The Green Movement were the original creators of Agenda 21 as it is today, based on the nebulous (and hollow) concept of "sustainability", a standard and typical neologism, or bastardisation of an existing specific and obscure word borrowed from a dusty dictionary to be revived with its new meaning. David Suzuki has some nice video lectures from as far back as the 70s, where he described mankind like 'maggots on the planet', and as one of the main drivers behind Agenda 21 and one of its most active promoters today, can represent a good deal of the true motives and power behind the ostensibly innocent movement set up telling you and me it's protecting the planet.
The wonderful thing is these individuals have spelt out their motives clearly, leaving no doubt as to their beliefs and intentions, and have more than enough power to carry them out. George Soros, the billionaire behind the environmental propaganda movement, including the PR companies MoveOn.org and Environmental Media Services, designed to brainwash the masses into following the green movement, is not interested in it whatsoever, but like the similar Al Gore is interested in the massive investment potential from carbon credits, oil restrictions and anything which can manipulate the energy and related markets to guarantee many figure profits. Al Gore borrowed the idea of carbon credits from Enron, which got them all put away for fraud but it's OK if it's saving the planet, created a company, paid his credits to it along with everyone else, and became a billionaire from producing absolutely nothing. That is the funding behind the movement, the multi millionaires who want even more, who work with the activists to provide the combination of power broking and the investment to make huge profits out of exercising that power.
But behind it all is David Suzuki's philosophy, shared by his movement including Greenpeace, whose current officers believe in various versions mankind is a cancer on the planet, and the only solution is a drastic reduction in the population and activities of it. Hence Agenda 21, the international law designed to do exactly that in nearly every one of the world's countries who all signed up to it. Over 200. Their policies, nothing to do with climate or global warming, are all about in their eyes undoing the damage mankind has done to the environment through industrialisation, and their solution, de-development, attempts to dismantle as much as possible of what has been created since the industrial revolution to bring about this aim. Of course the majority of their followers have little or no idea of these true aims (despite them all being openly documented) and really still believe it's all about saving the pandas, polar bears and preventing global warming. In fact it's about a massive and fast as possible population reduction, reduction in world industry and redistribution of wealth to the third world. Back to David Suzuki. Here is his 1971 quote on maggots directly We are only maggots
This looks and sounds like the plot of the worst B movie ever, but here is more than enough evidence it is all exactly as I described and probably a lot worse.
The most valuable material, besides the acts themselves, are the confessions of those who carried out or put these acts in motion. Once David Suzuki describes his view mankind are like maggots, and others that mankind is a cancer on the planet, we have the loony stamp. Unless they repent their views, they remain loonies and till the late 20th century such people were considered an unfortunate paranoid remnant of humanity destined to live and operate on society's most distant fringes, often within institutions. But David Suzuki, Margaret Mead, David Rockefeller, Stephen Schneider, and all the lesser known but equally important names they worked with back in the 70s, notably before global warming existed as a mass movement and belief, had the power of professors and the ear of politicians who take academics and qualified activists extremely seriously. So these are not the lunatic fringe merchants spouting utter bollocks, but powerful academics working with both politicians like Al Gore and businessmen like David Rockefeller, with the ability to get their policies adopted by offering massive business opportunities through carbon trading, renewable subsidies and the like, and in return for vast profits the businessmen pour in as much in investment to promote these policies which are like casting their bread to the water and returning it in far greater numbers.
I will begin with the 1975"The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering," conference, the root of the current movement and Agenda 21, which set out the foundations for the future policies, which sad to say are only in their earliest stages, with plenty more ahead all documented and slowly being rolled out at a pace too slow for nearly anyone to notice, the same policy used by the Common Market in its slow but inevitable shift into the EU. Had you said at the time, as I did, this would happen, you would have been (and I was) called a swivel eyed loony and xenophobe, but every single thing I said in 1975 was correct by 2012. So there is a track record here, and that was long before the internet and only the most basic political threads to follow. These foundations, remember from extremely powerful individuals with the ears of governments worldwide and taught in degree courses, include quotes such as
At Bucharest it was affirmed that continuing, unrestricted worldwide population growth can negate any socioeconomic gains and fatally imperil the environment.... The earlier extreme views that social and economic justice alone can somehow offset population increase and that the mere provision of contraception can sufficiently reduce population—were defeated
Here is the first clue. I personally agree we are overpopulated, but only education and contraception can be the long term solution which will take generations to implement. But not for them, they openly state that is not enough, so managed depopulation must be carried out. Using the Agenda 21 glossary, required for all reading it to translate the empty meaningless words it uses, this means 'genocide'. Margaret Mead promoted genocide.
In fact she was only reiterating a view by the winning side, that after the war eugenics was still the only way to deal with the growing problem, ie the problem was present on both sides whichever one actually won. The only difference being the openness of the Axis powers opposed to the subtle and almost invisible wishes of those within the allies who wished to hijack it for their own means. Of course they only represented a handful at the time, but you only need a handful of HIV in your body to eventually go down with AIDS.
" As Julian Huxley, the vice president of Britain's Eugenics Society (1937-44), had announced in 1946, "even though it is quite true that radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable." Huxley was then director-general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)."
Clearly there was no idea about global warming in 1946, let alone the early 70s when they thought there would be an ice age, but an ice age will not allow anyone to suggest dismantling world industry will prevent it, while warming was the perfect vehicle.
Running ahead a few years, we then have 'Post-Normal Science', created by Funtowicz and Ravetz, and explained by Mike Hulme, one of the highest UN climatologists. This basically states you are allowed to lie to promote an important cause as it's the only way people will listen. Here's how he described it in an interview with The Guardian: "Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence." Followed by the Guardian journalist who added "In fact, in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off centre stage."
So they admit they fiddle the figures and exaggerate the threats, why? To influence political policy. Yes, it is a political movement, using the scientists as useful co-conspirators to raise them to the status of powerful policy makers getting billions in funding in the US alone from taxes, where before they had been an obscure backroom theoretical collection of boffins and anoraks who no one really cared about. They had everything to gain and only their integrity to lose, which to all but a few percent (according to them, not me) of them was well worth the trade. And now to the punchline, the true meanings of Agenda 21 and sustainability, from those who make them.
Global warming is the vehicle currently used to make such dreams into reality. Make the people believe they have made the world warm dangerously through burning fossil fuels, and the fossil fuels become the enemy while the people become the perpetrators for using them. And what do you normally do with enemy perpetrators? Is it becoming clearer now? The first thing they actually did was tax them. Not the industries of course, they were too important to upset, so they gave them their carbon permits free which they then sold on using the markets created for the purpose to make billions from our tax money. It was the ordinary people who paid, through energy bill and petrol levies, which affect the poor the most, as they have to use the same amount of heat and petrol (even if using public transport) as everyone else, but have less overall to keep the remainder. So they all pay a higher proportion of their income in tax and less on luxuries. But of course if some countries have taxes and others don't then half the world will still emit CO2 and the 'problem' can't properly be controlled. The only solution is a world carbon tax, legally requiring both a new international tier of government and ideally an entirely world currency. Which is the next step in the UN plan to implement a single government and tax, solely on the basis that without it they could never effectively deal with global warming. They had to have the global warming before they could implement the tax, which was what they actually wanted first, otherwise how could they justify it?
Clues and leaks must always creep out when you're storing dead bodies and sewage. You can't cut up corpses and hide them in the roof like Dennis Nilsen without people noticing the odd smell or random loose finger. And as the UN want this to become reality they can hardly keep it quiet forever, but just occasionally allow more apparently innocent stories to come out, only to be followed by more with the truth. Here the Daily Telegraph report plans for a world currency World Currency proposal as an innocent restructuring exercise by the UN to organise the world's economy better. As the bible says, Satan cannot openly announce his intentions, so must appear to be helping and looking after you, gain your trust and then stab you in the back or poison your food. People won't accept governments who come straight out with plans to remove their wealth, so they have to make complex formulas telling the people there is a serious problem (in this case global warming), it is, sadly, their fault for wanting to improve their standard of living over pre-industrial society, and they will have to do something to reduce the damage. Including a world currency which in fact is like shop vouchers, they only last a year, and any left at the end simply expire, so no collection of wealth is possible any longer.
So, from a simple and innocent suggestion to equalise imbalances between countries, soon after it was reported the currency would not be a coordination of interest rates and markets, but based on energy credits (ie Enron again) replacing your money, and only lasting a year before they ran out. That meant any credits were wiped out, and if god forbid they ran out before the end of the year you would simply have nothing. If not then you would be burning more than your quota and adding to the overall emissions, which would endanger the planet. The true plans
“Although donors must meet their commitments, it is time to look for other ways to find resources to finance development needs and address growing global challenges, such as combating climate change…
“We are suggesting various ways to tap resources through international mechanisms, such as coordinated taxes on carbon emissions, air traffic, and financial and currency transactions.”
We have now come the full circle, from suggestions post-war onwards, to solid and physical means and suggested following mechanisms to enlarge the power and scope, which if you look carefully are happening somewhere all the time. I will end with a few open confessions which save me the entire trouble of writing everything above as these powerful politicians, academics and businessmen have simply told you directly.
Since I wrote this there is now an official peer reviewed paper which explains how it is essential to lie about the climate to create international agreements. They've gone way, way, beyond trying to cover it up now, and is now totally in the open. All we need is the press to share it and the whole thing will go away overnight
We must lie about the climate
Here is the summary from Cfact's President David Rothbard:
'Global warming skeptics have long charged that alarmists are over-hyping the dangers of climate change. Now comes a new paper from two economists in Singapore and Hong Kong that actually advocates exaggerating global warming fears to get countries on board international environmental agreements.
According to Kevin Glass of Townhall.com, the paper claims that the urgency of climate change makes it OK to deceive the public about the projected consequences of global warming. They don’t actually use the word “lying,” but by calling for “informational manipulation and exaggeration,” they certainly think the ends justify these very questionable and over-heated means.'----------------------------------------------------------
Ottmar Edenhoffer, a UN economic officer, said in a 2010 interview with NZZ online in Germany:
"...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."
Margaret Mead in 1974:
The Club of Rome's 1991 publicly available report 'The First Global Revolution'
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man."
Summary of the true agenda
Henry Kissinger, in address to the Bilderberg Group at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 (Page 83-84 The Bilderberg Group by Daniel Estulin)
"Today, Americans would be outraged if UN troups entered Los angeles to restore order; tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is expecially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existance. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing everyman fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by their world government,"
Why not try and interpret these statements (and many more like it) in a different way.