March 23, 2012
from ActivistPost Website

 

 

 


 

 

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 Janeiro, Brazil.
 

A 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 global government.

 

And not just any global government, but one that Scientific American suggests should be,

"heavy-handed (in its) transnational enforcement powers."

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 stewardship.

Source

The full text of the article is centered around the "Building Blocks" that form the foundation for the edifice of a one-world government.

 

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 paraphrased.
 

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.

 

When 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 control

Interestingly, geo-engineering is openly mentioned here, despite it being still considered a fringe conspiracy theory under the name of Chemtrails.

 

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 use of 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 abuse.
 

 


The creation of a global legal and economic framework

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 alternative energy.

 

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 majority rule

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 intergovernmental institutions

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 instruments

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 them all.

 

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 changes.

 

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 true potential.

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 a mass murder machine.

 

We need to keep that in mind as they attempt to guilt trip us into compliance with their "humanitarian" agenda.
 

 

 


Additional Resources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 Effective World Government

...Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe
by Gary Stix
March 17, 2012

from ScientificAmerican Website
 

 

 

Receding Himalayan glaciers
 

 

Almost six years ago, I was the editor of a single-topic issue on energy for Scientific American that included an 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 space-based solar.

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.

A 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 sorely lacking.

 

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 contemplated:

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 next generation of solar cells is trivial by comparison.