- Subscribe to PCF Networked Blog Daily Updates
- Subscribe to our Twitter / Google / Yahoo Daily Updates
The film introduces nothing new in the area of science, prattling on with the same agenda with which the American people have become familiar: the Earth is overpopulated, the ice caps are melting, sea level is rising, etc.
The solution to these disastrous elements, according to the film, is global government.
The scientific institutions behind the film are the Stockholm Environment Institute, the Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, Stockholm University and other organizations that are well-known for advocating global governance.
Key climate change scientists feature the short-film on their own website, including the one who stated that anyone who questions the notion of climate change is mentally ill, and have used it to call for global government to correct “human-induced climate change.”
The State of the Planet Declaration issued by the UN-backed organization advocates the notion of global governance, which it calls “Earth System Governance.” The declaration reads:
“Governments must take action to support
institutions and mechanisms that will improve coherence, as well as
bring about integrated policy and action across the social, economic and
environmental pillars. Current understanding supports the creation of a
Sustainable Development Council within the UN system to integrate
social, economic and environmental policy at the global level. There is
also strong support for strengthening global governance by including
civil society, business and industry in decision-making at all levels.”
The measures required to “strengthen” global governance includes “continued exploration of new areas of knowledge, such as theoretical and applied research in behavioural science.”
The group also put out a separate policy brief entitled “Transforming Governance and Institutions for a Planet under Pressure,” wherein they promote the emergence of a global government. Under the header “Prepare Global Governance for a Warmer World,” they write:
“At the global level, the institutional framework
seems ill prepared to cope with the consequences of massive global
change that will affect such major systems as food, water, energy,
health and migration, and their interactions. While massive changes, for
example in sea level, may not be imminent, future dangers can be
minimized if institutional reform is planned and negotiated today.
Global adaptation programmes thus need to become a core concern of the
UN system and governments.”
Climate change skeptics have come to terms with the fact that the true agenda behind the climate change propaganda was one-world government and the redistribution of wealth from rich countries like the United States to poorer nations. It was that which motivated the creation of the Chicago Climate Exchange and the support behind the cap and trade bill, renamed the American Power Act. Together, they would have forced industrialized “wealthy” nations, like the United States, to pay for carbon credits. The Chicago Climate Exchange was even sold to an international company, bringing it one step closer to global government. Fortunately, the Chicago Climate Exchange has since closed.
But that agenda was years in the making. In 1990, Maurice Strong said, “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?” This was allegedly a speculative plot for a novel that Strong was considering writing, though Strong has not penned a novel before or after 1990. More than that, Strong is now the head of the United Nations Environmental Program, a position that provides him with the power to achieve that which he suggested in his quote.
Maurice Strong has played a significant role in the formulation of the Earth Charter, “a statement on ethics and values for a sustainable future,” according to Strong. His website indicates: “The Charter’s purpose is to inspire in all peoples a sense of global interdependence and shared responsibility for the well-being of the human family.” It is Strong’s goal that the Earth Charter be elevated to the same level as the “Ten Commandments.”
President Obama’s science and technology advisor John Holdren seemed to share the same notions about a global government and the negative impact of humans on this planet. In 1977, John Holdren wrote a book called Ecoscience, in which he indicated support for forced abortions, sterilization through infertility drugs or through the nation’s drinking water or food, having babies seized from single mothers or teen mothers and given away to couples, requiring that “people who contribute to social deterioration ... be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” (i.e. more forced abortions or sterilizations), and creating a transnational “Planetary Regime” that controls the global economy and dictates the details of American lives by use of an armed international police force.
In 1992, senior editor for The New American, William Jasper, wrote Global Tyranny, focusing on the goals and objectives of the United Nations, which Jasper perceived to be far-reaching. In 2001, he penned The United Nations Exposed where he continued to focus on the United Nation’s fate as “would-be global controllers.”
The John Birch Society has been warning Americans about the step-by-step establishment of global governance since its inception in 1958, particularly at the hands of the United Nations.
The latest push towards world government comes out of the United Nations under Agenda 21. In a report entitled "Your Hometown & the United Nations' Agenda 21" published in The New American's online edition for February 10, Jasper warned:
“The UN’s Agenda 21 is definitely comprehensive and global —
breathtakingly so. Agenda 21 proposes a global regime that will monitor,
oversee, and strictly regulate our planet’s oceans, lakes, streams,
rivers, aquifers, sea beds, coastlands, wetlands, forests, jungles,
grasslands, farmland, deserts, tundra, and mountains. It even has a
whole section on regulating and “protecting” the atmosphere. It proposes
plans for cities, towns, suburbs, villages, and rural areas. It
envisions a global scheme for healthcare, education, nutrition,
agriculture, labor, production, and consumption — in short, everything;
there is nothing on, in, over, or under the Earth that doesn’t fall
within the purview of some part of Agenda 21.”
The Blaze further draws our attention to Agenda 21, a George Soros-sponsored plan for world government. Already two decades old, Agenda 21 is a United Nations plan for “sustainable development” that was backed by former President George H.W. Bush and 177 other world leaders. Despite its seemingly innocuous intentions, The Blaze notes that several items are at risk under the plan: private property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices, and privately-owned farms.
This aspect of Agenda 21 should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the United Nations. UN officials have never been fond of individual ownership of land, asserting the following during a UN Conference on Human Settlements:
“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 principal instrument of accumulation and
concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice;
if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and
implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings
and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is
used in the interest of society as a whole.”
Agenda 21 is opposed to the free market system. The Blaze reports:
“In the world of business Agenda 21 is not a free market friend,
preferring PPPs or Private Public Partnerships where the government
decides which companies will receive tax breaks and are allowed to stay
in business. In light of this realization, the cozy relationship between
the current administration and GE (a company that paid no federal tax in 2010) should raise eyebrows. And the WH efforts to tell Boeing in which state they can operate seems to further bolster the belief that Agenda 21 ideals are already making headway in America.”
That sort of gives us a good idea of what type of government the United Nations would like to install in the implementation of a one world government. And it is all under the guise of environmentalism. Not much to look forward to there.
Enticing Fury
Pakistan Cyber Force
No comments:
Post a Comment