food Bill, (despite efforts to wake people up and have it stopped) a 350-page law, which doesn't mention Codex Alimentarius specifically, but it does allow for “material to be incorporated by reference” including “standard works.”
[And now there is also the Natural Health And Supplementary Products Bill - so you can see the efforts are snowballing now as silimar 'food bill' and 'natural health' laws are passing in other countries at the same time as natural foods and remedies are being set upon by the mainstream media].
And what's this? If material is incorporated, any updates to it are automatically incorporated:
Food Bill 160-2, schedule 6, section 3: Effect of amendments to, or replacement of, material incorporated by reference
- An amendment to, or a replacement of, material that is incorporated by reference in a specified document (the original document) has legal effect as part of the original document only if a specified document made after the
making of the original document states that the particular amendment or replacement has that effect.
Incorporating material does require public consultation, which needn't be well advertised, and submissions must be “considered”. Once incorporated, the committee that writes the material has total control to write food regulations and even set fees.
This could be used to magically transform Codex Alimentarius “best practices” into regulations with the force of law. To be more precise, this will be used to do that.
And how would this be enforced? The Food Bill allows for food safety officers from the private sector to be appointed:
“The chief executive may appoint a person as a food safety officer for the purposes of this Act, whether or not the person is employed in the State sector.”
The bill goes on to explain how these officers' powers are vast, including search without warrant. The FAO who runs the Codex Committee is funded 80-90% by “extra-budgetary sources” which means it is wide open to influence from the private sector. 
The ultimate effect is that multinational food companies will be able to use food standards and compliance costs to eliminate competition from small companies and dominate any market. Any regulation they set will affect you directly if you are a small food producer:
“Regulations made under this section must not set a standard for food sold for export that is different from the standard set for food sold on the domestic market.”
- Food Bill 160-2, section 346-6
With the power to eliminate their competition, companies like Nestle, Kraft, General Mills and Unilever will gain total control over what you eat. You will literally be forced to eat genetically engineered, pesticided and irradiated food. This is all analysed in detail at Foodbill.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement follows this same pattern. Global organisations, both public and private will be writing and enforcing our laws. And if our nation's government puts up any resistance, it will be sued before the World Trade Organisation, and we will be taxed to pay for lost profits.
Our taxes are increasing, and our jobs are disappearing. We are sleepwalking into an economic trap, and it's by design. The West has served its purpose and its economies are being taken down.
From the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network (AFTINET):
AFTINET convener, Dr. Patricia Ranald, and Dr. Kyla Tienhaara, Co-director of the Climate and Environmental Governance Network at ANU, were interviewed by Phillip Adams on the ABC Radio National Late Night Live about the Trans-pacific Partnership free trade agreement and Investor-State Dispute Settlements that have led to the current case of tobacco giant Phillip Morris suing the Australian government over plain packaging of cigarettes.
"Trade agreements have become a charter for corporations to write the rules on a global basis and this investor-state ability to sue governments is a key symptom of that."
- Patricia Ranald
"The history [of investor-state disputes] was a form of neo-colonialism, developed for western investments to be protected in developing countries."
"In trade agreements corporations bring all their lobbying power to bear...big companies want certain global rules for free trade and investment which suit them but are not necessarily in the public interest."
Patricia Ranald 
7.0 Third Sector Change Agents
The world is being overrun by a vast army of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) with mysterious funding and a political agenda. And that political agenda is the faux-environmental one that goes under the name “sustainability”. There are literally tens of thousands of them worldwide, and they are the Third Sector Change Agents.
We already discussed the St James Ethics Centre. Here are two more examples:
Others appear to be charities soliciting donations, but their publications, websites and videos are always shiny and expensive-looking. Donations are solicited is to get “buy-in”. If you have made a sacrifice for some cause, your ego becomes involved and you will defend it against all criticism. This leads to the most powerful form of promotion of all: word of mouth. In this way, the illusion of a grass-roots movement is created.
Many have tax exempt charity status.
Many are specialised to particular social “problems”, to add to the “grass-roots” feel.
They talk about “global”, “education” (which means propaganda), “change”, “sustainable” and “future”.
They sometimes have photos of happy brown people standing under trees, alongside photos of friendly, sensible, smartly dressed people of an assortment of races sitting in offices.
Here are some tips for identifying them:
The issues come from the “sustainability” songsheet (overpopulation, water shortage, climate change), rather than being real issues (landmines, poisons in foods, fracking, depleted uranium, war, 1080, sweatshops).
They try hard to be subtle but they often shoot themselves in the foot by linking straight to “sustainability” initiatives or the UN.
Many issues, such as humanitarian injustice, poverty and equality, can be either genuine or fake. You need to use careful discernment, which comes with practice. Use your brain and take each case on its merits, staying away from all generalisations (such as “mining is bad”). Judge a group not by the issues that are raised, but by the solution that is being offered.
Sometimes you need to look at the individuals involved, and whether they're on the payroll of some well-funded political organisation or politically motivated industry.
The funding for the change agents mostly comes overtly or covertly from governments via the global sustainability funding I described earlier, but one key source of funds is philanthropy, or “the big foundations”.
Here is a single example, but this is a general pattern: Greenpeace's two biggest donors  are:
Turner Foundation. Ted Turner is the founder of CNN news. He said “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” Oh great, he wants to kill everyone.
Rockefeller Brothers Fund.John D Rockefeller founded Standard Oil which became ExxonMobil, Amoco and Chevron. A family of oil tycoons funding an organisation that promotes action against human induced climate change? Hopefully by the end of this book you will see why there is no conflict here.
Remember: “Sustainability” is not an environmental movement. It is an ideology used to promote a political goal.
7.1 Common Purpose
A British organisation called Common Purpose is especially worthy of mention. It may well be the most advanced and sophisticated change agent in the world.
It's a tax-exempt charity, and claims to be non-political. It is very political indeed. It appears to be trying to infiltrate government to absorb the UK into an EU superstate, and of course it promotes Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development. Its tentacles are everywhere and it has successfully resisted financial auditing.
It is very active in the Police, for example:
It does “leadership training,” and claims to have trained 30,000 adult graduates in UK and claims to have “changed the lives” of some 80,000 people, including schoolchildren and young people. Practitioners have identified Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) techniques in Common Purpose's online videos. NLP is a method of hypnosis based behaviour modification which can either be used on oneself or on others, with or without their consent.
Attendees of courses often come out changed, sometimes dressing differently. “They're not the person I know.” One graduate was so badly affected she literally could do nothing except sit on the sofa and drool. The suicide rate is even elevated among Common Purpose graduates. This is documented in detail at CPexposed
8.0 The United Nations
The flag on the left is the Roman flag. SPQR stands for Senatus Populusque Romanus, which means “The Senate and the People of Rome”. The flag in the middle is the United Federation of Planets from Star Trek.
And on the right we have the flag of the United Nations. The greek god Apollo was the first to wear the laurel wreath.  Winners of the ancient Greek olympics were given a wreath, and so it was associated with victory. The Roman emperors were depicted wearing it on their heads, and it became the symbol of Rome.
Napolean and Hitler both fancied themselves as Roman emperors. Napolean had coins made showing him wearing the wreath, and the Nazis used the wreath and Roman eagle symbols.
It is clear that the United Nations fancies itself, too, as the new Rome, and Star Trek was and still is – of course – United Nations propaganda.
9.0 Police State
By my definition, the term “police state” doesn't refer to the government as a whole, but specifically to a mechanism of control of the people employed by a government through a range of tactics centred around fear and direct police action.
Corrupt governments would rather rule by deception, but during certain transitions, the police state mechanism is needed to contain dissent.
9.1 When Governments Go Bad
We would like our governments to look after us, but there is a fundamental problem with governments: Power tends to become more concentrated over time. If it gets concentrated enough, then whatever it was that might have made it responsive to the people's needs evaporates, and it starts to look after its own needs.
In theory, Western governments are constructed with certain checks to prevent this, namely:
Separation of powers: The division of the government into legislative (writing of laws), executive (ruling party and governent departments including police – under rule of law) and judicial (courts) branches.
Protection of civil liberties:
Freedom from torture and murder
Freedom from forced medical treatment
Freedom of speech (including religion)
Right to peaceful assembly
Freedom of association (not being judged guilty because of who one associates with)
Presumption of innocence (innocent until proven guilty)
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure
Even when functioning correctly, governments have their issues. However, sometimes governments can go very, very wrong.
Nazi Germany, and the communist regimes in Russian and China have all become textbook cases of a rising police state.
If you compare the different historical cases where this process has taken place, you find strikingly similar themes:
Rule by a single political party.
Identification of some external enemy. Nazi: A great international Jewish/communist conspiracy.
Dissenters treated by propaganda as an internal enemy, usually with a label. Stalin: They were labelled as “wreckers,” “vermin” and “enemies of the people.” 
State control of the media. Nazi: Direct control.
A general sense of major national crisis, with series of manufactured crises to give this idea substance in people's minds. The government comes to the rescue in each case, and the solution always involves more power for the government. Nazi: Imminent threat of racial war, manifesting as “encirclement” by foreign powers. This led to a manufactured border incursion from Poland, justifying invasion.
A collectivist ideology, that is, an ideology that makes the nation (and by implication, the state) more important than the individual .It's all for the common good. Nazi: Germans as a race were under threat from an ancient enemy (the Jews) who wanted to destroy them, therefore Germans had to pull together and make sacrifices.
Disarmament of the population. Nazi: Nazi gun control is often overstated, but there was search and seizure of guns from political opponents in 1933, and gun control laws for Jewsin 1938. 
Collectivist propaganda aimed at children. Nazi: The Hitler Youth, which was the equivalent of the Boy Scouts, but with Nazi propaganda.
Severe curtailment of civil liberties, specifically:
The practice of torture, and assassination of political opponents.
Widespread self-censorship because people are afraid of the consequences of political speech
Laws against public protest, and police suppression of it.
Guilt by association.
Demise of the rule of law:
Arbitrary justice in the courts. Nazi: This was a strong feature of Nazi Germany where courts were urged to judge cases by “the principles of the Reich”.
Leaders are above the law
Police and courts are above the law
Executive ignores Parliament and writes laws directly
Construction of prison camps / Mass imprisonment of political prisoners, i.e. people opposed to the regime. Nazi: I don't have good references, but it's fairly uncontroversial that 6 million Jews and 5 to 6 million non-Jews died from the Nazi murder apparatus. In the footnote , I very very roughly estimate 300,000 of the victims were in the “political prisoner” category – 2.5% of the Holocaust. According to Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, in Stalin's gulags political prisoners were the most harshly treated.
Secret police. Nazi: Gestapo
Propaganda for a snitch culture.
Wars of conquest.
Election rigging. Nazi: Elections were stopped altogether.
Reality is whatever we say it is.
Groupthink/peer pressure: Techniques to take advantage of a person's natural inclination to go along with the herd, such as public meetings that sweep people up into “do-gooder” fervour.
The resulting centralisation of power creates a dictatorship, which is a mechanism of control where a single leader or committee has both the necessary knowledge and power to assert its will over any person without hindrance. It is primarily used to entrench state power by means of the removal of any form of viable opposition.
9.2 Today's Police State
The United States in particular has gone deep into a police state in the last ten years. It is the most advanced of the Western countries in this respect.
Every single item on the list above is present in the United States today. The United Kingdom is not far behind. New Zealand is nothing like as bad as those countries yet, but many police state features are present in New Zealand also.
Here I'll give examples of these features, but I won't cover the points above exhaustively.
Remember, when reading this, that I am presenting the documented evidence that's available. It was all gathered by unpaid, independent researchers. You need to understand that the mainstream media does not function as a political watchdog at all.
No news item of any real significance ever appears in the mainstream media, unless it is forced to put it there by the alternative media. If it were not for the hard voluntary work of the alternative media, the corruption described here would remain hidden.
9.3 The External and Internal Enemy
The external enemy is the freedom-hating Arab terrorist figure, which was introduced in the 1990s, but gained prominence after the September 11 attacks in 2001.
When I watched the 2011 movie Source Code, I realized that recently there has been a pattern of re- branding the terrorist as the extreme right-wing anti-government gun nut, or Timothy McVeigh type. (Incidentally, thanks to independent researchers, we now know that Timothy McVeigh was not a right-wing extremist, and though he was involved, he was not the primary perpetrator of the OKC bombing. )
The most outspoken critics of the US government are likely to be white people, because Americans of other races are more afraid of losing their jobs.
So, the purpose behind this propaganda is to turn the fear that has been created around the Arab terrorist figure against white political dissenters. Some common propaganda labels used: Terrorist, conspiracy theorist, extreme right-wing group. In 2007, Ivory et al  examined terrorist ethnicity in film trailers, and got these results:
Distribution of primary terrorist ethnicity in trailers before and after September 11, 2001
Pre Sept. 11 (n = 69)
After Sept. 11 (n = 9)
To bring these figures up-to-date I went through about 100 trailers at MovieFone for films released between January 2012 and July 2012.
I only found five films depicting terrorists:
The Dictator – Middle Eastern – comedy dictator/terrorist
Sound of My Voice – white – dangerous religious cult leader
Brake – white – a criminal mastermind/terrorist type villain
Act of Valor – Chechen “Mikhail Troykavitch” (white) – part of a big network that wanted to attack the USA
Argo – Iranian – Historical film about the Iranian US embassy hostage crisis
I didn't include characters that were criminals only without terrorist attributes. The sample size is not spectacular, but the results are:
So that takes us back to roughly pre-2001 profiles. Radford's film adaptation of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four gives a very instructional fictional propaganda narrative of the external and internal enemy meme in a totalitarian society:
This is our land—a land of peace, and of plenty; a land of harmony and hope. This is our land: Oceania.
These are our people: the workers, the strivers, the builders. These are our people—the builders of our world, struggling, fighting, bleeding, dying—on the streets of our cities, and on the far-flung battlefields, fighting against the mutilation of our hopes and dreams.
Who are they? [Crowd chants “Eurasia, Eurasia.”] They are the dark armies—the dark, murdering armies of Eurasia. In the barren deserts of Africa and India, in the oceans of Australasia, courage, strength, and youth are sacrificed—sacrificed to barbarians whose only honour is atrocity.
But even as we grasp ay victory, there is a cancer—an evil tumour—growing, spreading in our midst. Shout, shout,
shout out his name!
Yes, this is hammed up and melodramatic. But in terms of content, it doesn't differ much from what George W. Bush or Barack Obama might say. Nineteen Eighty Four placed the totalitarian systems of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia into an Anglo context, but it had the same lack of sophistication.
Because of electronic media has increased general political awareness, today's police state must be far more subtle, but it is no less effective.
9.4 Single Party Rule
The United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, and very likely every other democracy as well operates under a two-party system. Those two political parties implement slightly different policies, because the needs of today are never the same as the needs of six years before.
Notice how in all of the Western political arenas around the world the main contenders are always a blue party versus a red party
Their language is also adjusted to appeal to their own electorate. Policies that please the electorate are lavished with attention. Policies that don't are snuck in the back door, although grass- roots activists do occasionally mess that up for them.
The similarities between the two parties are so great, however, that it is absolutely accurate to view them as two branches of the same party.
The smaller parties may offer genuine opposition, but this continues only so long as they are small. Debate is beneficial to the ruling party if it has no effect on actual policy, or is concerned with what I call “power neutral” issues. For example, gay marriage and legalization of cannabis could be begrudgingly granted to the people after years of hard battling, because these issues don't curtail the power of the rulers one little bit.
Political opposition in Parliament is an illusion. “Democracies” today are ruled by a single party. The system of democracy is tyrannical for a very simple reason: Throughout history there has never been a mass awakening. It has always been possible to deceive the majority. Therefore, under democracy, whoever controls the media controls the government.
9.5 Snitch Culture
The US Department of Homeland Security's “See something say something”  campaign is an example of snitch culture promotion:
If You See Something, Say Something. Report Suspicious Activity to Local Law Enforcement or Call 911.
Woman, thinking to herself
Location: Shopping mall (can hear light chatter in background)
The mall sure is busy today. OK, what’s on my list? ... birthday present for Beth, stop at the electronics store, and then, grab a quick bite.
Hmm...did that guy leave his shopping bag? Looks like there’s a package inside covered in duct tape? Did he leave it on purpose? That can’t be right. Excuse me, Security... I just noticed... (voice fades out)
We all play a role in keeping our community safe. If you see something suspicious, say something to local authorities.
9.6 No Free Speech
For the most part, suppressing free speech is less important in any regime where the media is controlled, as is true in the western countries. However, the recent rise of the alternative media has made their job much more difficult, so political speech is now being much more directly suppressed.
There are many, many, many forms of creeping legislation to curtail free speech throughout the world. In the States, the ACTA, SOPA and PIPA bills are Internet destroyers in several ways. 
Don't think they've gone away, either. They were exposed, but they're still being snuck in. In New Zealand they tried to bring in a power of website taketown on a mere accusation by a copyright holder. That was exposed – but the objection that made all the difference was the one where it was too onerous for Internet Service Providers.
Money might have been harmed. So it came back in mutated form as the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill, so copyright holders can have customers' internet connections cut off if there's a mere accusation of
copyright infringement. Never mind any form of due process. This became law in September 2011.
In New Zealand, Claire Swinney was held against her will for 11 days in a psychiatric ward and called “delusional” because she said that the September 11 attacks were orchestrated by criminal elements inside the US Administration.
“Psychiatric evaluation” is a common technique to persecute people in western countries. Suppression of free speech in the western countries is an ongoing story, and could be a book in itself.
9.7 Executive can Write its Own Laws
The legislature is supposed to write the laws – although this in itself is a corruption of common law.
Winston Churchill said this:
"Here are the title deeds of freedom which should lie in every cottage home. We must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence."
- Winston Churchill - Fulton, Missouri. 5th March 1946.
These are indeed great principles of freedom. But did you know that they are almost totally gone? How much do you even know about the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1688, Habeas Corpus and common law? Did you learn about them in school? How can we defend rights we have never even heard of?
Anyway, let's keep it simple and say that the legislature is supposed to write the laws. However, in New Zealand, the executive can now write any laws it likes.
The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act says:
Governor-General may make Orders in Council for purpose of Act
(1) The Governor-General may from time to time, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the relevant Minister, make any provision that is reasonably necessary or expedient for all or any of the purposes stated in section 3(a) to (g).
(2) An Order in Council made under subsection (1) may grant exemptions from, modify, or extend any provisions of any enactment for all or any of the purposes stated in section 3(a) to (g).
There are five laws that the executive can't modify:
Bill of Rights 1688
Constitution Act 1986
Electoral Act 1993
Judicature Amendment Act 1972
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
Oh, that's OK then. The government can't cancel the elections (like Hitler did), abolish the rule of law, remove the constitutional foundation of the country, or remove all our rights all at once. Phew. I was worried for a moment there.
The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act was originally intended to expire in April 2012, but in April 2011 it was set for another five years to April 2016. This is called a “sunset clause”. I think it is a bad, bad sign when a sunset law gets extended. Historically, emergencies and crises have always been the excuse for totalitarianism. The extension of a sunset clause also happened with the USA's liberty-shredding PARTIOT act after September 11 too.
9.8 Presumed Guilty
Once you're on a no-fly list in the USA, you generally stay there. It's straight out of the pages of The Trial by Franz Kafka, where K awoke one morning to find he had become one of “the accused”, but no-one in authority could tell him why because nobody knew.
After vast amounts of research into how to defend himself, K eventually found out that no bureaucrat actually had the power to declare anyone innocent ever at all.
"In a recent case, an 18-month-old little girl named Riyanna was found to be on a no-fly list, resulting in her and her parents being forced to get off their Jet Blue flight in order to be questioned by TSA agents". 
They're already proposing a “no ride” list for trains. . Take note of this, as it will take on a new significance in the Sustainable Development chapter.
This is only one example. Presumptions of guilt are creeping in everywhere.
9.9 Kangaroo Courts
Lt. Eric Shine has spent years being dragged through US military courts.  His crime? Whisteblowing on safety issues in the Merchant Marines.
That's right – criticizing the safety procedures relating to a boiler. He refused to follow an order, explaining that he considered the task to be dangerous. A junior officer was then ordered to perform the same task. He did so, and was injured. Then Lt. Shine complained about it.
Now he is being tormented with years of Coast Guard military court appearances, with the rights you normally get in a court systematically denied. But, he has never even been an officer of the Coast Guard.
This is significant, because it's a total breakdown of the rule of law. It means that anyone in the United States could be tried by the Coast Guard if they took a disliking to them.
Have you ever been asked to perform a dangerous task at work? Now you know what could happen to you if you refuse.
Then there's the Katerina Jeleva case:
"In short, when Katerina was served with a Protective Order by her ex-husband during the midst of a divorce proceeding, Katerina’s son was immediately taken from her by DCFS agents along with armed police. Yet, after repeated interviews and investigations by psychologists, sex abuse investigators, and other DCFS agents, it was determined that there was absolutely no evidence that Katerina had abused her son.
Soon after her son was returned to her, however, Katerina was served with yet another Protective Order by her ex-husband – this time with the help of rogue Guardian ad Litem, Amber Ruder. Once again, after the filing of the second Protective Order, Katerina’s son was forcibly removed from her, with police literally taking the child from his mother’s arms.
The process of interviews and investigations thus began anew and, again, Katerina was exonerated. Yet, after being ordered to organize and facilitate the family therapy sessions, Guardian ad Litem Amber Ruder has flatly refused to obey the judge’s orders, telling Katerina that she “cannot and will not do this for you.” Ruder has since been claiming that Katerina’s son may not be returned to her at all because the two have been separated for such a long time that it might traumatize the child to return to his mother.
Ever since the second Protective Order, Katerina has been fighting an uphill fight in what seems like a never-ending legal battle where she is forced to represent herself despite having very little time and money at her disposal. In addition, Katerina is having to contend with a Guardian ad Litem who is not only being uncooperative, but is actively sabotaging and opposing Katerina’s efforts to be reunited with her son.
Now, however, Katerina claims that even individuals within the court system have been playing a role in confounding her legal efforts. For instance, when a court issues an order, copies of the order go out in three different directions – the defense, the prosecution, and the court (which keeps a copy).
Yet, in Katerina’s case, only the court and the legal team of her ex-husband have been receiving the orders. Katerina claims that this is because the orders that should be going to her are being sent to the offices of the attorney she had hired some time ago but has subsequently ceased to obtain services from. But, since she is now representing herself and is no longer using this attorney’s services, the office doesn’t bother to contact her when they receive the orders.
Katerina says that, even though she has clearly stated to the court – presided over by Judge Sansbury (who handles hearings dealing with the Protective Orders) – that she was representing herself and that the new court orders should be delivered to her personal address, the documents are still being delivered to her previous attorney. Thus, she is in a constant state of surprise regarding her hearing dates, as she must either call or visit the offices of the court in order to find out whether or not a new court order has been filed. 
The case of court corruption are numerous in every western country. The UK seems to be particularly bad, although that may be a reflection of the calibre of the independent researchers there. 
The Holly Greig case and the Franklin Scandal are more extreme still, with sex offenders in positions of power, protected by the state. They have expended enormous resources to ensure they stay above the law. They smear and even murder investigators. If you want to be thoroughly convinced of this, read the Franklin Scandal (or borrow my copy). The quality of the research is excellent.
9.10 Indefinite Detention and Internment Camps
The United States has legislated itself the power to indefinitely detain any person at all (American or not) forever with no trial, under the National Defense Authorization Act (S.1867) passed on 1st of January 2012.  The USA is now a “battleground,” you see, and the necessary excuse to activate this law is that the particular person is an “enemy combatant,” but this doesn't have to be actually proven.
And where will they put these prisoners?
The United States has built a vast network of internment camps.  Four have been identified in New Zealand to date.
Advertisements for camp jobs have come up, and a defence contractor called KBR is developing a 72-hour quick response team for internment camp activation including catering and fencing contractors. An army manual describes detailed procedures for handling civilian internees, and they can be forced to perform labour.
The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) just bought 450 million rounds of hollow point ammunition off a defence contractor called ATK. 
These agencies only operate within the United States. That's enough ammo to shoot every man, woman and child in the US, and for anyone who didn't die the first time, to shoot them again at close range.
9.11 No Freedom of Peaceful Public Assembly
In protests, the powers that be regularly use agents provocateur , who are paid agents whose job it is to vandalize and cause violence, in order to trick the protesters into similar behaviour (though protesters are wise to this now) and to discredit the movement. This was documented at the Toronto G20 protests in the film Into The Fire : Men in black balaclavas smashed shop windows and set fire to police cars which the police had left unguarded.
The police paid no attention to it while it was happening, then the TV cameras filmed it and there were burning cars on TV worldwide that night. They don't really need the real protesters at all. Public protests are now illegal in the USA thanks to the H.R. 347 “Tresspass Bill”  just in time for the NATO Summit in Chicago. More precisely, H.R. 347 provides for protesters to be prosecuted if they go into an area under Secret Service protection, even if they didn't know because it was... err... a secret.
A bylaw in Montreal, Canada gives you 5 years for wearing a mask, or 10 years if the protest is deemed to be a riot.  If the police could refrain from macing people , then maybe protesters wouldn't need to wear masks.
9.12 Election Rigging
Electronic voting machines in the USA are made by a company called Diebold which has connections with the Republican Party, as the documentary Hacking Democracy [73 ]explains.
The mere fact that the machines are electronic means they can't be audited or reliably recounted, but Diebold machines have been investigated and proven to be hackable.
The two Ohio election staff who feature in "Hacking Democracy" were sentenced on March 13th 2007 for rigging the 2004 presidential recount. Elections are the cover for pre-determined (S)elections made by the elite. John knows.
Your cellphone is watching you. Facebook is recording everything you type forever. All your internet traffic is being collected. The new National Security Agency (NSA) data centre in Utah will collect and collate the huge amounts of data streaming in from every human being in the world 24/7. It is being constructed now and will be ready in 2013. 
No matter what country you live in, the US government will use data mining techniques to profile you. They will know more about you than you do.
If you live in the UK, then there is one surveillance camera for every 14 people. In the UK, they have automatic number plate recognition, so the government knows exactly where you are.  If you walked there, you're not safe either, because they have face recognition too. 
When your smart electricity meter is installed, every time you switch your Smart Grid Ready appliance on or off, it'll be monitored in real time. Your services can be cut off remotely if they don't like you for some reason.
In the future:
If you take your toaster to your friend's house, then you will be charged for the electricity, not your friend.
The RFID reader and/or camera in your fridge will tell your medical insurance company whether you are eating a healthy diet or not.
Families won't be able to go on the run from compulsory chemotherapy treatment any more. The government will know whose house has more people in it than usual.
If there is something on your mind, then a Very Big Computer will detect a subtle shift in your habitual behaviour, and you will be added to a watchlist. You may not know you are going to commit a crime, but the government sure will.
9.14 Reality is Whatever We Say it is
This is what they call in today's Newspeak a “science-based” or “risk-based” assessment. Translation: Reality is whatever we say it is, because all we need to do is bullshit you with junk science. This is also known as the “cult of the expert”.
Let's say you are a vaccine company and you want your product to be approved. Here is the actual
process that takes place:
You hire several labs to do tests on your drug and write studies full of “ functional ion channel assays” and “P-value filtering techniques on the detection of transcriptional changes induced in rat neuroblastoma”.
You pick the studies that have the most favourable conclusions and submit them to the regulatory authority.
Regulatory bodies for food and drugs do not do their own testing at all. (If you didn't know this, then you do now.)
If the regulatory body thinks the studies sound convincing enough, the product gets approved. In reality, food and drugs are hardly ever turned down, except in the rare cases where a non-corrupt bureaucrat slips through the cracks. However, the bureaucrats are punished and everything continues as it should.
Sometimes, as in the case of Gardasil, approval is fast-tracked.
Later, regulators get industry jobs, and industry people get regulators' jobs. This is called “revolving door corruption.”
The labs that gave the right answers get the job next time.
The bit that happens next is less familiar to people:
The vaccine goes on the market, and all the chronic illnesses and deaths start rolling in.
When adverse reactions are reported, the doctors blame it on everything under the sun instead of the vaccine. The FDA who promote vaccines themselves estimate that only 10% of adverse reactions are reported. 
The lawyers know a good thing when they see it, so they start lining up:
KLINE & SPECTER: A professional corporation Gardasil Lawsuit Pennsylvania - New Jersey - New York -
NationwideThe heavily marketed cancer-prevention vaccine Gardasil may produce serious side effects that have caused seizures, blood clots, paralysis and even death in the very girls it was supposed to protect.
Government health officials received 7,802 reports of adverse events from June 2006, when Gardasil was licensed, through last April. Anecdotal reports of severe illnesses occurring – sometimes shortly after inoculations -- have cropped up all over the United States, with Gardasil lawsuits already beginning to be filed against manufacturer Merck & Co.
If you, your daughter or someone you love received a Gardasil vaccination and suffered severe side effects, you may want to contact a Gardasil attorney for a free evaluation of your case. Kline & Specter, P.C., with some 30 lawyers, several of whom are also doctors, is a national leader in pharmaceutical litigation. The law firm played a key role in the $4.85 billion settlement against Vioxx, another Merck product. 
The vaccine companies then settle out of court with the plaintiffs using the money they had budgeted for that purpose, take their product off the market, then go on to their next product.
And everyone's happy.
This is a little off-topic but it is a useful case study to illustrate how when the government says something is true, it's true. You can't disagree with it, because ascientist said it, and you are nota scientist.
In actual fact this is not science, it is “corporate junk science” – politics masquerading as science. Real science is an honourable and worthy pursuit that has liberated us from ignorance, and I do not wish to denigrate that in any way.
9.16 The Police State is Here
The items covered here don't even scratch the surface. The police state is here, but there is much more to come.
These changes are not like a police state, they are a police state. But a police state is only part of the equation. There is a larger plan to all of this, and this is what I will discuss next.
10.0 Sustainable Development
In the 1960s, Christian prophecy groups started talking about a satanic One World Government, and of course everyone thought they were crazy. From the 1970s to the 1990s diverse people started to realise that these fundamentalists were actually right about the world government thing.
Today, governments and newspapers openly talk about “global governance.” But people still think that world government is a conspiracy theory:
The Australian Greens believe that:
1. global governance is essential to meet the needs of global peace and security, justice, human rights, poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability. 
It is argued by certain people that “governance” and “government” are not the same thing. This is nonsense. If it quacks, it's am duck. At the international level we now have these things – some within the UN and some not:
A tax base – the United Nations Green Climate Fund with carbon taxes, and many many other contributions to the UN in different areas from individual states
Courts – International Court of Justice, International Criminal Court  and the World Trade Organization
Legislature – 158,000 international treaties between 1946 and 2006  . When your government agrees to a treaty, international organizations are effectively writing new laws that will be enforced by your country's courts.
Police and military – United Nations Security Council, UN peacekeepers, NATO (which uses UN decisions as its mandate) 
A central bank – the Bank of International Settlements
This “global governance” is now effectively taxing you and writing laws that are enforced against you. If it can do that, then it's a government.
10.1 United Nations Agenda 21
United Nations Agenda 21 is a 300-page document detailing a comprehensive plan for Sustainable Development to solve the world's environmental problems, so it is claimed. It was ratified by 178 countries at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.
Jim Bolger signed it for New Zealand, and that great environmentalist George H. W. Bush signed it for the USA.
Did they leave anything out? These United Nations documents sound great. They are full of fine words and high principles.
The broad goal of Agenda 21 is the “three Es” of sustainability:
10.2 Individualism vs. Collectivism
Of all civilisations in human history, only the west has had a tradition of individual liberty. England has been a leader in this idea for over a thousand years. The Magna Carta of 1215 is one of its most well-known expressions. This tradition inspired the American Constitution.
Collectivism is the opposite idea, where the needs of society are held to be more important than the needs of the individual.
China today is as collectivist as ever:
Chinese couple forced into late-term abortion branded 'traitors' – 26 Jun 2012
Feng Jianmei was made to terminate her pregnancy at seven months as she could not pay the fine for violating China's one-child policy.
Photos showing her with the foetus caused widespread condemnation when they were leaked on the web.
Officials apologised, but the couple are now apparently being hounded.
A relative of the theirs told reporters that the family had been harassed since leaving hospital, possibly with the tacit encouragement of local government officials who have been embarrassed by the scandal.
She said Ms Feng's husband Deng Jiyuan had gone into hiding on Sunday.
Pictures circulating on the internet appear to show a large red banner saying “beat the traitors, drive them from the town” [my emphasis] strung up in the family's town in Shaanxi province. 
The United Nations and its policies are based on a philosophy called communitarianism – als called the Third Way. Some people say it is Marxism, but it is actually not quite the same thing. It has many things in common with Marxism, though. For one, it's a collectivist philosophy.
The Marxist ideology of protecting the worker from capitalist exploitation has been updated. The great threat now is an ecological one, and our greatest enemy is ourselves. The state steps in to save us from our own greed.
If you want to read more on communitarianism, see Niki Raapana of the Anti-Communitarian League. 
Communitarianism is supposed to aim for a “balance” between the needs of the individual and the needs of society as embodied in the state. But the state is far, far more powerful than the individual.The idea of “balancing” the two is a deception. The actual result of this philosophy is an all- powerful state.
The “Vancouver Declaration” link of the UN Vancouver Action Plan  from 1976 say this:
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.
Every State has the right to plan and regulate use of land , which is one of its most important resources, in such a way that the growth of population centres both urban and rural are based on a comprehensive land use plan.
Such measures must assure the attainment of basic goals of social and economic reform for every country, in conformity with its national and land tenure system and legislation.
According to the UN, states have rights. I would argue that this is a dangerous view. Those of an individual liberty persuasion would say that rights are inherent to individuals, and the state's role is a passive one where it has been delegated the task of administering those rights. According to the individualist philosophy, the liberty of a society depends on individual liberty.
The first paragraph of section D. Land of the UN Vancouver Action Plan from 1976 says this:
1. 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. Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings-and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.
2. Instead, the pattern of land use should be determined by the long-term interests of the community, especially since decisions on location of activities and therefore of specific land uses have a long-lasting effect on the pattern and structure of human settlements. ...
The UN wants to abolish private land ownership.
Without owning the land we live on, we are all tenants. All land usage would have to be approved and licensed. There can be no self-determination in land use under such a regime, and for food production that forces us into dependence, not self-reliance. According to the quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson:
“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
The only way the government will actually fear the people is if the people have real power. Therefore there can be no social justice without individual liberty.
Rights are inherent. They cannot be granted. If it is granted , it's a privilege, not a right. A state can only uphold or fail to uphold a right. Ownership of the land you live on gives the individual economic power. Common law and the Magna Carta give the individual power under thelaw.
The United Nations is talking about a system where people have no personal power, no self- determination whatsoever, where the individual is at the mercy of the government's whim.
House ownership also plays an important role in small business development in western countries. Most small businesses are started with a loan against a private dwelling. A nation of tenants does not have access to this “leg up,” and this is why there is so much talk about micro-finance in developing countries, where land ownership rights are not the norm.
Social equity is a big part of United Nations Agenda 21.
A 1995 book “Changing Course”  says:
And sustainable development will require the greatest changes in the wealthiest nations, which consume the most resources, release the most pollution, and have the greatest capacity to make the necessary changes.
From the “Vancouver Declaration” again: 
To achieve universal progress in the quality of life, a fair and balanced structure of the economic relations between States has to be promoted. It is therefore essential to implement urgently the New International Economic Order, based on the Declaration and Programme of Action approved by the General Assembly in its sixth special session, and on the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States.
Is it not reasonable to conclude that the redistribution of wealth between states that is being implemented via the Green Climate Fund is at least a part of this New International Economic Order?
This is where the Herald Sun said Australia's carbon tax was going:
About $15.3 billion will be given back to workers as tax cuts, household energy efficiency measures and welfare payments. The rest of the money will be used to support jobs and help industry transition, and on other green programs.
Of course we found that a third is going straight to the UN. So – a big tax with two thirds redistributed nationally and one third distributed to other countries.
Essentially what's happening here is that the state is taking control of a greater part of the economy: New taxes will mean that prices will go up, so poverty will increase. The state compensates for this by providing more welfare. The good news is that wealth is more evenly distributed, and this alleviates poverty.
The bad news is that this puts an ever greater number of people into utter economic dependence upon the state.
Result: You get micromanaged. If you want to know what that's like, ask someone who is on the unemployment benefit to describe it to you. Or wait until it happens to you.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said this in the run-up to the 2012 Rio+20 conference:
“For too long we have been trying to secure the path to prosperity with increased consumption. This model is dead. In Rio we have to develop a new model for an economic system of the 21st century, one that refutes the myth that there has to be a zero-sum balance between growth and environment.
Using intelligent measures, governments can create growth, fight poverty, create jobs and accelerate social progress while at the same time conserve the natural and limited resources of the planet"
Consumerism, as you are intimately aware, is where you work like a slave all week, and then you get to sit down with a beer in one hand and a remote control in the other. The new post- consumerism is the same, only without the beer and the remote control. All your money is spent on necessities.
We are being given a propaganda message, that in order to have social equity worldwide, the west must give up its wealth. We are being sold the lie that we are so short of natural resources that we must all be poor, and a middle class standard of living is “not sustainable”. We are being conditioned to accept less, simply because it suits the agenda of a ruling elite that wants to maximize our output and minimize our cost.
The propaganda is very effective. When we are finally reduced to poverty and utter dependence, we will say in unison, “it was only fair.”
The real driver of environmental destruction is debt money. When you are desperately deep in debt, and struggling to survive, you have no choice but to lean on the environment. This is as true of corporations as it is of individuals.
The UN wants to take from the rich, and give to the super-rich. The poor may benefit, simply because there is an optimum level for maximizing work output, and many currently fall below it. But taking from the world's middle classes makes no difference to this equation.
Understand that I am not defending middle class privilege (even though I am in the middle class). But I believe that if we could remove the parasite class, then there would be enough resources for every one of us (including the former parasite class) to live comfortably without any stress on the environment. The stumbling block is that people don't appreciate the sheer magnitude of what this ruling class takes from us.
10.5 Environmental Taxes
If we replaced the debt-based monetary system with a value-based one, we would remove the main driver of environmental destruction. If corporations didn't practise planned obsolescence (“Planned obsolescence” is an industry-wide deliberate policy of producing products that don't last very long, so that sales are increased.
That's why today's tools break easily and you still find tools from the 1940s in people's garages.) , we would stop the landfills piling up with garbage. However, the silence from the United Nations on these issues is ear-splitting. That's because Sustainable Development is not an environmental policy. It's a political and economic policy.
Instead, their plan is to keep the same wasteful, debt-driven corporate model, but tweak it with taxes and government spending programmes to produce what's called “full-cost pricing,” where environmental and long-term costs are factored in. This is also called the “polluter pays principle.”
It sounds great.
The book “Changing Course” says this:
Three basic mechanisms can be used to move business to internalize environmental costs, to pay for the cost of pollution, or to limit damage to the environment by other means:
Command and control: These are basically government regulations, including performance standards fortechnologies and products, effluent and emission standards, and so on.
Self-regulation: These are initiatives by corporations or sectors of industry to regulate themselves through standards, monitoring, pollution reduction targets, an the like.
Economic instruments: These are efforts to alter the prices of resources and of goods and services in the marketplace via some form of government action that will affect the cost of production and/or consumption. 
This all sounds wonderful – on the surface. But here are the problems:
It is all about government taxing and subsidising and/or regulating industry. And this makes the government very powerful, and this power is very centralized.
The debt system, the real cause, is not addressed. Debt will still increase, and this continues to mean a choice between insolvency, or more commerce, more industry and more oil every year. Ban Ki Moon said,
“Using intelligent measures, governments can create growth, fight poverty, create jobs and accelerate social progress while at the same time conserve the natural and limited resources of the planet.”
This is not true. Growth means debt, debt means constant and endless expansion of the economy. Doing things intelligently may work in the short term, but it ultimately can only delay the inevitable increase in oil consumption.
Direct environmental regulations add compliance costs, and this favours big business (an unhealthy, centralized model of economic development) over small business (a healthy one).
The government will have money to burn, and it'll need to engage in “environmental programmes” with industry. To do this with many small businesses means costly administration, but it's simple if you hand it all to a few big businesses. Again, big business is favoured.
We're supposed to believe that it will trickle down. The trickle-down theory is bogus, but widely believed. When you understand debt financing, you realize that the real effect is trickle-up. This is beyond the scope of this book, but please take the time to understand the debt system. It is a very important subject.
Croneyism and corruption. Taxes will be very steep, so the only way a business can survive is if it can get subsidised. Bribing that politician becomes a matter of life and death for the company.
An important key to understanding politics is that governments are, in fact, for-profit corporations.
They can do two things that corporations normally cannot, however:
Take nearly half of your money in tax (counting income tax and GST).
Put you in jail.
In return for these special privileges, they are meant to act in your interest, however, as we've discussed, there is almost nothing that actually makes them act that way, though they are adept at pretending to.
Even though they take nearly half of your money, in the 1990s, governments worldwide were so broke from national debt repayments and outsourcing-related corruption that they couldn't provide basic services. (This is only a few years after they received all that cash for selling their state assets.) That's when the Public-Private Partnership model was proposed and actively supported by the United Nations.
Public-Private Partnerships are a monopolistic form of outsourcing, where a government picks some favoured company to perform some task. This is a massive power of government over the private sector, and it is also a massive power of the private sector over the individuals in government who get to make that vital decision about which company is favoured.
This vast centralization of economic power that we call government creates a “honeypot” that attracts psychopaths. This centralisation of economic power is a recipe for corruption, where ultimately everyone is competing to steal as much of your money as possible while giving you the least possible government services in return.
Governments control vast amounts of hard cash – and under a debt system, hard (debt-free) cash is far more powerful than borrowed money. What Sustainable Development does is to increase the size and power of this honeypot. If this trend continues – and the world has been moving in this direction for at least a hundred years, then governments will ultimately control the entire economy.
The logical conclusion is the merger of government and corporations into One Fuck Off Big Corporation to Rule the Universe, with the power to tax and jail you at will, whose goal is to extract the maximum economic output possible out of you for the benefit of a parasite class.
As Alan Watt  once said, “if there are aliens out there, then they won't want to come anywhere near this place.”
10.7 The Precautionary Principle
The United Nations “Rio Declaration”  agreed along with Agenda 21 says:
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
What this means is “the truth is whatever we say it is” and the onus of proof is on you to say we are wrong. However, the United Nations doesn't listen to the likes of you and me, so the opportunity to prove them wrong will never arise.
10.8 Mental Health
Not only will the United Nations dictate what is true, they will dictate who is sane.
On January 20, the WHO Executive Board released a resolution entitled “ Global Burden of Mental Disorders and the need for a comprehensive, coordinated response at the country level.” The document calls for, among other measures, collaboration between national governments and the global health body in developing a “comprehensive mental health action plan” for the world. 
There's even a disease for people like you. It's called Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD):
Oppositional defiant disorder is a pattern of disobedient, hostile, and defiant behavior toward authority figures.
Causes, incidence, and risk factors This disorder is more common in boys than in girls. Some studies have shown that it affects 20% of school-age children. However, most experts believe this figure is high due to changing definitions of normal childhood behavior, and possible racial, cultural, and gender biases.
This behavior typically starts by age 8, but it may start as early as the preschool years. This disorder is thought to be caused by a combination of biological, psychological, and social factors. 
The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives was formed in 1990. It is the main organization charged with implementing Sustainable Development worldwide. It has since infiltrated nearly every city council in the world.
It operates by stealth, which means there is a maze of front groups, and you will not find a lot of openness, though New Zealand councils generally do admit they are working with ICLEI.
United Nations Agenda 21 is never called “Agenda 21”. It is called by these names:
And many, many variations on this
For example, Wellington City Council:
Our Long-term Vision
The Council has a long-term vision (Towards 2040: Smart Capital) to make Wellington
an eco-city that can respond proactively to environmental challenges. The Council has
also set emission targets in its Climate Change Action Plan.
I have not taken the time to read this, but the general pattern is this: These long-term visions are straight from ICLEI. City councils worldwide are mysteriously “dreaming up” the exact same plan.
Otago Daily Times, 15 July 2012
"When local government representatives from around the world take part in the world's biggest conference on sustainable development next week, Dunedin will be represented.
Cr Jinty MacTavish (27) will leave for Brazil today to attend the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives - Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) world congress after which she will attend Rio+20, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, as an ICLEI "future city leader".
ICLEI is an international association of local governments and national and regional local government organisations, including the Dunedin City Council, that have made a commitment to sustainable development.
Cr MacTavish has been involved with the association for about four months as part of 10-person trial future city leaders programme.
At the congress, she will participate in programmes dealing with youth engagement in local government and integrated solutions for sustainable development, but before that she will attend an ICLEI Urban Nature conference focusing on urban biodiversity and ood security.
At that, she will present a Dunedin perspective on ecological infrastructure for urban development, including discussion on tussock's role in the city's water supply.
Following the congress she will attend Rio+20, mainly as part of ICLEI's "Global Town Hall", the main forum at Rio+20 to discuss the sustainable urban future and agree on solutions for the future.
After that she will take a few weeks' holiday in wider South America".
10.10 Delphi Technique
For something that's already decided, they are surprisingly interested in getting your input. It's all about building consensus. “Consensus” means that we will tell you how it's going to be in such a way that you will believe that your valuable input has been taken into consideration. This is YOUR plan!
The technique used in public meetings was developed by the Rand Corporation, and it's called the Delphi Technique. It is a sophisticated method for railroading a public meeting into a predetermined outcome. A major role of the many United Nations front groups, or Third Sector Change Agents, is to provide council officers with “leadership training” which includes training in these techiques.
It involves splitting the people into groups of 6-10 people each with a facilitator. The people are each given a pencil and a piece of paper so they can do some “visioning”. Groupthink or peer pressure is a major part of achieving a consensus in the small groups, and the facilitator is trained in how to marginalize difficult people.
The state government of Tennessee didn't like Agenda 21, and they passed bill HB3571 earlier this year: 
Since the United Nations has enlisted the support of numerous independent, shadow organizations to surreptitiously implement “Agenda 21” around the world, the state of Tennessee and all political subdivisions are prohibited from implementing programs of, expending any sum of money for, being a member of, receiving funding from, contracting services from, or giving financial or other forms of aid to the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), or any of its related or affiliated organizations to include, but not limited to, Countdown 2010, Local Action for Biodiversity (LAB), European Center for Nature Conservation (ECNC), the International Union for Conservation of Nature (ICUN), and the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), enacted on July 19, 1993, Executive Order #12852.
The Southern Poverty Law Center didn't like this too much:
In a new sign of antigovernment extremism creeping into the political mainstream, the Tennessee House of Representatives will vote tomorrow on a resolution condemning Agenda 21 , a non-binding United Nations plan for sustainable development. In the world of far-right extremists, Agenda 21 is demonized as a sort of Trojan horse, part of a larger scheme to shatter Americans’ liberties and institute a totalitarian, one- world government known typically as the “New World Order.”
But to the John Birch Society (JBS), one of the main groups promoting the conspiracy theory about Agenda 21, it represents the end of America as we know it. This is the same group, of course, that claimed President Dwight D. Eisenhower was a secret communist. 
I would just like to proudly point out that at the beginning of this book when I talked about the labels used for dissenters, namely, “Terrorist, conspiracy theorist, extreme right-wing group,” I had not read the above article yet.
The Southern Poverty Law Center are not debating the issues. They are using propaganda techniques:
If you believe “Agenda 21” then you are a nut. This is fear of ridicule – a very powerful technique.
Innuendo of an implied association between the Tennessee legislature and the John Birch Society.
What I call the “alien bases on the moon” technique, where the argument is put in the same “box” as a ludicrous idea (Eisenhower being a communist).
It is likely that the name “Agenda 21” was specifically chosen by the United Nations because it sounds a bit like “Area 51”. Anyone who mentions it will sound like a chocolate flake.
It should be clear by now that the plan to introduce Sustainable Development is well funded and devilishly ingenious. I sincerely hope that I am deluded, that the Southern Poverty Law Center is right, that we are in good hands and everything will be OK. Unfortunately, wishful thinking is always more appealing than a cold, hard, brutal reality.
10.12 Agenda 21 Housing
High-density mixed-use townhouses will be built in the city centres. These buildings are right up against the footpath with a ground floor of retail, and two or three floors of flats built on top.
The ones in brochures look shiny and pretty with vibrant cafes and urban excitement, but the reality in 2040 will be empty shops with smashed windows and graffiti.
The garden and parking are both minimal or non-existent. They don't want you to be producing your own food. “Community gardens” will be fine, because they'll be under the watchful eye of the community, and incapable of being big or physically secure enough to provide any actual economic independence.
Here's are some excerpts from a North Shore City document with many pictures and explanations of this. 
Benefits to the environment
In addition to the above mentioned advantages, a well designed mixed use development is beneficial to the environment in that it:
intensifies town centres, thereby reducing sprawl and conserving the city’s natural
enables occupants to reduce the amount of time they spend travelling, thereby decreasing
road congestion, traffic pollution, and wasted time
provides greater opportunities for using public transport, walking and cycling
enhances the quality of the local environment by creating lively, populated urban areas
Rosa Kiore of Democrats Against U.N. Agenda 21  is a leading Agenda 21 researcher. Please watch her video talks and buy her book, “Behind the Green Mask”. Her research points out that big general plans in the States are already ensuring that if you own land, you can only get consent for uses that fit in with Agenda 21. This is happening now on a mass scale in American cities.
Wellington and Auckland are each amalgamating to become mega-cities with a new organizational unit, the Council Controlled Organisation (CCO). They raise the bar for accountability and responsiveness to people's diverse needs. Ha ha, I had you there. No, CCOs are a further corporate take-over because they're an expansion of the Public-Private Partnership model. Because they operate “at arm's length” to the council, elected representatives and citizens will find it even harder to find out what they are doing with your money, and impossible to control.
These mixed-use developments are designed to have light rail added later. They're to be built long and thin so all the houses are near the railway line. Light rail is intended to achieve these things:
1.Remember the wind farms? This follows the same principle. Highly visible and highly expensive, so it generates subsidies for corporations, to suck yet more tax money out of you and further crush the economy.
2. Petrol prices will creep up through carbon taxes and rail will be phased in. The government will manipulate the cost structure so that cars are no longer viable.
3. Your choices will be bicycle or train. On the train, you will be at the mercy of the government. Remember the proposal for the Kafkaesque “no ride” lists in the US? Your papers, please, citizen! Or you aren't going nowhere. The idea is to completely restrict your movement.
Stuart Crosby, the mayor of Tauranga gave a presentation  to the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Group promoting Smart Growth. Here are some excerpts:
What is SmartGrowth?
A 20 to 50 year action plan to manage future growth in the western Bay of Plenty
A partnership involving the three Councils, Tangata Whenua, and community groups. Collaborative Growth Management
Collaborative project involving the 3 partner Councils (Tauranga, Western Bay of Plenty & BOP Regional Council)
Tangata whenua at the governance table
Strategic Partners input from project commencement
SmartGrowth Joint Implementation Committee to ensure implementation of strategy and actions in next 3 years
Range of agencies involved in implementation Project observations:
Long period on research and reporting it to governance – started to get a bit restless and keen to get into strategy formulation – meeting frequency & reporting requirement challenge for limited resources available
Mix of in house and out house resources
Importance of cross organisational project teams to achieve buy-in
ICLEI and other change agents were not mentioned, but SmartGrowth is an Agenda 21 term. Some Tauranga council meeting minutes mention ICLEI and sustainability :
Gray Southon, United Nations Association, Tauranga Gray Southon provided PowerPoint Presentation (A) and outlined the following:
PROJECTS & MONITORING COMMITTEE 26.3.12
Sustainability and Its International Dimensions
20% Of Population Uses 80% Of Resources
Signs of Degradation
Range of Solutions
Global Sustainability Conference
Analyses Challenges and Overview Options
UN Secretary’s High Level Panel Report On Global Sustainability
Rio +20 Preparation
Draft Outcomes Document
ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability
In Response to Questions
Over-population and over-consumption were important sustainability issues thatneeded to be addressed.
New Zealand was a good world-wide performer in implementing sustainability,however continued effort was required.
...and people keep on saying there's no global plan.
Rural areas will be cleared because rural living and roading infrastructure is... that's right, unsustainable. They'll be converted to Wildlands areas, to be populated only by rabbits and ... importantly, super-rich humans.
10.13 The Wildlands Project
The goal of the Wildlands Project is to set aside approximately fifty (50) percent of the North American continent (Turtle Island) as "wild land" for the preservation of biological diversity.
The project seeks to do this by creating "reserve networks" across the continent. Reserves are made up of the following:
Cores, created from public lands such as National Forest and Parks
Buffers, often created from private land adjoining the cores to provide additional protection
Corridors, a mix of public and private lands usually following along rivers and wildlife migration routes
The primary characteristics of core areas are that they are large (100,000 to 25 million acres), and allow for little, if any, human use.
The primary characteristics of buffers are that they allow for limited human use so long as they are "managed with native biodiversity as a preeminent concern."
Moral and ethical guidelines for the Wildlands Project are based on the philosophy of Deep Ecology.
The eight point platform of Deep Ecology can be summarized as follows:
All life (human and non-human) has equal value.
Resource consumption above what is needed to supply "vital" human needs is immoral.
Human population must be reduced
Western civilisation must radically change present economic, technological, and ideological structures.
Believers have an obligation to try to implement the necessary changes.
The Wildlands Project itself is supported by hundreds of groups working towards its long-term implementation. Implementation may take 100 years or more.
The Wildlands Project has received millions of dollars in support from wealthy private and corporate foundations such as the Turner Foundation, Patagonia, W. Alton Jones Foundation, Lyndhurst Foundation, etc.
These Agenda 21 housing projects are going up in the centres of towns worldwide, but people are not flocking there. That will change, however, when various forces – green taxes, the Green Climate Fund, overregulation – combine to crush the economy.
The Agenda 21 housing would be subsidised to become the cheapest housing available.
Suburbia can't function without the private motor vehicle! It's totally unsustainable and not conducive to social equity. In the United States the government machinery for tearing down unwanted parts of the city and rebuilding is in place. It's called “Redevelopment”, and it's consuming a vast swathe of public expenditure while services deteriorate. “Blight” can be declared arbitrarily, and whole sections of the city are acquired using eminent domain (compulsory acquisition), then malls and mixed-use\ housing are put up in their place. This is detailed inRedevelopment: The Unknown Government by Chris Norby. 
From the Wall Street Journal:
California Declares War on Suburbia, 10 Apr 2012
Planners want to herd millions into densely packed urban corridors. It won't save the planet but will make traffic even worse.
The exodus is likely to accelerate. California has declared war on the most popular housing choice, the single family, detached home—all in the name of saving the planet. Metropolitan area governments are adopting plans that would require most new housing to be built at 20 or more to the acre, which is at least five times the traditional quarter acre per house. State and regional planners also seek to radically restructure urban areas, forcing much of the new hyperdensity development into narrowly confined corridors.
In San Francisco and San Jose, for example, the Association of Bay Area Governments has proposed that only 3% of new housing built by 2035 would be allowed on or beyond the "urban fringe"—where current housing ends and the countryside begins. Over two-thirds of the housing for the projected two million new residents in these metro areas would be multifamily—that is, apartments and condo complexes—and concentrated along major thoroughfares such as Telegraph Avenue in the East Bay and El Camino Real on the Peninsula.
For its part, the Southern California Association of Governments wants to require more than one-half of the new housing in Los Angeles County and five other Southern California counties to be concentrated in dense, so-called transit villages, with much of it at an even higher 30 or more units per acre.
To understand how dramatic a change this would be, consider that if the planners have their way, 68% of new housing in Southern California by 2035 would be condos and apartment complexes. This contrasts with Census Bureau data showing that single- family, detached homes represented more than 80% of the increase in the region's housing stock between 2000 and 2010.
The campaign against suburbia is the result of laws passed in 2006 (the Global Warming Solutions Act) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and in 2008 (the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act) on urban planning. The latter law, as the Los Angeles Times aptly characterized it, was intended to "control suburban sprawl, build homes closer to downtown and reduce commuter driving, thus decreasing climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions." In short, to discourage automobile use.
The love affair urban planners have for a future ruled by mass transit will be obscenely expensive and would not reduce traffic congestion. In San Diego, for example, an expanded bus and rail transit system is planned to receive more than half of the $48.4 billion in total highway and transit spending through 2050. Yet transit would increase its share of travel to a measly 4% from its current tiny 2%, according to data in the San Diego Association of Governments regional transportation plan. This slight increase in mass transit ridership would be swamped by higher traffic volumes. 
From “smartcompany.com.au” an Australian business news site:
What businesses can learn from Australia’s big shift to the city, 6 Aug 2010
Australians are continuing to flock to live close to capital cities, with new regional population data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics showing the population in inner city areas in Perth, Brisbane and Melbourne have grown by more than 50% in thepast five years.
And entrepreneurs looking to tap into new customer bases should note that it is Gen Y leading the charge back to town. The figures, released yesterday, show that the areas that experienced the biggest population growth are all inner city locations.
Perth is the clear winner, with the population in the inner Perth area leaping 80% and in the wider Perth city area by 71%. The population of inner city Brisbane jumped by over 50%, while the Southbank/Docklands precinct of Melbourne increased by almost 59%.
The population of Sydney city expanded by almost 24,000 people over the past five years, which CommSec economist Craig James says is almost equivalent to the entire town of Armidale. 
According to the “national initiative” of www.america2050.org  the United States will be converted into 11 “mega regions” with very daft names, and you can get between them with high-speed rail. If you can afford the ticket and get through the border controls, that is.
Note that Cascadia includes part of Canada and Gulf Coast includes part of Mexico. The North American Union is coming. It has been very well documented by www.pressfortruth.tv in their film United We Fall.
Does this remind you of a popular book and movie franchise called The Hunger Games? It is eerily, or some might say, chillingly similar. If you happen to live between these mega regions, I have some bad news for you. You are in the Wildlands areas and you will be cleared.
China is already under a totalitarian system. They don't arrest protesters, they machine-gun them.
The west, as I mentioned before, is the only civilisation that actually has a tradition of liberty. It stands to reason, therefore, that if you want to bring in a totalitarian system worldwide, that destroying the economy of the west, and building up the economy of China, is a sensible thing to do.
The purpose of shifting the population into the cities and then trapping them there is to make them utterly, utterly dependent on the government in every way, both physically and economically.
If there is mining or other environmental destruction in the Wildlands areas, you will not know about it. The mass media isn't going to tell you, the Internet will be censored, and you will be powerless to even get there.
Global governance will be full of fine words, but there won't be any benevolent leadership. This is a scheme devised by psychopaths for the own security. They want to be out of reach of the populace in a gated countryside, but they can't just kill everyone, or there would be no-one to do all the work that needs doing.
This is a new two-class feudal system.
11.0 Summary and Conclusion
The plan described in this book is in an advanced stage, and is becoming more obvious by the day. But as these plans advance, and as they become more sophisticated, the vast majority of people still deny that there is any “plan” at all, and this has to be the most frightening aspect of the whole thing.
A powerful veil of illusion still grips the minds of the people. Yes, we have environmental problems. And you will receive a lot of well-funded propaganda about them from our ruling classes over the coming years. I am not arguing whether climate change or peak oil are true. I just want you to understand that powerful people really want us to believe in environmental Armageddon.
A real crisis serves this purpose, and failing that, a fake one will do.
We are told that our collective actions have led to an environmental catastrophe, but this is not true. Environmental destruction has been caused by economic necessity, and in large part by the employees of corporations who were required to act in the way they did or lose their jobs.
We were largely powerless to prevent it, because it was the will of finance, and finance is behind both the environmental problem and the solution we are being sold today. But sadistically, the propaganda blames faults in our character for the many social and environmental problems that have been imposed upon us.
Buying a special lightbulb will not fix the environment, because these lightbulbs are full of mercury. 
Recycling will not help us, because the greatest environmental costs are in the manufacturing, not the dispoal. 
This well-funded propaganda has one purpose and one purpose only: To persuade you to be happy about doing more work for less reward.
This is because the government – all governments – are corporations, whose purpose is monetize your labour for the benefit of an elite class of psychopaths who consider you to be their property.
You need to understand that even if you believe we are in an urgent environmental crisis, the United Nations is not the answer because it does not care about the environment and never can.
Our environmental problems are a symptom of a greater problem: The way we rule ourselves, or precisely, the way we allow ourselves to be ruled. The monkey on our backs has been with ussince Babylon.
But there's good news too. A mass awakening has never occurred in human history, but it is more likely now than it has ever been. Change is not caused by the majority, anyway. It's caused by a sizable, determined minority. I believe that humanity is destined to be free, but it will not happen quickly.
In my opinion, the only way true change can occur is that a new way of structuring our society will arise from the grass roots. Its chief characteristic is that it will be decentralized, and therefore resistant to corruption. Obviously this will take time.
The only true defence against corruption is awareness.
We will restore the rule of law, and those who collaborated in enslaving us will be given a fair trial. That is the only civilised way to deal with criminals. And even the criminals will live a better life under our society, as we all will.
A slow, peaceful, purposeful evolution.
CODEX Alimentarius: The Monstrously Toxic Power Play For Control Of The Global Food Supply & Natural Health Industry
May 29 2014 | From Various Sources
The Codex Alimentarius agenda, which has long metastasised in the recesses of closed board rooms and governmental chambers, is now coming to light. This is the paramount issue of our times, yet few know about it.
'If Codex standards ever replace the current laws governing food and dietary supplements, it will affect everyones' right to choose supplements, but our right to grow crops with untampered seeds, to buy pure organic food, and to live free of the tyranny of Big Agro-Chem-Pharma-Med, through health-destructive local governemtn health departments rules enacted and enforced by a pro-corporate government that cares nothing about our health freedom.'
Although localised legislation does not seem to be of concern to their agenda: See the videos below with regards as to how the World Health Organisation has back-doored this via international 'law'.
In other words, the "natural health" industry will perish. Now more than ever, we must exercise our democratic duty and be vigilant in protecting that freedom, the health and survival of the Earth, and all her creatures and citizenry.
Codex Alimentarius is not just about nutritional supplements, although that is an important aspect. In fact, it is the primary political battlefield where the war is being waged about who will regulate and control the global food supply, from field and stable to table. This "war" is being waged by an increasingly tangled web of global governmental and international authorities, aligned with big business and financial interests, wherein human health takes a back seat to profit and power goals.
“The Codex Alimentarius (Latin for "food code" or "food book") is a collection of internationally recognized standards, codes of practice, guidelines and other recommendations relating to foods, food production and food safety. Its name derives from the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus.
Its texts are developed and maintained by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, a body that was established in 1963 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO).
The Commission's main aims are stated as being to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the international food trade. The Codex Alimentarius is recognized by the World Trade Organization as an international reference point for the resolution of disputes concerning food safety and consumer protection.
The Codex Alimentarius officially covers all foods, whether processed, semi-processed or raw, but far more attention has been given to foods that are marketed directly to consumers.
In addition to standards for specific foods, the Codex Alimentarius contains general standards covering matters such as food labeling, food hygiene, food additives and pesticide residues, and procedures for assessing the safety of foods derived from modern biotechnology. It also contains guidelines for the management of official (i.e., governmental) import and export inspection and certification systems for foods.”
- Dr. Rima E. Laibow, MD.
There is an entire industry with an innate economic interest to obstruct, suppress and discredit any information about the eradication of diseases. The pharmaceutical industry makes over one trillion dollars each year from selling drugs for ongoing diseases. These drugs may relieve symptoms, but they do not cure - because they are not designed to.
We do not have a healthcare system, we have a sickness industry.
We have to realise that the mission of this industry is to make money from ongoing diseases. The cure or eradication of a disease leads to the collapse of a multi-billion dollar market of pharmaceuticals, run by a eugenics directive.
The New Zealand Government met with strong moves to quash the original "Restrict Home Grown Food: Food Bill 160-2" of 2011. However, a 'revised' version was rushed through into legslation on May 28, 2014.
Part of the Codex Alimentarius worldwide rollout is a real trojan horse. While some politicians dismiss the truth of this, the framework for the worst case scenario is now written into legistlation.
Baumand College / National Association of Nutritional Professionsals Presentation
with Dr. Laibow
Agenda 21: Blueprint For A NWO Takeover November 3 2013 | From: ActivistPost
By now, you have probably heard about the UN directed intrusion into your life known as Agenda 21. Many writers, with greater skills than mine, have explored the true nature of what amounts to essentially a global takeover.
It seems that evil has surrounded us. In the video below, Dan Happel covers Agenda 21 from its roots, all the way to its logical conclusion… the elimination of people. We are truly in a battle for our lives, and that’s not hyperbole.
While this video was made in America, the principles of Agenda 21 are intended to be applied globally.
Please take the time to watch this video and pass it along.
Rosa Koire is the executive director of the Post Sustainability Institute. Impacting every aspect of our lives, UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is a corporate manipulation using the Green Mask of environmental concern to forward a globalist plan.
Rosa speaks across the world and is a regular blogger on her website Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 dot com. Her book, BEHIND THE GREEN MASK: UN Agenda 21 is available on Amazon.com, Kindle, and Nook, and at her website. www.PostSustainabilityInstitute.org.
This website is optimised for viewing in Mozilla Firefox