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.

You can read the John Key New Zealand Cycle Way propaganda spin here

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.

You can download a PDF copy of Agenda 21 directly fron the United Nations website here.

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.

Related Video: Agenda 21 Explained: Full Version

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."

Tea party groups, talk show host Glenn Beck , and organisations like Freedom Advocates, Catholic Investigative Agency and Sovereignty International are working hard to expose Agenda 21, but there is only so much a few can do. Some local governments have become aware of what Agenda 21 is really about and dropped out of ICLEI this year. The Carroll County Board of Commissioners, Montgomery County in Pennsylvania and the city of Edmond , Oklahoma have all withdrawn their participation.

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.

Read more from our sources:

Sustainabledevelopment.un.org

Townhall.com

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.

This is an immense subject and many more articles are available in the Agenda 21 section of this website. This article is from the US but the principles of Agenda 21 are global - it came from the UN.

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.

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.

Local indeed.

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:


Ski fields

Grazing of livestock

Plowing of soil

Building fences

Industry

Single family homes

Paved and tarred roads

Logging activities

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.

Related: Agenda 21: What Sustainable Development Really Means For You


The Three E's



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).


Social Equity

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.

Economic Prosperity

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.


Ecological Integrity

“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.

The Reinvention of Government

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

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.

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.



Related: Not So Smart Technology: Safety Inspector Blows The Whistle On Fire Hazards Of 'Smart' Electronics

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.

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.

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.







Related: These Light Bulbs Cause Anxiety, Migraines, And Even Cancer

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.

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.

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.

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.

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":

To begin the effort to fight back against Sustainable Development it is vital to first understand the massive structure you are facing.

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.


New Tactic

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?”

Fighting ICLEI

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.

They 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.


In Conclusion

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 website is www.sustainablefreedomlab.com.



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.


Related Articles:

Australian Ex-Politician Whistle-Blower Ann Bressington Exposes Agenda 21

Inevitable NIMBY Backlash Begins

Six Issues That Are Agenda 21

Palmy Beyond Petrol

Leaked plans for Auckland Suburbs: Will Apartments be Built in Your Backyard?

UN 2030 Agenda Decoded: Blueprint For The Global Enslavement Of Humanity Under Corporate Masters

This week, Michael Snyder published an important article entitled The 2030 Agenda: This Month The UN Launches A Blueprint For A New World Order With The Help Of The Pope.



That article references this UN "2030 Agenda" document that pushes a blueprint for so-called "sustainable development" around the world.

Related: Agenda 2030 Translator: Decoding The UN’s New ‘Sustainable’ Development Goals

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.



Especially when ACTUAL "Green Energy" - actual "Free Energy" technologies and so many other advanced "Clean" technologies have been suppressed by the Cabal to control us and give them leverage to impinge their bullshit fascist New World Order sustainablility on us. Or try, at least.

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.

Six Issues That Are Agenda 21 & Myth Busters: Introducing Agenda 2030
August 9 2017 | From: AmericanPolicyCenter / OperationDisclosure / Various

Every day, in meetings at all levels of government, representatives of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), planning groups, and federal agents surround elected representatives and insist that their policies have nothing to do with international agendas.



They regularly publish reports and rail against anyone even mentioning the names Agenda 21 or the new Agenda 2030. “No, no, no,” they insist. “Those people are just crazy conspiracy theorists. Ours is just a local plan for our community.”

Related: Agenda 21: Awareness And Activism + UN 2030 Agenda Decoded: Blueprint For The Global Enslavement Of Humanity Under Corporate Masters

Elected Representatives are often confused. Issues and policies suddenly appear in front of them with sample, ready-made legislation. And then the unending pressure begins for them to pass it.

There is confusion, uncertainty and there is the herd mentality to pass legislation. And it’s passed without knowledge of its origins, its purpose, and especially a lack of understanding of its consequences. “Just do it,” goes the mantra.

What most of these legislators fail to understand is the direct relationship much of this legislation has with a much larger agenda. Most legislation interconnects with other pieces and parts contained in other legislation.



Does this look targeted much? Smoking Gun For Christchurch Killer Quake: Hillary Clinton Emails Show Advance Warning

Related: Christchurch, Booz Allen Hamilton, And The 2030 Agenda

Like the children’s song goes…”the toe bone’s connected to the ankle bone…”  And it’s done so well, wrapped in innocent-sounding, positive wrapping, so that most elected representatives will argue vigorously that they passed no such thing.  And most of all, they will answer, Agenda 21, never heard of it. Just local. Just local. Just local.

Well, let me show you how it works and how the toe bone gets connected to the ankle bone ending up with the Frankenstein monster.  

Here are six issues that are rarely connected to Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development (especially when we are assured that Agenda 21 has nothing to do with local, state or federal government policy).

However, these seemingly unrelated policies, once implemented, help enforce the stated Agenda 21 goal of “reorganizing human society.”


Issue 1: Global Warming / Climate Change

It has been so discredited in the true scientific community that proponents have become almost hysterical in their continued attempts to enforce Climate Change policy.



Most recently the USJustice Department is considering legal action against “deniers.”  

Why don’t they stop, even to question if their science is sound? They instead use great energy to attack any scientist who does dare ask questions or finds data contrary to the “official” line.

Why is it so vitally important that they continue to promote something that clearly is, to say the least, questionable?

It’s because all of Agenda 21 policy is built on the premise that man is destroying the Earth. Climate Change is their “proof.” To eliminate that premise is to remove all credibility and purpose for their entire agenda. 

They are willing to go to any length, even lies, to keep the climate change foot on our throats.

On the local level this translates into planning policy that controls energy use and the efforts to cut down on the use of cars, enforcement of the building of expensive light rail train systems and bike paths and installation of smart meters, etc.

But don’t take my word for it. I’ll let them speak for themselves:

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” - Christine Stewart (Former Canadian Minister of the Environment) “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” - Timothy Wirth (President, UN Foundation) “It doesn’t matter what is true. It only matters what people believe is true.” - Paul Watson (Co-Founder of Green Peace)

Issue 2: Fear of Over Population

This is the central driving force behind nearly every Sustainable policy initiative. It’s the real force behind Stack and Pack Smart Growth cities.



Related: Why Your City Is Going to S***

The fact is, in developed nations populations are actually going down. The only real growth in the US population in recent years has been from immigration, legal or otherwise. Open border immigration policy is actually implementation of Agenda 21 as part of the drive to destroy national sovereignty and “nation states.”

Environmentalists insist that the borders must be open to allow as many to immigrate here as possible. They argue that the U.S. has a greater ability to control them and protect the environment than if we left them in third world countries. That’s because the Greens already have a stranglehold over our nation’s industry through massive environmental regulations.

In the face of their fear of overpopulation, however, studies have shown that there is no world wide over population crisis. In fact one study insists that we could put the entire population of the world in an area the size of Texas with a population density of Paris, France. 

Over population, and its accompanying environmental degradation, is a problem primarily in countries where the poor are deprived by government to improve their conditions. Nations that refuse to legalize private property ownership for the masses, for example, are a primary reason for growing poverty.

Meanwhile, Sustainablists work to keep these nations from developing or increasing energy use, thereby keeping them poor. Green regulations stop the building of infrastructure. They panic at the idea of increased energy use in developing nations.



Related: The Paris Climate Conference, What’s The Real Agenda? + Undercover Police Crack Down On Freedom Of Speech In Paris

Instead of working to solve the real problems – the root of poverty- they exploit the excuse of over population and advocate enforcing polices to drastically reduce populations. China’s brutal one child policy of forced abortions and sterilization has become their model.

Do you think I’m joking? Then consider these quotes from the Sustainablists:

“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” - David Brower (Sierra Club) “A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At a more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.” - United Nations Global Biodiversity Assessment.

Issue 3: The Destruction of the Free Market System

We have heard statement after statement from the UN; from members of Congress; the news media; and from Hollywood, all deriding the free market system as evil, corrupt and a tool of the rich to hold down the poor.

So now, after deciding that the poor are expendable for the sake of stopping overpopulation, suddenly the planners are worried about them – if it leads to their ability to raid our bank accounts.

So are they really worried about protecting the environment – or are they actually  honoring the tactics of Jesse James?

Redistribution of wealth is behind every policy that comes out of the UN, and the Obama Administration as well. The EPA is the attack dog to shut down entire industries like coal. It has become very difficult to operate a manufacturing business in the US, and nearly impossible to start a new one.



Environmental protection is always the excuse, even when Obama’s own State Department said the Keystone Pipeline was not an environmental threat.

A couple of years ago, radical greens, wielding torches, demonstrated outside the home of the head of the Keystone pipeline company. Visions of the terror of the Dark Agenda?

At the UN’s Rio + 20 Summit held in 2012, the idea of “Zero Economic Growth” was advocated – just to keep things fair.

It was stated that even the building of new roads upsets the status quo and disrupts a well ordered society. Such idiotic ideas are the driving force behind Sustainable Development. Again, images of the Dark Ages come to mind.

Yet, consider “local” planning programs that cut off access roads, and again, discourage cars. What about the EPA’s war on industry. Pretty hard to have economic growth without industry. The timber industry is killed and communities die.



Dams are torn down and farmers disappear. Zero Economic Growth in the making. Just local?

Again, not my words, let them tell you themselves:

“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.” - Dave Foreman, (Earth First) “Global sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control”  - Professor Maurice King (Population Control Advocate) “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 itself incapable of doing this.” - Plannersnetwork.org Statement of Principles. the American Planning Association is a member and supporter of these principles.

Issue 4: Cheap Energy is the Enemy of the Earth

To the average person the drive to stop any ability to obtain cheap energy makes no sense. People are hurting economically. Jobs are lost.

Energy costs are skyrocketing. Yet the government spends billions of dollars on “alternative energy” such as wind and solar, which provides less than 3% of our energy needs. Why? What is the motivation to put such shackles on the economic engine? 

The excuse is that energy use drives up CO2 emissions and accelerates global warming – the excuse necessary to “harmonize” the US into the socialist, Sustainable global noose.

Many current state and local policies now are moving to increase taxes at the gas pump to keep energy costs high. In addition, Obama issued an Executive Order to ban any off shore drilling of oil.

So, just as the consumer started to get a break at the pump, higher taxes and Obama’s action forced prices back up. As the prices rise the “planners” will insist that the only solution is to enforce the building of expensive public transportation.

But, according to some anti-energy advocates, the fear of cheap energy goes beyond environmental protection – energy availability helps build wealth for individuals and removes them from the rolls of the dependent – the opposite goal of sustainable policy.

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy is the worst thing that could ever happen to the planet.” - Proffessor Paul Ehrlich  (Professor of Population Studies, Stanford University) “Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.” - Amory Lovins (Rocky Mountain Institute) “The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.” - Jeremy Rifkin (Greenhouse Crisis Foundation)

Issue 5: Common Core

Many people see the reorganization of the public school issue as separate from Agenda 21. It’s not.

Those who are promoting what they call the Agenda for the 21st Century understand that it is going to be a long drawn out process.

To “reform” a nation created on the ideals of limited government, free enterprise and individual liberty into one that unquestioningly accepts government top down control will take time and a determined effort.

There’s no room in a Sustainablist society for those who believe that we were born with our rights and that government’s job is to protect those rights. The sustainable system says government will grant us our rights.



Related: Schools: The New "Animal Farm"

To enforce such a radical turn around of our society requires that the children be indoctrinated to accept it. The effort started in earnest in the 1990s under the Clinton Administration through the massive growth of the Department of Education in such programs as Goals 2000, School To Work and Workforce Development Boards.

The original American education system effectively provided an overall academic education from which students could choose their own futures. No longer.

Today, the new curriculum has morphed into what is called Common Core. It’s a State run central curriculum that revamps schools into little more than job training and indoctrination centers [and it is now being spread worldwide by the UN.]

Because, you see, today’s public education system is also designed to strip the children of their attitudes, values and beliefs that parents may have instilled, and indoctrinate them into accepting global values – global citizenship and a global economy based on the sustainable agenda.

Little of American civics and history are taught in today’s classroom. But text books contain whole chapters on the Five Pillars of Islam, while ignoring the 10 Commandments of Christianity. 



Related: Unschooling: Radical Education That Produces Free Human Beings Instead Of Slaves

The children are fed an unending diet of the evils of capitalism; the selfishness of individualism, and the social justice of redistribution of wealth.

It punishes students for possessing individuality and is designed to eliminate such natural human tendencies. That is the “common” in Common Core. Common values, common goals, common future. Don’t rock the boat of a well ordered society.

Common Core is the nationally dictated curriculum necessary for the acceptance and implementation of Agenda 21.  Of course, we still elect local school boards pretending they have some say over the curriculum. It makes us all feel safer for our children.

How, then do we explain the surge of Bernie Sanders and the Tsunami of Socialism? Well, today nearly every adult up to the age of 40 has gone thought this indoctrination, trained to accept a future chosen for them by someone else.

The education system was fully outlined in a very detailed letter to Hillary Clinton from Marc Tucker of the National Center on Education and the Economy in November, 1992, immediately after Bill. Clinton was elected President.

Said Tucker:

"First, a vision of the kind of national – not federal – human resources development system the nation could have. This is interwoven with a new approach to governing that should inform that vision. What is essential is that we create a seamless web of opportunities to develop one’s skills that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone…” coordinated by “a system of labor market boards at the local, state, and federal levels” where curriculum and “job matching” will be handled by counselors “accessing the integrated computer-based program.”

Issue 6: Healthcare

How is healthcare connected to Agenda 21? Simply Google “Sustainable Medicine” and you will find more than 5,850,000 English language references to the subject. Read through the ideas expressed there and you will find nearly every provision of Obamacare.

An expert on Sustainable Medicine, the late Dr. Madeleine Cosman, put it this way: “Sustainable Medicine + Sustainable Development = Duty to Die.”

Sustainable medicine makes decisions through visioning councils that determine what shall be done or not done to each body in its group in its native habitat. Sustainable medicine experts do not refer to citizens in sovereign nations, but to “humans” in their “settlements.”

Sustainable medicine is the pivot around which all other Sustainable Development revolves. Principle #1 of the Rio Declaration that introduced Agenda 21 is that all humans must live in harmony with nature.



The translation means rationing healthcare, low technology for health care treatment and emphasis on medical care not cure. And that, of course, will lead to population reduction, as called for in Agenda 21.

These are the issues that are not usually discussed or connected to Agenda 21. Yet they are being implemented, step by step, by local planners in policies that are approved by befuddled elected representatives.  It’s all driven through pressure from private NGO groups and funded by federal grants.

That’s how it’s done, constantly driven a little bit with each innocent sounding idea. Then, without warning, Frankenstein rises from behind the smokescreen, toe bones and anklebones fully operational.

People must understand and connect these dots to everyday issues so they can clearly see the root and long term goals of these policies that are affecting our personal lives.

Elected representatives at every level of government must come to understand that legislative actions have consequences far beyond their understanding.

Agenda 21 is the “common core” and it has already invaded every level of our society. Our battle cry must be to stop this monster or watch freedom perish.

Agenda 2030 - Save the earth not you. Isn't it what is happening? Will you support it?

Related: Humanist Manifesto – Roots of Agenda 2030?

Seventeen goals and targets that will stimulate action over the next fifteen years in areas of critical importance for humanity and the planet:


Goal 1: End Poverty in all its Forms Everywhere

Translation: Continually engineer boom/bust and other financial crisis; centralize all ‘private banks’ – IMF, World Bank, Fed/BOE etc to control all finances via a digital world currencies; a cashless society administered via personal RFID chips(in phones and banking cards).



Continue to encourage and Increase dependence on personal debt by continually raising inflation/prices above earnings; make interest rates negative and then ‘charge’ for keeping balances in the black; make it impossible to function in society without digital beast system i.e. no access to work, food, healthcare, buying and selling, transport etc


Goal 2: End Hunger, Achieve Food Security and Improved Nutrition and Promote Sustainable Agriculture

Translation: Codex Alimentarius (opens in this window); full corporate control over the supply and production of only poor quality GMO (Frankenstein) food – causing cancer and genetic abnormalities leading to population reduction.

Encourage and promote vegetarianism with high consumption of GMO crops; make meat eating increasingly unacceptable by continually pushing the environmental damage and cancer causing message


Goal 3: Ensure Healthy Lives and Promote Well-Being for all at All Ages

Translation: Full government control and rationing of poor quality health care; compulsory health destroying vaccinations; legalize and advocate euthanasia.



Sexualization of children and minors; legalize and enable taxation of all drugs plus promote their widespread use


Goal 4: Ensure Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education and Promote Lifelong Learning Opportunities for All

Translation: UN propaganda, constant and relentless brainwashing delivered through all forms of media and compulsory ‘education’ from cradle to grave.



Use famous celebrities, actors, musicians and role models (that the elite control) to directly influence public opinion; label anyone who questions the status quo and refuses to conform, as mentally ill and incarcerate them indefinitely for their ‘own safety’; utilize political correctness as a weapon against free and analytical thinking


Goal 5: Achieve Gender Equality and Empower all Women and Girls

Translation: Population control through forced “Family Planning”; promote ‘alternative lifestyles’; destroy family and societal cohesion; ‘normalize’ all sexual orientations; feminize, ridicule and diminish traditional male roles


Goal 6: Ensure Availability and Sustainable Management of Water and Sanitation for All

Translation: Privatize all water sources.



Related: Australia’s Pauline Hansen exposes UN Agenda 21’s real agenda with the privatisation of water

Add fluoride and cancer causing chemicals to supply; increase charges and encourage the separate purchase of ‘safe’ drinking water


Goal 7: Ensure Access to Affordable, Reliable, Sustainable and Modern Energy for All

Translation: Phase out ‘fossil fuels’ and replace with 100% electricity supply and control network.



Click on the image above to view a larger version in a new window

Smart grid with smart meters on everything; peak pricing; personal carbon rationing through RFID; draconian punishments for ‘excessive’ and ‘irresponsible’ usage


Goal 8: Promote Sustained, Inclusive and Sustainable Economic Growth, Full and Productive Employment and Decent Work for All

Translation: TPP; free trade zones that favor mega corporate interests; excessive taxation and red tape leading to eventual bankruptcy for all small/medium ‘non-corporate’ (elite owned) businesses.



Endless global and regional conflicts / terrorism / war leading to ‘job creation’ for the young by enforcing conscription into the security/armed services; vast labor factories, expansion of service sector and government assigned ‘non jobs’ with no upper age limit or retirement prospects for ‘workers’


Goal 9: Build Resilient Infrastructure, Promote Inclusive and Sustainable Industrialization and Foster Innovation

Translation: Promote and expand public transit; remove free/subsidized travel; apply environmental restrictions on personal travel; introduce a pay per mile/km auto tax and expand toll roads.



Build and maintain privately owned infrastructure using public funds by increasing levels of personal/carbon taxation


Goal 10: Reduce Inequality Within and Among Countries

Translation: Replace current systems of governance with one based on socialism and corporate control; introduce even more regional government bureaucracy and intrusion like a mutant octopus; open borders with unlimited and unchecked migration from Islamic countries causing widespread racial and religious wars/conflict/terrorism (thus population reduction on a grand scale).

Promote, normalize and enforce diversity with extensive and relentless media campaigns plus impose restrictive and punitive race/equality laws to silence any objection


Goal 11: Make Cities and Human Settlements Inclusive, Safe, Resilient and Sustainable

Translation: Big brother big data surveillance state with cameras watching everything 24/7; destroy rural communities; encourage city occupation.



Promote the affordability and environmental benefits of living in ‘sustainable’ compact micro units controlled and connected to the ‘smart grid’; restrict personal movement through RFID tracking/logging and no go zones


Goal 12: Ensure Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns

Translation: Forced austerity; limit availability and ration purchases of essential goods with RFID based cashless society; wipe out the ‘useless eaters’ then maintain the worlds population at under 500,000,000


Goal 13: Take Urgent Action to Combat Climate Change and its Impacts

Translation: Cap and Trade; carbon taxes/credits; footprint taxes; direct RFID credit/cash deductions for personal carbon usage; aggressively promote climate change as the ‘new religion’ and sanction ‘deniers‘; set-up eco-courts to enforce global and local climate laws and to punish ‘eco-crime’


Goal 14: Conserve and Sustainably Use the Oceans, Seas and Marine Resources for Sustainable Development

Translation: Environmental restrictions; control all oceans including mineral rights from ocean floors.



Related: Hawke's Bay's Merger Mayor And Agenda 21

Restrict public access to coastal areas and criminalize all unauthorized and unlawful infractions


Goal 15: Protect, Restore and Promote Sustainable Use of Terrestrial Ecosystems, Sustainably Manage Forests, Combat Decertification, and Halt and Reverse Land Degradation and Halt Biodiversity Loss

Translation: More environmental restrictions; more controlling of resources and mineral rights; restricted public access to vast areas of open space and woodlands etc with harsh penalties for all unauthorized and unlawful infractions


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: Use the NATO alliance and UN “peacekeeping” missions/proxy armies along with the International Court of (subjective) Justice, to force regime change on uncooperative nations and join desperate people together via fake refugee and other engineered crises; mediate with more “UN peacekeeping” and gain full control over regions and counties when tension breaks out.



Related: Agenda 2030 Translator: Decoding The UN’s New ‘Sustainable’ Development Goals

Incrementally remove the 2nd Amendment in the USA using false flag events to sway public opinion in tandem with restrictive executive orders to bypass congress, provoke patriots into defending their rights and send all surviving dissenters to ‘re-education’ camps


Goal 17: Strengthen the Means of Implementation and Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development

Translation: Promote and expand globalism and a bloated Orwellian bureaucratic state under the ‘authority” of the UN (by initiating world war if necessary) with direction from The (unelected) Council on Foreign Relations and The Trilateral Commission; implementation of a ‘one world government‘ with open borders and removal of national sovereignty worldwide; implement a fully biometric/RFID human control network


The last line of the agenda document (opens in this window) reads:

"We reaffirm our unwavering commitment to achieving this Agenda and utilizing it to the full to transform our world for the better by 2030."

Translation: We, as in the UN (the unelected de facto world government), are going to force this on the worlds population whether they like it or not, although we have absolutely no democratic mandate to do so.

UN Agenda 2030 = Total Enslavement For Anyone Left Standing! Of course the elite would not be affected by this.

Elon Musk Unveils Apocalyptic Vision For The World + Bill Gates’ New Population Control Microchip Due For Launch In 2018
July 27 2017 | From: ZeroHedge / TheSleuthJournal / Various

Elon Musk is no stranger to futurecasting a foreboding dystopia ahead for mankind, as we noted recently.



But during a  speech he gave today at the National Governors Association Summer Meeting in Rhode Island, Musk turned up the future-fearmongery amplifier to '11'.

Related: The Reason US Police Murder US Citizens

10 Secrets About America that Will Make You Wonder Where All the Freedom Went
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/07/13/10-secrets-america-will-make-wonder-freedom-went/

As a reminder, in the past, when he was asked about whether humans are living inside a computer simulation, Musk made headlines last year by saying he thinks the chances are one in billions that we aren’t.

“The strongest argument for us probably being in a simulation I think is the following: 40 years ago we had Pong - two rectangles and a dot,” Musk stated.  “That’s where we were. Now 40 years later we have photorealistic, 3D simulations with millions of people playing simultaneously and it’s getting better every year. And soon we’ll have virtual reality, we’ll have augmented reality. If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then the games will become indistinguishable from reality, just indistinguishable.”

Here Musk is referring to the exponential growth of technology, the lynchpin of the Singularity theory.




Vancouver Police Are Using Prediction Technology For Pre Crime Arrests

Remember the film Minority Report? well the Vancouver Police Department has just made that fictional concept a reality for Canadians as they have just become the first police force in all of Canada to implement new crime prediction technology.

In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth outlines the lies and contradictions displayed by the VPD as well as the obvious and not so obvious potential areas for abuse with this new technology.

If in 40 years we’ve gone from the two-dimensional pong to the cusp of augmented and virtual reality, imagine where we’ll be in another forty, or a hundred, or 400. And that is where he began today...

But today, Musk discussed a broad range of topics from energy sources in the future...

"It's inevitable," Musk said, speaking of shift to sustainable energy. "But it matters if it happens sooner or later."

As for those pushing some other type of fusion, Musk notes that the sun is a giant fusion reactor in the sky.

"It's really reliable," he said. "It comes up every day. if it doesn't we've got (other) problems)."

To Tesla's share price:

Musk said he has been on record several times as saying its stock price:

"Is higher than we have any right to deserve" especially based on current and past performance. "The stock price obviously reflects a lot of optimism on where we will be in the future," he said. "Those expectations sometimes get out of control. I hate disappointing people, I am trying really hard to meet those expectations." Musk added that he won't be selling any stock "unless I have to for taxes," and said "I'm going down with the ship... I'll be the last [to sell]."

Musk addressed government regulation and incentives:

“It sure is important to get the rules right," Musk said. "Regulations are immortal. They never die unless somebody actually goes and kills them. A lot of times regulations can be put in place for all the right reasons but nobody goes back and kills them because they no longer make sense."

Musk also focused on the importance of incentives, saying whatever societies incentivize tends to be what happens. "It's economics 101,"he said.

And what drives him:

"I want to be able to think about the future and feel good about that, to dream what we can to have the future be as good as possible. To be inspired by what is likely to happen and to look forward to the next day. How do we make sure things are great? That's the underlying principle behind Tesla and SpaceX."

Within 20 years, he said driving a car will be like having a horse (i.e. rare and totally optional). "There will not be a steering wheel."

“There will be people that will have non-autonomous cars, like people have horses,”he said. “It just would be unusual to use that as a mode of transport.”

But what started off as the latest sales pitch for electric cars quickly devolved into a bizarre rant that among other things, touched on Elon Musk's gloomy, apocalyptic vision of how the world could end... (via ReCode)

Musk called on the government to proactively regulate artificial intelligence before things advance too far.

“Until people see robots going down the street killing people, they don’t know how to react because it seems so ethereal,” he said. “AI is a rare case where I think we need to be proactive in regulation instead of reactive. Because I think by the time we are reactive in AI regulation, it’s too late.” “Normally the way regulations are set up is a while bunch of bad things happen, there’s a public outcry, and after many years a regulatory agency is set up to regulate that industry,” he continued. “It takes forever. That, in the past, has been bad but not something which represented a fundamental risk to the existence of civilization. AI is a fundamental risk to the existence of human civilization.”

Musk has been concerned about AI for years, and he’s working on technology that would connect the human brain to the computer software meant to mimic it.

Full interview below (Musk begins talking around 42 minutes in)...

Introducing the New Chair's Initiative "Ahead of the Curve"

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been working in conjunction with a small Massachusetts startup to develop the “digital pill” that will enable women’s fertility to be switched on or off, remotely, with the touch of a button.

The new “digital version of the contraceptive” pill will be tested in Africa this year where the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has spent years developing vaccination and family planning programs.

Following testing, the microchips are due to be rolled out globally in 2018 with “every woman in America” replacing their regular contraceptive pill with the new remote-controlled chips, according to Gates.

According to the Guardian, the chip is implanted under the skin and releases small doses of the contraceptive hormone levonorgestrel on a daily basis, with enough capacity to last 16 years.




Gates And Zuckerberg Push For Breakaway Technocratic Civilization

Top globalists want to enslave humanity using suppressed technology.

Alex Jones breaks down the globalists’ goal of a breakaway civilization after they have successfully gotten rid of the what they consider excess humanity.








About the same size as a Scrabble tile, it houses a series of micro-reservoirs covered by an ultra-thin titanium and platinum seal.The hormone is released by passing a small electric current from an internal battery through the seal, which melts it temporarily, allowing a 30 microgram dose of levonorgestrel to seep out each day.

And it can be simply switched off by a wireless remote, avoiding the clinical procedures needed to deactivate other contraceptive implants.

“The ability to turn the device on and off provides a certain convenience factor for those who are planning their family,” says MIT’s Dr. Robert Farra, adding that “the idea of using a thin membrane like an electric fuse was the most challenging and the most creative problem we had to solve.”

But just as hackers can spoof wifi remotes to operate neighbors’ garage doors and flip their TV channels, could a remote-controlled contraceptive open the floodgates for a new form of ovarian hacking?

“Someone across the room cannot reprogramme your implant,”says Farra. “Communication with the implant has to occur at skin contact-level distance. Then we have secure encryption. That prevents someone from trying to interpret or intervene between the communications.”

The idea for micro-dispensing chips was first developed in the 1990s by Professor Robert Langer at MIT, the founder of innumerable biotech companies and holder of more than 800 patents, known in the industry as “the most cited engineer in history”.

His lab caught the attention of Bill Gates in 2012, during his search for a revolution in birth control (which has already spawned plans for a graphene condom), and Langer subsequently leased the technology to Microchips, a company already working on a micro-dosing implant for osteoporosis.

Langer says that the implant will be available by 2018, once the coming trials are complete, and that the device will be “competitively priced” in a bid to ensure it replaces conventional contraception.


Bill Gates Admits Vaccines Are Used for Human Depopulation

Bill Gates: "The world today has 6.8 billion people...now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services, we could lower that (number) by perhaps 10 or 15%." "Vaccines are something I love".






The New World Order

Bill Gates recently caused controversy after he spoke out about the immigration crisis in Europe saying that the continent will be "devastated by African refugees" unless severe and immediate action is taken to reduce the population in Africa.



This has left many questioning Gates' motives behind his vaccination programs after the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation had previously been accused of secretly sterilizing millions of women in Africa by doctors in Kenya after abortion drugs were discovered in Tetanus vaccines.

The program, which is funded by Bill Gates, has been accused of conducting a mass depopulation experiment on the people of Kenya without their consent.

I have a question. What are schools for? Education, or social engineering? George Orwell wrote a book called “Animal Farm” Have you read it?

Related: Vaccines: Safe, Effective and saved the world!

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!

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.

I disagree.

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?



Related: How did we get it this wrong?

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?

The commissioner said about 70 percent of households in New Zealand have smart meters.

Related: A Smart Home Mega Sensor Can Track What Goes On In A Room + EKG Evidence That Smart Meters Negatively Affect The Human Heart

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

Related: Yesterday’s Conspiracy Theory Is Today’s News + Spies Tell Lies, Spying Is Lying & Wikileaks Says Less Than 1% Of Vault 7 Released

"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."

In an open letter to the industry (PDF, 118KB), Mr Edwards recommended electricity companies ensure that personal information was not collected unnecessarily or held for longer than it had to be.

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.



Related: The 'Smart' Meter Itself Is The “Hazardous Condition” + Studies On Radiation From Smart Meters Show That Electromagnetic Frequencies Disrupt And Damage The Nervous System

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

"Smart PGH" (Smart City) and their 'smart spine system' is one of the most intrusive, government funded, TOTAL surveillance networks ever dreamed up.



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.

Related: Money Talks: From ‘smart’ meters to power politics

"Smart PGH's" tag line at the end of the above video is chilling, "If It's Not For All, It's Not For Us". As "Smart PGH's" documents reveal, 'smart city' surveillance spies on All of Us.

Pittsburgh, actually received close to $11 million to help turn their city into a "smart city".


City of Pittsburgh Smart Cities Challenge Proposal Video






Smart Columbus

(Fast forward to approx., 2:18 to see the numerous corporations involved in 'Smart Cities')





Not much is known about "SmartColumbus," but you can bet it's probably a carbon copy of "Smart PGH."

The document below, reveals "smart cities" are really just a euphemism for government spying on an unimaginable scale.

City of Pittsburgh's Proposal, Beyond Traffic: The Smart City Challenge (SCC)

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)

Uber, Lyft and Bike Share to spy on customers.

Page 13:

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.

Page 14: 

Voluminous streams of data will be generated by sensors on fixed and mobile assets and citizens themselves using apps and social media.



Smart cities will spy on everyone's behavior and emotions.

Page 18:

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.

"Citizens as Sensors" really, means government spying on social media posts, FourSquare, Twitter etc.,. Below is an excerpt from Page 12 of "Citizens as Sensors".

"At a different level many users volunteer information to Web 2.0 sites as a convenient way of making it available to friends and relations, irrespective of the fact that it becomes available to all."

Govt to spy on staircases, sidewalks, bicycles, trails, buses and trains. 

Pages 3 and 22:

Moreover, residents utilize the city's unique system of 712 public staircases, 40 miles of on-street bike infrastructure, 31 miles of trails, and numerous sidewalksand on a daily basis.

Companies like Sidewalk Labs, make a profit out of spying on pedestrians.



The Port Authority of Allegheny County operates a comprehensive transit network in the city, which includes 18.4 miles of busway, 26.2 miles of light rail, 72 local bus routes and two funiculars.  

Power companies and the govt collaborate to spy on everyone.

Pages 22 & 23:

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.

Page 23:

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.

Page 23:

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:


Allegheny County  

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


Page 24:

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.

1. Surtrac works with FLIR a thermal sensor company that specializes in identifying individual vehicles by their thermal signature. Surtrac was developed by Carnegie Mellon University,

 Surtracs' Econolite specializes in spying on motor vehicles. They also invented 'autoscope' surveillance cameras in the early 1990's. Fyi, Surtrac's Autoscope Vision (AV) also spies on bicyclists.

AV delivers stop bar vehicle and bicycle detection, advanced vehicle detection, bicycle differentiation, traffic data collection, and HD video surveillance.

Surtrac boasts, about they're newly-developed, full-field-of-view object-feature tracking. In other words, the government can track an individual vehicle or bicyclist throughout an entire city!

There are plans to integrate Surtrac with the Port Authority of Allegheny County bus fleets’ using 'Clever Devices'. (more on that below)

2. Citilog, is a mirror image of Econolite but specializes in spying road sensors that are imbedded in every road, highway tunnel and bridge.

3. Metrotech, turns current traffic intersection cameras into connected surveillance systems that spy on vehicles and Bluetooth signals.

4. Wavetronix, can track an individual vehicles speed, even if they change lanes. Wavertronix also knows the type of vehicle you're driving, watch the video below to find out more.

5. Traffic Control Products, bill themselves as a supplier of premium sensor equipment to the traffic industry. Currently their vehicle surveillance equipment is being used in Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana and Michigan.   Traffic Control Products boasts about having a staff of software specialists that manage, their surveillance systems.  

6. Path Master, provides 'surveillance equipment' and training for their equipment.

7. Clever Devices, is a company that specializes in spying on trains and buses.

"SmartColumbus," "Smart PGH," "Smart City," "Vision Zero," CCTV cameras, license plate readers, Wi-Fi readers and Shotspotter are turning our cities into COMPLETE surveillance centers!

What's it going to take, to motivate an apathetic populace to speak out and demand a stop to govt spying?


s Related Articles:

Klahoma Man's Tests Negate Smart Meter Safety Claims

Ontario Pulls Plug on 36,000 Rural ‘Smart’ Meters: Is Big Energy Imploding?

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…”

Related: Pesticide Special Report

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)

Dr Grundy is convenor of the Inter-council Working party on GMO Risk Evaluation and Management Options (comprising Auckland Council, Whangarei District Council, Far North District Council, and Northland Regional Council).*


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?



It seems that Hastings Mayor and Mr. UN Agenda 21 / UN Agenda 30 New Zealand Laurence Yule is planning to force amalgamation on Hawke’s Bay. The following letter was in the Dominion Post:

Submitted by a reader:

Letters to the Editor Dominion Post 2 August 2016 Local Govt Bill 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. Judith Aitken Retiring Wellington Regional Councillor Te Aro

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.

This is the Link sent to me from parliament: Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2)




Local Body Developments

"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:

1. If you are elected would you oppose iwi representatives being appointed onto your Council with voting rights?
   
   
2. 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?
   
   
3. 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.

UN Climate Deal: The Joke Is On Us
May 12 2016 | From: 21stCenturyWire

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 2030 document 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. " Related: The Global Warming Scam, Paris Climate Agreement And NWO Global Rule

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…

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.

Letting big financial institutions manage climate adaptation funds 'would pose serious reputational and moral risk' to global body

"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.

Including:

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."

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.

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!

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.


GMO Seeds

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.

In his eye-opening 2007 book Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, F. William Engdahl points to food control and depopulation as the strategic key objectives of GMOs as put forward by Henry Kissinger already half a century ago.

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.

Ellen Brown, referring to Gary Null’s documentary Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs, quotes Dr. Bruce Lipton;

“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

“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.

Below is the full text of the 2016 agreement.

COP21 Agreement Final Text

Well, now you have an OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT to prove your assertions to the naysayers.

Not that anyone will take your message any more serious…but at least you can vindicate your belief to those who are closest to you with the documented proof and admission from the Government itself.

You can read the document here.

You’ll also want to watch and share this video:

If Monsanto, the most evil corporation in the world, were a person, his name would be Bill Gates.

Related: Doctor Explains Why Vaccine Policies and Injections In Children Are An 'Egregious Crime'

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 "

“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."

Gates Foundation also responsible for killing kids with untested meningitis, polio and 5-in-1 pentavalent vaccines

.



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

Related: Former Merck Scientists File Suit Against Merck Under the False Claims Act

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.”

The hijacked environmental movement is a symptom of the current general, collective state of humanity: good hearted but ignorant.

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.



It has even gotten to the point where those opposing popular beliefs about climate change (another Rothschild-Rockefeller creation) are being treated like criminal extremists – there have even been calls in the US for Obama to prosecute them!

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 is one of 6 groups that are close to the center of the Rhodesian Round Table (ultimately funded by Rothschild) which also includes The Bilderberg Group, the CFR, the RIIA, the United Nations and The Trilateral Commission.

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

AGW or man-made global warming has been exposed as a giant scam. It still remains an open question whether the world is actually warming or cooling, given all the fakery and fudging of data, such as ClimateGate, where hackers found that scientists at the UK’s East Anglia University had deliberately distorted the figures. (See the work of Ian Plimer, Christopher Monckton and others in exposing this.)

Related: Top Scientist Resigns From His Post At The University Of California Admitting Global Warming Is A Big Scam



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 great documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle years ago exposed the lies behind the very political climate change agenda. More than 1,000 dissenting scientists from around the globe have challenged the man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), undermined its claims of scientific consensus, and shredded its credibility in the process.



Furthermore, changes in climate (whether human behavior is causing them or not) are not necessarily bad; in some cases studies have suggested recent changes in climatic conditions are responsible for re-greening parts of the world and changing lives for the better. (see Geospatial Sciences Center of Excellence, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007-3510)

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.

In this context, “global governance” means centralizing vast amounts of power into a body destined to become the World Government, under the pretext of fighting man-made global warming or climate change.



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?

It has been known in many countries for a long time that as you increase education, you decrease population, naturally. There is no need for stealth sterilization programs, introducing contraceptives through vaccines or other depopulation murder programs. 

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.” - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

The Real Problem Isn’t Climate Change or Carbon

The real problem with the environment isn’t climate change or carbon, it’s that we as a collective species are trashing and degrading it. We spill oil in our oceans and rivers. We kill off species faster than we can even classify them. We make substances that don’t biodegrade and end up in giant landfills.



We cut down forests without taking enough care to replace them. We use an economic system which incentivizes planned obsolescence and economically encourages us to throw things away rather than repair them. We let maniacal men rule out-of-control Governments that spray toxic weather-altering chemicals like barium, aluminum and strontium chemtrails all over the world – and get away with it.

What does any of this have to do with climate change or carbon? These 2 terms are a huge distraction and a deliberate way to trick people who genuinely care for the environment.

Solution: Get Informed Before You Demonstrate

Do you deeply care for the environment? Great! Then do your research first before joining any protests. Oppose fracking, GMOs, toxic energy systems, geoengineering, and corporate welfare to military companies (the Pentagon is the biggest polluter on planet).

Last year, in September 2014, around 400,000 people turned up in New York for the People’s Climate March – but what is the point of this activism if it gets diverted?

As journalist Naomi Klein wrote in an article for The Nation:

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. We always knew that the groups pushing hardest for these false solutions took donations from, and formed corporate partnerships with, the big emitters. But this was explained away as an attempt at constructive engagement - using the power of the market to fix market failures. Now it turns out that some green groups are literally part owners of the industry causing the crisis they are purportedly trying to solve.

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:

Transorming Our World: The 2030 Agenda For Sustainable Development

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. 

Related: Agenda 21 In New Zealand

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.

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”.

Related: Agenda 21: What Sustainable Development Really Means For You

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.

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.



Related: 63% of Hawke's Bay Voters are Opposed to 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:

Increase rates.
Increase debt.
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.

An [Agenda 21] Amalgamation Agenda 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. Continue reading this article at: NZCPR

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.

Savings gains totalling $10-million comprise: Corporate personnel (37 percent of total) corporate other (30 percent, activities opex (14 percent), activities capex (9 percent), governance costs 6 percent) and audit costs (4 percent).

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

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

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

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.

1.0 Errata

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.

2.0 Introduction

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. [27]

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 [28], 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 [29] 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 [30], 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 [31], 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! [32]

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). [33]

Australia's contribution for this 2010-2012 period is A$599 million. [34] New Zealand's is NZ$89.2 million. [35] 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. [36]

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 [37] 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. [38]

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. [39]

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?” [40]

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. [41]

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. [42]

To summarise:

Green climate fund (per year from 2020)

$100 billion

Total value of ETS market in 2011

$176 billion

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: [43]

Fuels

$1,400 billion

Office and telecom equipment

$1,275 billion

Machinery excl. office, telecom & transport

$1,274 billion

Other commercial services

$1,160 billion

Transport equipment

$914 billion

Chemicals excluding pharmaceuticals

$832 billion

Other semi-manufactures

$711 billion

Travel

$685 billion

Food	$683 billion

Transportation

$570 billion

Miscellaneous manufactures

$458 billion

Iron and steel

$318 billion

Clothing

$276 billion

Pharmaceuticals

$272 billion

Scientific and controlling instruments

$211 billion

Textiles

$203 billion

Non-ferrous metals

$199 billion

Personal and household goods

$$179 billion

Agricultural raw materials

$169 billion

Ores and other minerals

$149 billion

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. [44]

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 to actually 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. [45]

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”.

4.6 China

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 is a 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. [46]

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. [47]

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

Brazil

Indonesia

India


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” [48]


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”.


However:

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. [49]

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. [50]

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." - Kyla Tienhaara "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 [51]

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:

 GlobalFocus

 PGaction


These are their common attributes:

Some are openly well funded.

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.


7.1 Philanthropy

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 [52] 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. [53] 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.” [54]

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. [55]

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.

  Arbitrary detention.

  Arbitrary searches.

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 [56], 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

Surveillance.

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. [57])

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.






As an aside, you might like to see this brief article for an interesting insight on Propaganda and Terrorism.

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 [58] examined terrorist ethnicity in film trailers, and got these results:

Distribution of primary terrorist ethnicity in trailers before and after September 11, 2001

Ethnic Group	Pre Sept. 11 (n = 69)	After Sept. 11 (n = 9)
White	63.8% (N=44)	22.2% (N=2)
Non-White	36.2% (N=25)	77.8% (N=7)

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:

White 60%

Non-White 40%


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” [59] campaign is an example of snitch culture promotion:

If You See Something, Say Something. Report Suspicious Activity to Local Law Enforcement or Call 911.

Radio ad:

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) Narrator: 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. [60]

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.