March 1, 2013
On February 27, the European Commission published a document announcing it will take on itself the “lead role” in global environmental governance through “a unified policy framework”- in effect aligning itself with Agenda 21.
In the 30-page document titled A Descent Life For All the EC says it aspires to a “leading role” in an “overarching framework” towards global governance. The commiszars profess to care about worldwide poverty, environmental degradation and other no-brainers, carefully handpicked by an elite-class prepared to use any and every pretext behind which power is being centralized at the international level at the expense of sovereignty at the national one.
“The world has undergone enormous change over recent years”, the document reads, “including major shifts in the global economic and political balance, increased global trade, climate change and depletion of natural resources, technological change, economic and financial crises, increased consumption and price volatility of food and energy consumption, population changes and migration, violence and armed conflict and natural and man-made disasters, and increased inequalities.”
Quite some parade of calamities the EU is willing to tackle. A lead role is what they work towards, the authors state- and the EC Commiszars are perfectly willing to “debate” their plans with the European (only in name) parliament. A few exceptions aside, this parliament consists of nodding, dozing- sometimes outright sleeping individuals who are there to approve the commission’s proposals and send their lunch-bills to the European taxpayer:
“The EU needs to engage fully in the forthcoming international processes with coherent and coordinated inputs at the UN and in other relevant fora. In this respect, the adoption of this Communication should be followed by a debate with Council and Parliament during the spring of 2013 for the development of a common EU approach for the next stages of the ongoing processes (…)”
As the documents lists these stages, we immediately recognize the “overarching framework” as a merging of regional blocks (such as the EU) with the United Nations and Agenda 21. The Commission:
– ensure a comprehensive follow up to Rio+20 and guide the EU position at the UN Open Working Group (OWG) on SDGs, which will report regularly to the UNGA;
– contribute to the preparation of the UN General Assembly Special Event on the MDGs in autumn 2013, including the report of the Secretary-General and the UN High Level Panel on post-2015, as well as the first meeting of the HLPF. The EU should support moving towards a post-2015 overarching framework. Discussion on the basis of the orientations set out above should make it possible for the EU to come to a common position on how the SDGs and the MDG review processes should best be converged
and integrated into a single process to better deliver such a comprehensive framework.”
“Converge”, “integrate”, “a single, overarching process”. Words by cautious tyrants. All noses are now pointed in the same direction: towards the realization of the UN’s Millennium Development Goals, including Agenda 21.
“To be achievable, the overarching framework should be accompanied by an effort to ensure that all resources are mobilised and harnessed effectively, alongside a commitment by all countries to pursue a comprehensive approach to these resources and coherent and appropriate policies.”
To name just a few of these goals:
– climate and energy package and low carbon roadmap for 2050
– 2030 climate and energy policy
– energy efficiency directive
– ongoing legislative proposals on emissions from cars and vans, as well as fluorinated GHG reduction
In my October 10 2012 article EU-Funded Group Outlines Draconian Population Control Scenarios For The Next Forty Years, I covered a document from 2010, funded by the EU and the World Wildlife Fund, titled Scenarios towards a One Planet Economy in Europe, in which several scenarios or “paths” are outlined towards a “one planet economy”. The “policy settings” mentioned within the document that are neatly in line with the endgame as formulated in Agenda 21, namely to redistribute wealth globally, “greening” the global economy and to stabilize (read: reduce) the global population. In addition, the authors of this document sketch out a scenario in which the EU will control education and media:
“In 2050”, the document reads, “Europeans are forced to adopt green lifestyle habits– for example, via bans on non-essential individual long distance travel. By this stage, air travel has long been too expensive for the majority of people. The state controls or heavily influences all available channels of education, media and marketing to spread this message to continually reinforce its adoption and mould perceptions of sustainability.”
This reflects the proposal I covered recently issued by a plethora of prominent scientists to establish an Agenda 21-style scientific dictatorship in the United States. The document by the EU-funded group states:
“By 2020, most media outlets were tightly controlled by the government and used to try to manage behaviour change, selling the “cool to play within the limits” and “green means growth” messages.”
In the 2010 document, the authors also envision a future EU where “voluntary and assisted suicide became legal in all EU countries.”
European Commissioner for the Environment Potočnik recently stated that he “attaches more importance to behaviour-changing policies such as green taxes rather than ‘reactive‘ policies that punish polluters”. Quoting his “good friend” Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, as saying that the idea of governing markets was agreed upon when Agenda 21 was formally created in 1992 at the original Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro:
“Twenty years ago, we agreed what to do, now we have the tools to do it. If we do not go into the heart of economic policy, we will meet here at Rio+40 even more culpable. Markets are social constructs. They are not a force like gravity. They can be governed.”
In these couple of sentences effect, the UNEP Secretary-General revealed that, indeed, current economic disparity offers “the tools” to roll out an agenda (21) which was already “agreed upon” in the early 1990s; and second, that our dear Secretary-General wants to go “into the heart of economic policy”; and third, that from the onset of Agenda 21 the idea was to govern free markets. In response to the quote by his “good friend” at the UN, the European environmental commissioner added:
“Yes they can be governed and they must be governed.”
Another item where the EU chooses to fully align itself with Agenda 21 is the population control agenda. In its recent proclamation, population is mentioned only once and not explicitly in the context of population control. However, viewed in this particular context, this new step by the EC is consistent with the UN’s plan of global population stabilization. The draconian 2010 “One Planet” document:
“The EU must take strong measures to limit population growth both in Europe, but more importantly in the rest of the world in the face of increasing demand at a time when technological innovation is stagnant and global shortages (e.g. of fossil fuels and agricultural land) are pushing up prices. In some European countries, life expectancy stagnates; in others it falls.”
Under the the header “Demographics” we read:
“Beginning in 2012, one of the measures taken to control population growth was to phase-out child benefits for multi-children families. By 2020, benefits were only provided for up to a maximum of 2 children. As the economy in general has become more labour intensive, immigration policies were relaxed in order to attract low skilled labour, especially for the agriculture sector. This further adds to social tension in the EU. Bilateral trade deals require trading partners to implement population control measures.”
The true nature of Agenda 21 is revealed by the elite’s own statements and publications. However “green” the guise may be behind which they hide their true countenance, their actions expose their intent. For the top layer of sociopaths, it’s about control. For the uppercrust of this transnational leviathan, it is about quenching bloodlust.