Jurriaan Maessen
ExplosiveReports.Com
October 17, 2012
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.
This paragraph is really a pleasant one it assists new internet people, who are wishing in favor of blogging.
Hi Abby–HOW exactly are YOU personally “punished” for the “ignorance” of others who “breed just because”? It appears you’ve not thought through this perception that has been given to you by the elite. You seem to want to please your masters by worrying about your “footprint”. Doesn’t it tell you something that it’s your footprint they’re so concerned about–and not their own? Don’t be too eager to please those who’ve scammed the world for thousands of years with their boom/bust money scam. People who don’t use birth control are not stupid for that reason. Your comment leaves me thinking you are not so bright yourself and you obviously use birth control.
Machines invented to make human life easier end up enslaving humanity – this is the most common theme in dystopian science fiction. Why is this fear so universal – so compelling? Is it because we really believe that our toaster and our notebook will end up as our mechanical overlords? Of course not. This is not a future that we fear, but a past that we are already living.
nts were invented to make human life easier and safer, but governments always end up enslaving humanity. That which we create to “serve” us ends up ruling us.
Governments “by and for the people” now imprison millions, takes half the national income by force, over-regulates, punishes, tortures, slaughters foreigners, invades countries, overthrows governments, imposes 700 imperialistic bases overseas, inflates the currency, and crushes future generations with massive debts.
The problem with the “state as servant” thesis is that it is historically completely false, both empirically and logically. The idea that states were voluntarily invented by citizens to enhance their own security is utterly untrue.
Before governments, in tribal times, human beings could only produce what they consumed — there was no excess production of food or other resources. Thus, there was no point owning slaves, because the slave could not produce any excess that could be stolen by the master. If a horse pulling a plow can only produce enough additional food to feed the horse, there is no point hunting, capturing and breaking in a horse.
However, when agricultural improvements allowed for the creation of excess crops, suddenly it became highly advantageous to own human beings. When cows began to provide excess milk and meat, owning cows became worthwhile.
The earliest governments and empires were in fact a ruling class of slave hunters, who understood that because human beings could produce more than they consumed, they were worth hunting, capturing, breaking in – and owning.
The earliest Egyptian and Chinese empires were in reality human farms, where people were hunted, captured, domesticated and owned like any other form of livestock. Due to technological and methodological improvements, the slaves produced enough excess that the labor involved in capturing and keeping them represented only a small subset of their total productivity. The ruling class – the farmers – kept a large portion of that excess, while handing out gifts and payments to the brutalizing class – the police, slave hunters, and general sadists -and the propagandizing class – the priests, intellectuals, and artists.
This situation continued for thousands of years, until the 16-17th centuries, when again massive improvements in agricultural organization and technology created the second wave of excess productivity. The enclosure movement re-organized and consolidated farmland, resulting in 5-10 times more crops, creating a new class of industrial workers, displaced from the country and huddling in the new cities. This enormous agricultural excess was the basis of the capital that drove the industrial revolution. The Industrial Revolution did not arise because the ruling class wanted to free their serfs, but rather because they realized how additional “liberties” could make their livestock astoundingly more productive. When cows are placed in very confining stalls, they beat their heads against the walls, resulting in injuries and infections. Thus farmers now give them more room — not because they want to set their cows free, but rather because they want greater productivity and lower costs.
The next stop after “free range” is not “freedom.” The rise of state capitalism in the 19th century was actually the rise of “free range serfdom.” Additional liberties were granted to the human livestock not with the goal of setting them free, but rather with the goal of increasing their productivity.
Of course, intellectuals, artists and priests were – and are – well paid to conceal this reality. The great problem of modern human livestock ownership is the challenge of “enthusiasm.” State capitalism only works when the entrepreneurial spirit drives creativity and productivity in the economy.
However, excess productivity always creates a larger state, and swells the ruling classes and their dependents, which eats into the motivation for additional productivity. Taxes and regulations rise, state debt (future farming) increases, and living standards slow and decay. Depression and despair began to spread, as the reality of being owned sets in for the general population. The solution to this is additional propaganda, antidepressant medications, superstition, wars, moral campaigns of every kind, the creation of “enemies,” the inculcation of patriotism, collective fears, paranoia about “outsiders” and “immigrants,” and so on.
It is essential to understand the reality of the world. When you look at a map of the world, you are not looking at countries, but farms.
You are allowed certain liberties – limited property ownership, movement rights, freedom of association and occupation – not because your government approves of these rights in principle – since it constantly violates them – but rather because “free range livestock” is so much cheaper to own and so more productive.
It is important to understand the reality of ideologies. State capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, democracy – these are all livestock management approaches. Some work well for long periods – state capitalism – and some work very badly – communism.
[...]The recent growth of “freedom” in China, India and Asia is occurring because the local state farmers have upgraded their livestock management practices. They have recognized that putting the cows in a larger stall provides the rulers more milk and meat.
Rulers have also recognized that if they prevent you from fleeing the farm, you will become depressed, inert and unproductive. A serf is the most productive when he imagines he is free. Thus your rulers must provide you the illusion of freedom in order to harvest you most effectively. Thus you are “allowed” to leave – but never to real freedom, only to another farm, because the whole world is a farm. They will prevent you from taking a lot of money, they will bury you in endless paperwork, they will restrict your right to work — but you are “free” to leave. Due to these difficulties, very few people do leave, but the illusion of mobility is maintained. If only 1 out of 1,000 cows escapes, but the illusion of escaping significantly raises the productivity of the remaining 999, it remains a net gain for the farmer.
You are also kept on the farm through licensing. The most productive livestock are the professionals, so the rulers fit them with an electronic dog collar called a “license,” which only allows them to practice their trade on their own farm.
To further create the illusion of freedom, in certain farms, the livestock are allowed to choose between a few farmers that the investors present. At best, they are given minor choices in how they are managed. They are never given the choice to shut down the farm, and be truly free.
Government schools are indoctrination pens for livestock. They train children to “love” the farm, and to fear true freedom and independence, and to attack anyone who questions the brutal reality of human ownership. Furthermore, they create jobs for the intellectuals that state propaganda so relies on.
The ridiculous contradictions of statism — like religion — can only be sustained through endless propaganda inflicted upon helpless children. The idea that democracy and some sort of “social contract” justifies the brutal exercise of violent power over billions is patently ridiculous. If you say to a slave that his ancestors “chose” slavery, and therefore he is bound by their decisions, he will simply say: “If slavery is a choice, then I choose not to be a slave.” This is the most frightening statement for the ruling classes, which is why they train their slaves to attack anyone who dares speak it.
Statism is not a philosophy. Statism does not originate from historical evidence or rational principles. Statism is an ex post facto justification for human ownership. Statism is an excuse for violence. Statism is an ideology, and all ideologies are variations on human livestock management practices. Religion is pimped-out superstition, designed to drug children with fears that they will endlessly pay to have “alleviated.” Nationalism is pimped-out bigotry, designed to provoke a Stockholm Syndrome in the livestock.
—-
[...]Like all animals, human beings want to dominate and exploit the resources around them. At first, we mostly hunted and fished and ate off the land – but then something magical and terrible happened to our minds. We became, alone among the animals, afraid of death, and of future loss. And this was the start of a great tragedy, and an even greater possibility…
You see, when we became afraid of death, of injury, and imprisonment, we became controllable — and so valuable — in a way that no other resource could ever be. The greatest resource for any human being to control is not natural resources, or tools, or animals or land — but other human beings.
You can frighten an animal, because animals are afraid of pain in the moment, but you cannot frighten an animal with a loss of liberty, or with torture or imprisonment in the future, because animals have very little sense of tomorrow. You cannot threaten a cow with torture, or a sheep with death. You cannot swing a sword at a tree and scream at it to produce more fruit, or hold a burning torch to a field and demand more wheat. You cannot get more eggs by threatening a hen – but you can get a man to give you his eggs by threatening him.
Human farming has been the most profitable — and destructive –occupation throughout history, and it is now reaching its destructive climax. Human society cannot be rationally understood until it is seen for what it is: a series of farms where human farmers own human livestock.
Some people get confused because governments provide healthcare and water and education and roads, and thus imagine that there is some benevolence at work. Nothing could be further from reality. Farmers provide healthcare and irrigation and training to their livestock.
Some people get confused because we are allowed certain liberties, and thus imagine that our government protects our freedoms. But farmers plant their crops a certain distance apart to increase their yields — and will allow certain animals larger stalls or fields if it means they will produce more meat and milk. In your country, your tax farm, your farmer grants you certain freedoms not because he cares about your liberties, but because he wants to increase his profits. Are you beginning to see the nature of the cage you were born into?
There have been four major phases of human farming.
The first phase, in ancient Egypt, was direct and brutal human compulsion. Human bodies were controlled, but the creative productivity of the human mind remained outside the reach of the whip and the brand and the shackles. Slaves remained woefully underproductive, and required enormous resources to control.
The second phase was the Roman model, wherein slaves were granted some capacity for freedom, ingenuity and creativity, which raised their productivity. This increased the wealth of Rome, and thus the tax income of the Roman government – and with this additional wealth, Rome became an empire, destroying the economic freedoms that fed its power, and collapsed. I’m sure that this does not seem entirely unfamiliar.
After the collapse of Rome, the feudal model introduced the concept of livestock ownership and taxation. Instead of being directly owned, peasants farmed land that they could retain as long as they paid off the local warlords. This model broke down due to the continual subdivision of productive land, and was destroyed during the Enclosure movement, when land was consolidated, and hundreds of thousands of peasants were kicked off their ancestral lands, because new farming techniques made larger farms more productive with fewer people.
The increased productivity of the late Middle Ages created the excess food required for the expansion of towns and cities, which in turn gave rise to the modern Democratic model of human ownership. As displaced peasants flooded into the cities, a huge stock of cheap human capital became available to the rising industrialists – and the ruling class of human farmers quickly realized that they could make more money by letting their livestock choose their own occupations. Under the Democratic model, direct slave ownership has been replaced by the Mafia model. The Mafia rarely owns businesses directly, but rather sends thugs around once a month to steal from the business “owners.” You are now allowed to choose your own occupation, which raises your productivity – and thus the taxes you can pay to your masters. Your few freedoms are preserved because they are profitable to your owners.
The great challenge of the Democratic model is that increases in wealth and freedom threaten the farmers. The ruling classes initially profit from a relatively free market in capital and labor, but as their livestock become more used to their freedoms and growing wealth, they begin to question why they need rulers at all.
Ah well. Nobody ever said that human farming was easy.
Keeping the tax livestock securely in the compounds of the ruling classes is a three phase process.
The first is to indoctrinate the young through government “education.” As the wealth of democratic countries grew, government schools were universally inflicted in order to control the thoughts and souls of the livestock.
The second is to turn citizens against each other through the creation of dependent livestock. It is very difficult to rule human beings directly through force — and where it can be achieved, it remains cripplingly underproductive, as can be seen in North Korea. Human beings do not breed well or produce efficiently in direct captivity. If human beings believe that they are free, then they will produce much more for their farmers. The best way to maintain this illusion of freedom is to put some of the livestock on the payroll of the farmer. Those cows that become dependent on the existing hierarchy will then attack any other cows who point out the violence, hypocrisy and immorality of human ownership. Freedom is slavery, and slavery is freedom. If you can get the cows to attack each other whenever anybody brings up the reality of their situation, then you don’t have to spend nearly as much controlling them directly. Those cows who become dependent upon the stolen largess of the farmer will violently oppose any questioning of the virtue of human ownership — and the intellectual and artistic classes, always and forever dependent upon the farmers — will say, to anyone who demands freedom from ownership: “You will harm your fellow cows.” The livestock are kept enclosed by shifting the moral responsibility for the destructiveness of a violent system to those who demand real freedom.
The third phase is to invent continual external threats, so that the frightened livestock cling to the “protection” of the farmers. [...]
[Source: http://freedomainradio.com/BOARD/blogs/freedomain/%5D
Abby, things are far more complicated than we think. The very policies of the corporate monsters who’s very policy is to buy and throw away is actually fuelling the paradigm and immediate enviornments in which we live, meary redistrbuting the nergy and laour will simply move the poblem around but not solve anything
.
The global taxes have just begun, the first global tobacco tax has arrived, the carbon taxes which are looming ever close will create three times the destruction of the enviornment it is supposed to be protecting, more pollution or labour will be needed in order of gaining the extra revenue to pay it. Like all corporate unsanities, it is unsustainable for those wanting to survive.
The pollitical agenda of depopulation will only worsen the plight of who ever is left behind, because a nation needs new blood in order of creating the utopia the elderly need to remain comfortable in their silent spring years towards their ending.
The science says, making someone work for nothing and giving the lions share to those who do nothing is to fail completely, we have had two children, who now have trades to use in this brave new world. Many entering the afray today are skilless by design and vunerable to say the least
The corporate greed of buy now and pay later is costing the earth which she has yet to be relieved of, sex and a city of no morals comes easy on the debt pill, whichhe majority will eventually have to swallow, without the spoon full of sugar.
Mankind works way too fast for nature, and all the money in all of the banks of this world will not save anyone, only destroy it quicker. If we left people to their own devices as in nature it would eventually stabalise as nature does, and would endure, this is how the Gaia was meant to be..
Google, look for the video, called Human Farming.
I cannot say I disagree with population control. People do breed with no thought as to the long term consequence’s. I do, however, disagree that distribution of wealth is the answer. Why penalize responsible humans who understand. Who had no or A child. Who worked hard and kept their ‘footprint’ a small one? Why do the ‘elite’ believe they are so very far above ALL of us? Do THEY not have off spring? Granted, they have the means to provide for them. And, I hate to admit, I despise people who breed just ‘because’. Just because they were to stupid to use birth control. I just do not fell I should be punished for their ignorance.