March 23, 2012
The fact that the world is being restructured
from decentralized diversity to collectivized hierarchy by an authoritarian
regime cloaked in green trappings can hardly be disputed.
The final push toward the next and perhaps final phase may be announced this
June at the 2012 U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de
Scientific American editorial by Gary
Stix highlights a policy article written by several dozen scientists
that appeared online March 15 in the journal Science.
The conclusions reached by the scientists, as well as the editorial from a
staff member of Scientific American are incredibly unscientific and fly in
the face of the
many thousands of independent scientists
and researchers who have refuted the theory of
man-made 'global warming.'
Regardless, this small group pushes ahead with
their suggestions that the only way to combat such a global catastrophe is
of course to solve it through
And not just any global government, but one that
Scientific American suggests should be,
"heavy-handed (in its) transnational
The policy paper entitled, "Navigating the Anthropocene
- Improving Earth System
Governance" is one of
the most blatantly authoritarian among the incrementally more open policy
papers that we are witnessing, as global governance continues on its runaway
path in the name of saving humanity from itself.
Opening with a summary, the conclusions and solutions are clear:
Science assessments indicate that human
activities are moving several of Earth's sub-systems outside the range
of natural variability typical for the previous 500,000 years (1, 2).
Human societies must now change course and
steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that might
lead to rapid and irreversible change (3). This requires fundamental
reorientation and restructuring of national and international
institutions toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary
The full text of the article is centered around
the "Building Blocks" that form the foundation for the edifice of
These building blocks have been repeated
throughout globalist literature, so this is nothing necessarily new, but the
fact that they fall within the context of at best a hotly disputed assertion
that humans are to blame for catastrophically altering their environment -
namely through climate change - indicates that their agenda must move
forward, factually based or not.
Note: All section titles are
Consolidating global agencies
The globalist framework has been established
through agencies like the United Nations, World Trade Organization,
World Bank, and their countless tentacles, which have formed a web of
incredibly corrupt and inefficient bureaucracy that most thinking
people would love to see eradicated.
However, as opposed to dismantling these
agencies as complete failures, there is a proposal to unify them further
under the green umbrella. The suggested organization would be called the
UN Sustainable Development Council.
Integrating 'Sustainable Development' to
the local level (Agenda 21)
Once such a council is established, it will
efficiently and heavy-handedly dictate down the pyramid of global
control until it reaches each and every community.
This is the stated objective of
Agenda 21 as a way to transform the 21st
century by centralizing power and eradicating individual freedom.
this goal is understood, then it becomes quite clear that when we see
similar rules put in place for disparate nations in the areas of food,
banking, and the eradication of civil liberties, it is part of this
coordinated plan toward planetary governance.
Local communities become viewed merely as
outposts for resistance and must be made to comply with the dictates of
the pyramid's capstone.
Bringing emerging technologies under global
geo-engineering is openly mentioned
here, despite it being still considered a fringe conspiracy theory under
the name of
Nanotechnology, biotechnology, and other
scientific endeavors must also be brought under global control by a
worldwide council that presumably will lay claim to this intellectual
capital and resource generation.
There is discussion about a framework of
conventions to theoretically ensure that all participants adhere to an
agreed-upon basis for research and implementation.
But has this ever really worked before? We have a convention against the
biological warfare; a convention
against the use of most
non-lethal weapons, a convention
against torture, etc., and yet our
world is seeing only a ramping-up these activities.
The conventions merely provide a framework
for enabling the control and allocation of whatever it is that they are
designed to address - rarely are they a method to prevent and deter
The creation of a global legal and economic
This is one of the most insidious, as it
literally encourages local laws and economic policies to be rewritten
with the goal of furthering a global matrix of interconnected
bureaucracies that all but eradicate the ability of local communities
(or countries) to opt-out of this dictatorial mission.
The paper uses the word "discrimination" in
a most accurate way to promote only green initiatives.
There are no specifics given, but we only
need to look at the "green"
and "alternative" businesses that have been promoted (and
invested in) by government to see that
most have been an abject failure,
leading to the bankruptcy of several in near-record time. It is much too
early for the proposal of the largest government the world has ever
known to lay claim as being experts in resource management and
If this is put into effect on a global scale
based on the small-scale examples we have seen so far, we will witness
the utter implosion of the global economy, and a mass reduction in the
standard of living for the average person, as well as the inability for
entrepreneurs to circumvent such a system if it should fail.
Consensus-based decision making becomes
This is yet another very dangerous concept,
as is the antithesis to a functioning republic.
The paper highlights the "efficiency in
decision-making" that is the hallmark of majority-based rule, versus
that of a consensus. And there is a reason for this - because every
individual has an innate right to participate in the very decisions
which will most impact their life. The decision for global governance
and sweeping policy changes right down to the local level are the last
decisions that should be made hastily.
Just one example was the mass agreement to
the validity of man-made global warming, which resulted in a carbon
credits market, and other transformative policies, only to be swayed the
other direction when evidence of a
cover-up known as Climategate revealed
a distorted picture of the true scientific data, as well as the
hidden political and economic agendas.
A free society is indeed a transparent one,
but that will never flourish under a panel of experts reporting to
select councils and governed by regents, because the independent
researcher has no place in such a system.
Legitimacy and accountability of stronger
Here they admit that global governance
removes local sovereignty, and try to work their way around the issue by
proposing a representative system, no doubt to give the illusion that
the people have a say in what gets decided.
"Global governance through UN-type
institutions tends to give a larger role to international and
domestic bureaucracies, at the cost of national parliaments and the
direct involvement of citizens."
They claim that accountability and
decision-making will be strengthened,
"through special rights enshrined in
agreements or stronger participation in councils that govern
resources and in commissions that hear complaints."
They also call for more transparency as an
"effective accountability mechanism".
Yet, the entire report is based on
cherry-picked and unproven science. Finally, this section also discusses
accounting for "imbalances in the strength" among different countries,
probably to make sure the right countries (the G20) actually have the
power, much like the U.N. Security Council.
The creation of global financial
I think we all have learned enough about the
inherent toxicity of "financial instruments" such as derivatives and the
carbon market scam.
The paper alludes to an "emissions market"
which will be employed to ensure that poorer countries receive financial
support through a system of "equity and fairness."
When has this happened even once within any
initiative promoted by globalist interests?
The World Trade Organization has been an
abject failure; the World Health Organization has been a disaster; and
the IMF has been perhaps the most blatantly corrupt and predatory of
These systems do nothing to empower and support the poor; they
are there to create the very terms and compliance that is required to
co-opt their resources and productivity and loot sovereign nations.
To enshrine these building blocks of world
governance, it is proposed that there needs to be a "constitutional moment"
in the reordering of world politics, similar to what followed WWII.
It is disingenuously implied that the
international norms set for human rights serve as an example for a similarly
standardized approach to counter the destruction of the environment.
It is admitted that the
birthplace of Agenda 21, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
(1992), will once again see a "test of political will" to implement drastic
Those changes will continue to radically build
upon the reduction in national sovereignty that we have witnessed across the
board. They are changes which will no doubt continue to erode individual
freedom and contribute to the massive financial hardship we are being
subjected to through authoritarian, centralized rule by a fascistic cabal of
bankers and politicians that collude to keep humanity from realizing its
There must be mass outrage to such a degree that even their plan for
"majority rule" cannot succeed. A
rising tide of protest and civil
disobedience can easily smash each one of the building blocks above.
The Achilles Heel of their plan is
resistance to any initiative that would remove the power of local
communities to support and sustain themselves, and instead force sworn
fealty to a group of overlords who admit to their desire to impose a
scientific dictatorship to be ruled by councils of experts.
It has been these so-called experts, at the
behest of governments throughout history, who have led to nothing short of
mass murder machine.
We need to keep that in mind as they attempt to
guilt trip us into compliance with their "humanitarian" agenda.
Effective World Government
Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe
by Gary Stix
March 17, 2012
Receding Himalayan glaciers
Almost six years ago, I was the editor of a
single-topic issue on energy for Scientific American that included
article by Princeton University’s Robert Socolow that set out a
well-reasoned plan for how to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations
below a planet-livable threshold of 560 ppm.
The issue came replete with technical solutions
that ranged from a
hydrogen economy to
If I had it to do over, I’d approach the issue planning differently, my
fellow editors permitting. I would scale back on the nuclear fusion and
clean coal, instead devoting at least half of the available space for
feature articles on psychology, sociology, economics and political science.
Since doing that issue, I’ve come to the conclusion that the technical
details are the easy part. It’s the social engineering that’s the killer.
Moon shots and Manhattan Projects are child’s
play compared to needed changes in the way we behave.
policy article authored by several dozen scientists appeared online March
15 in Science to acknowledge this point:
“Human societies must now change
course and steer away from critical tipping points in the Earth system that
might lead to rapid and irreversible change.
This requires fundamental
reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions
toward more effective Earth system governance and planetary stewardship.”
The report summarized 10 years of research evaluating the capability of
international institutions to deal with climate and other environmental
issues, an assessment that found existing capabilities to effect change
The authors called for a “constitutional moment” at the
upcoming 2012 U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio in June to
reform world politics and government.
Among the proposals:
a call to replace the largely ineffective
U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development with a council that reports
to the U.N. General Assembly, at attempt to better handle emerging
issues related to water, climate, energy and food security.
The report advocates a similar revamping of
other international environmental institutions.
Unfortunately, far more is needed.
To be effective, a new set of
institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational
enforcement powers. There would have to be consideration of some way of
embracing head-in-the-cloud answers to social problems that are usually
dismissed by policymakers as academic naďveté.
In principle, species-wide alteration in basic
human behaviors would be a sine qua non, but that kind of pronouncement also
profoundly strains credibility in the chaos of the political sphere.
Some of the things that would need to be
How do we overcome our hard-wired tendency
to “discount” the future: valuing what we have today more than what we
might receive tomorrow? Would any institution be capable of instilling a
permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries?
How do we
create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond the current
mandate of the U.N.? Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who
might abuse the power of such organizations?
Behavioral economics and other forward-looking
disciplines in the social sciences try to grapple with weighty questions.
But they have never taken on a challenge of this
scale, recruiting all seven billion of us to act in unison.
The ability to
sustain change globally across the entire human population over periods far
beyond anything ever attempted would appear to push the relevant objectives
well beyond the realm of the attainable.
If we are ever to cope with climate
change in any fundamental way, radical solutions on the social side are
where we must focus, though.
The relative efficiency of the
of solar cells is trivial by comparison.