1. The Topic of the Month for October is "Make this the Perfect Bugout Location". Please join the discussion in the TOTM forum.

Tom DeWeese on Agenda 21

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by tacmotusn, May 22, 2012.

  1. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor

    PART 1 of 2
    by Tom DeWeese
    May 21, 2012
    The battle over Agenda 21 is raging across the nation. City and County Councils have become war zones as citizens question the origins of development plans and planners deny any international connections to the UN’s Agenda 21. What is the truth? Since I helped start this war, I believe it is up to me to help with the answers.

    • Local planning is a local idea.
    • Agenda 21 is a non-binding resolution not a treaty, carries no legal authority from which any nation is bound to act. It has no teeth.
    • The UN has no enforcement capability.
    • There are no “Blue-Helmeted” UN troops at City Hall.
    • Planners are simply honest professionals trying to do their job, and all these protests are wasting their valuable time.
    • The main concern of Agenda 21 is that man is fouling the environment and using up resources for future generations and we just need a sensible plan to preserve and protect the earth. What is so bad about that?
    • There is no hidden agenda.
    • “I’ve read Agenda 21 and I can find no threatening language that says it is a global plot. What are you so afraid of?”
    • And of course, the most often heard response – “Agenda 21, what’s that?”
    • And after they have proudly stated these well thought out points, they arrogantly throw down the gauntlet and challenge us to “answer these facts.”
    • Well, first I have a few questions of my own that I would love to have answered.

    Will one of these “innocent” promoters of the “Agenda 21 is meaningless” party line, please answer the following: If it all means nothing, why does the UN spend millions of dollars to hold massive international meetings in which hundreds of leaders, potentates and high priests attend, along with thousands of non-governmental organizations of every description, plus the international news media, which reports every action in breathless anticipation of its impact on the world?

    It if all means nothing, why do those same NGO representatives (which are all officially sanctioned by the UN in order to participate) spend months (sometimes years) debating, discussing, compiling, and drafting policy documents?

    If it all means nothing, why do leaders representing nearly every nation in the world attend and, with great fanfare, sign these policy documents?

    Time after time we witness these massive international meetings, we read the documents that result from them, and when we question their meaning or possible impact on our nation, we are met with a dismissive shrug and a comment of “oh, probably not much…”

    Really? Then why? Why the waste of money, time, and human energy? Could it be that the only purpose is to simply give diplomats, bureaucrats, and NGOs a feeling of purpose in their meaningless lives, or perhaps a chance to branch out of their lonely apartments? Or could it really be that these meetings and the documents they produce are exactly as we say they are – a blueprint for policy, rules, regulations, perhaps even global governance that will affect the lives, fortunes, property and futures of every person on earth? Which is it? You can’t have it both ways.

    Why the fear of Agenda 21?
    Those who simply read or quickly scan Agenda 21 are puzzled by our opposition to what they see as a harmless, non-controversial document which they read as voluntary suggestions for preserving natural resources and protecting the environment. Why the fear? What exactly bothers us so much?

    The problem is, we who oppose Agenda 21 have read and studied much more than this one document and we’ve connected the dots. Many of us have attended those international meetings, rubbed elbows with the authors and leaders of the advocated policies, and overheard their insider (not for public distribution) comments about their real purpose.

    Here are a few examples of those comments made by major leaders of this movement as to the true purpose of the policies coming out of these UN meetings:

    “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)
    “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” Report from the UN Commission on Global Governance.

    “Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself.” Report from the UN Commission on Global Governance.

    All three of these quotes (and we have many) indicate using lies and rhetoric to achieve their goals, and that those goals include the elimination of national sovereignty and the creation of a “seamless system” for global governance. Again, do these quotes have meaning and purpose – do they reveal the true thoughts of the promoters of these policies, or were they just joking?

    For the past three decades through the United Nations infrastructure, there have been a series of meetings, each producing another document or lynchpin to lay the groundwork for a centralized global economy, judicial system, military, and communications system, leading to what can only be described as a global government. From our study of these events, we have come to the conclusion that Agenda 21 represents the culmination of all of those efforts, indeed representing the step by step blueprint for the full imposition of those goals. Here’s just a sample of these meetings and the documents they produced:

    In 1980, West German Chancellor Willy Brandt chaired the Commission on International Development. The document, or report coming out of this effort, entitled “North-South: A program for Survival,” stated “World development is not merely an economic process, [it] involves a profound transformation of the entire economic and social structure…not only the idea of economic betterment, but also of greater human dignity, security, justice and equality…The Commission realizes that mankind has to develop a concept of a ‘single community’ to develop global order.”

    That same year Sean MacBride, a recipient of the Lenin Peace Prize, headed up a commission on international communications which issued a report entitled “Many Voices, One World: Towards a New, More Just and More Efficient World Information and Communication Order.” The Commission, which included the head of the Soviet news Agency, TASS, believed that a “New World Information Order” was prerequisite to a new world economic order. The report was a blueprint for controlling the media, even to the point of suggesting that international journalists be licensed.

    In 1982, Olof Palme, the man who single-handedly returned Socialism to Sweden, served as chairman of the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues. His report, entitled “Common Security: A Blueprint for Survival,” said: “All States have the duty to promote the achievement of general and complete disarmament under effective international control…” The report went on to call for money that is saved from disarmament to be used to pay for social programs. The Commission also proposed a strategic shift from “collective security” such as the alliances like NATO, to one of “common security” through the United Nations.

    Finally, in 1987, came the granddaddy commission of them all, The Brundtland Commission on Environment and Development. Headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Vice President of the World Socialist Party, the commission introduced the concept of “Sustainable Development.” 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.”

    These four commissions laid the groundwork for an agenda of global control; A controlled media would dictate the flow of information and ideas and prevent dissent; control of international development manages and redistributes wealth; full disarmament would put the power structure into the hands of those with armaments; and tying environmentalism to poverty and economic development would bring the entire agenda to the level of an international emergency.

    One world, one media, one authority for development, one source of wealth, one international army. The construction of a “just society” with political and social equality rather than a free society with the individual as the sole possessor of rights. The next step was to pull it altogether into a simple blueprint for implementation.

    During the 1990s, the UN sponsored a series of summits and conferences dealing with such issues as human rights, the rights of the child, forced abortion and sterilization as solutions for population control, and plans for global taxation through the UN.

    Throughout each of these summits, hundreds of Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) worked behind the scenes to write policy documents pertaining to each of these issues, detailing goals and a process to achieve them. These NGO’s are specifically sanctioned by the United Nations in order to participate in the process. The UN views them as “civil society, the non governmental representatives of the people. In short, in the eyes of the UN, the NGOs are the “people.”

    Who are they? They include activist groups with private political agendas including the Environmental Defense Fund, National Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy, National Wildlife Federation, Zero Population Growth, Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, the National Education Association, an d hundreds more. These groups all have specific political agendas which they desire to become law of the land. Through work in these international summits and conferences, their political wish lists become official government policy.

    In fact, through the UN infrastructure the NGOs sit in equality to government officials from member nations including the United States. One of the most powerful UN operations is the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). Created in 1973 by the UN General Assembly, the UNEP is the catalyst through which the global environmental agenda is implemented. Virtually all international environmental programs and policy changes that have occurred globally in the past three decades are a result of UNEP efforts. Sitting in on UNEP meetings, helping to write and implement policy, along with these powerful NGOs are government representatives, including U.S, federal agencies such as the Department of State, Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

    This, then, is a glimpse of the power structure behind the force that gathered in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 for the UN-sponsored Earth Summit. Here, five major documents, written primarily by NGOs with the guidance and assistance of government agencies, were introduced to the world. In fact, these final documents had been first drafted and honed though the long, arduous series of international conferences previously mentioned. Now, at Rio, they were ready for adoption as a blueprint for what could only be described as the transformation of human society.

    © 2012 Tom DeWeese - All Rights Reserved
  2. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    1. People tied into the grid (work, electricity, transportation, rent/mortgage, sewer, water, etc.) are less likely to bite the hand that feeds them. If a people cannot provide their own utilities, if they do not own their lands, and if they must work tirelessly to live in the defined parameters of civilization, they will become a conditioned and dependent part of it.
    2. Immigrants (especially the illegal variety) cannot defend rights they do not have, understand or know about. The more we have, the stronger the state will become.
    3. Making people sick and dumb has made big pharma very wealthy -also, sick and dumb people are easy to control. Without medication or constant entertainment and instruction, they are without hope. Perhaps they already are. Remember, kids...high fructose corn syrup is good for you! Ever wonder what's in that stuff anyway? Monsanto knows. And when antibiotics are no longer a viable option, when the next strain of superbug is released, the sick will die and the ignorant will not even know why. For now, obesity and cancer will suffice.
    4. The greatest way to control a people is to make them believe they are free. It is far easier to appease them with empty promises and offer forgiveness than to rule with an iron fist. After all, illusion is entirely dependent upon the mind of the witness. The trick is to simply say one thing and do another since the people will believe a lie if the truth is too horrid to ever imagine in the first place. Always plant a truth within a lie; it makes it easier to swallow, but mostly it makes it more difficult to disprove.
    5. It is not enough to control people with their desires and fears. These are temporary measures at best. They must be brought to worship their own condition, to desire safety and security delivered by the state. They must accept their own slavery and vehemently oppose the thought of a life without their masters. The general overriding ideal must be that the State will provide all the solutions. Free thought is discouraged. Only obedience and service to the whole shall be permitted.
    6. Any who resist will be labeled as the enemy; and the enemy is to be like a raging fire to be stoked readily on the nightly news. Fear is a great tool, and so is deception. When these two are combined in perfect application, the people will rise against those who wish to fight and free the rest. This is no new concept; and the flavor of the modern era is terrorism.
    7. A criminalized society is an obedient one. Regulate, promulgate, condemn, torture, abuse, and police as many as possible. Condition the people to accept these methods as a standard of normalcy. With incremental fashion, the noose will tighten until the state has every manner of control. The average citizen won't be able to walk their dog without breaking half a dozen ordinances, laws, codes or policies. An added effect is that a criminal is more willing to turn their neighbor in for a lessened punishment. Reward the snitch, gain another parolee.
    8. Confuse the important issues, make everything into a debate with sponsored experts and educated disciples of the state. Make the common man seem insignificant, but mostly subconsciously. Repeat key phrases, and use hypnotic suggestion in nightly broadcasts. Bring the people to order with chaos they will never understand.

    I could go on, but really...what's the point?
    jollyrodger13 and wrc223 like this.
  3. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    More for you to chew on.

    ColtCarbine likes this.
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary