All arms of the scientific
dictatorship appear to move in unison. As of late we hear repeated calls for
de-industrialization of the developed world by the global elite. In addition an
attempt is being made by the elite to integrate so-called “population issues”
into other issues such as poverty, “climate change” and other phantoms of doom
necessary to fulfill the ancient eugenic utopia. With the objective of plunging
mankind into a new agrarian age, and depopulating the planet while they’re at
it, the global elite have set up a broad approach which self-described
ecosocioeconomist professor Ignacy Sachs has
euphemistically dubbed a “virtuous green path”, more commonly known as Agenda
21.
A 1991 policy paper prepared for the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) outlines a strategy for the
transfer of wealth in name of the environment to be implemented in the course
of 35 to 40 years. As it turns out, it is a visionary paper describing phase by
phase the road to world environmental dictatorship. As professor Sachs states
in his paper:
“To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the
time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good
compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated
transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the
time-span.”
In his paper The Next 40 Years: Transition Strategies to the
Virtuous Green Path: North/South/East/Global, Sachs accurately
describes not only the intended time-span to bring about a global society, but
also what steps should be taken to ensure “population stabilization”:
“In order to stabilize the populations of the South
by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and
distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient.”
In the first part of the (in retrospect) bizarrely
accurate description of current events as they unfold, Sachs points out
redistribution of wealth is the only viable path towards population
stabilization and- as he calls it- a “virtuous green world”. The professor:
“The way out from the double bind of poverty and
environmental disruption calls for a fairly long period of more economic growth
to sustain the transition strategies towards the virtuous green path of what
has been called in Stockholm ecodevelopement and has since changed its name in
Anglo-Saxon countries to sustainable development.”
“(…) a fair degree of agreement seems to exist,
therefore, about the ideal development path to be followed so long as we do not
manage to stabilize the world population and, at the same time, sharply reduce
the inequalities prevailing today.”, the professor states.
“The bolder the steps taken in the near future”,
Sachs asserts, “the shorter will be the time span that separates us from a
steady state. Radical solutions must address to the roots of the problem and
not to its symptoms. Theoretically, the transition could be made shorter by
measures of redistribution of assets and income.”
Sachs points to the political difficulties of such
proposals being implemented (because free humanity tends to distrust any
national government let alone transnational government to redistribute its
well-earned wealth). He therefore proposes these measures to be implemented
gradually, following a meticulously planned strategy:
“The pragmatic prospect is one of transition
extending itself over several decades.”
In the second sub-chapter “The Five Dimensions of
Ecodevelopment”, professor Sachs sums up the main dimensions of this carefully
outlined move to make Agenda 21 a very real future prospect. The first
dimension he touches upon is “Social Sustainability”:
“The aim is to build a civilization of being within
greater equity in asset and income distribution, so as to improve substantially
the entitlements of the broad masses of population and of reduce the gap in
standards of living between the have and the have nots.”
This of course means, reducing the standards of
living in “The North” (U.S., Europe) and upgrading those of the developing
nations (“The South and The East”). This would have to be realized through what
Sachs calls “Economic Sustainability”: “made possible by a more efficient
allocation and management of resources and a steady flow of public and private
investment.”
The third dimension described by the professor is
“Ecological Sustainability” which, among other things, limits “the consumption
of fossile fuels and other easily depletable or environmentally harmful
products, substituting them by renewable and/or plentiful and environmentally
friendly resources, reducing the volume of pollutants by means of energy and
resource conservation and recycling and, last but not least, promoting
self-constraint in material consumption on part of the rich countries and of
the privileged social strata all over the world;”
In order to make this happen Sachs stresses the
need of “defining the rules for adequate environmental protection, designing
the institutional machinery and choosing the mix of economic, legal and
administrative instruments necessary for the implementation of environmental
policies.”
Dimension 4: “Spatial Sustainability”:
“directed at achieving a more balanced rural-urban
configuration and a better territorial distribution of human settlements and
economic activities (…)”.
The fifth and last dimension described in the UN
policy paper is “Cultural Sustainability”: “looking for the endogenous roots of
the modernization processes, seeking change within cultural continuity,
translating the normative concept of ecodevelopment into a plurality of local,
ecosystem-specific, culture-specific and site-specific solutions.”
But to realize such a dramatic new direction for
the world, Sachs once again stresses the importance of incremental
implementation. A matter of boiling the frog slowly as opposed to throwing the
poor animal into a boiling-hot cooking pan:
“Even if we know where we want to get, the operational
question is how do we proceed to put humankind on the virtuous path of genuine
development, socially responsible and in harmony with nature. It is submitted
that UNCED 92 should give considerable attention to the formulation of
transition strategies that could become the central piece of the Agenda 21.”
Agenda 21: the UN strategy for redistributing the
wealth accumulated by the “North” in order to create a completely “balanced”
world society- under auspices of the United Nations of course and the private
central banks controlling it. This can only come about by destroying the
middle-class. A sudden redistribution and industrialization would not do- for
the middle-class would undoubtedly rise in defiance against it. Therefore,
Sachs argues for an incremental and carefully planned dissolution of the
middle-class phase by phase:
“To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the
time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good
compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated
transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the
time-span. The retooling of industries, even in periods of rapid growth,
requires ten to twenty years. The restructuration and the expansion of the
infrastructures requires several decades and this is a crucially important
sector from the point of view of environment.”
Then Sachs plunges into his most shocking
statement:
“However, the single most important reason to
consider the transition strategies over a minimum of thirty-five to forty years
stems from the non-linearity of these strategies; they should be devised as a
succession of changing priorities over time. A good illustration is provided by
the population transition. In order to stabilize the populations of the South by
means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and
distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient.”
Sachs argues that “an accelerated programme of
social and economic development of the rural areas should be the utmost
priority in the first phase of a realistic population stabilization scheme.”Who
or what is to coordinate all this, according to Sachs, and how exactly is the
UN to take control?
“The solutions”, says Sachs, “can vary in terms of
their boldness and take the form of global, multilateral or bilateral
arrangements.” These arrangements should as far as Sachs is concerned ensure
“at least partially the automacity of financial transfers by some form of
fiscal mechanisms, be it a small income tax or an array of indirect taxes on
goods and services whose production and consumption has significant
environmental impacts.”
Over time, gradually, these taxes should increase:
“Starting the operation with a one per ten thousand
tax and increasing it so as to reach one per thousand in ten to twenty years
seems a fairly realistic proposal, the more so that the scheme creates an
interesting market for the private enterprises involved in R and D.”
Reading all this, the question as to what entity
should take charge is not difficult to answer. Sachs:
“In order to generate maximum synergies between the
national strategies and global action, the United Nations should create a forum
for the periodical discussion and evaluation of these strategies and a
research, monitoring and flexible planning facility to put them in a global
perspective.(…). The forum should have a fair representation of all the main
actors involved: governments, parliaments, citizen movements and the business
world. Given its importance, it should be lifted from specialized agencies to a
central place in the UN system.”
This almost literally echoes the recent call by a
group of scientists for the 2012 UN Earth Summit to create “a Sustainable
Development Council within the UN system to integrate social, economic and
environmental policy at the global level.”
The “fair representation” Sachs is talking about is
of course only a pretext to get everybody on board. As the “Danish Text”,
drafted for the Copenhagen conference in late 2009, clearly illustrates, the
IMF and World Bank will always have final say in the construction of any
international system.
The other, more sinister element of Agenda 21 is of
course the concerted effort on the part of the global elite, through
multilateral treaties and regulations, to not only control the populations of
the world but to cull them.
Source: Jurriaan Maessen Infowars.com October 17, 2012
Jurriaan Maessen’s blog is Explosivereports.com
Comments:
Stopping this plan dead in its tracks is our number one job.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment