San Diego: Most of us are sufficiently sophisticated to know that most of the illusions done by stage magicians are accomplished by simple misdirection. The wizard, with grand gestures, shows us something that attracts our attention while in the background palms the item, hides it behind the screen, or does whatever is needed to make us think, when we are allowed to look again at the subject, that some fundamental change, prohibited by the laws of physics and common sense, has taken place at his or her direction.
It is SOOOooo effective that it was adopted, long ago by another group of professional charlatans: politicians. And down to this day, with an absolute minimum of slight of hand, carefully selected “documentation” (telling you only the parts that you are likely to agree with) and misdirection, they convince you to back things that sound wonderful based on the presentation but in the end turn out to be far different. Sometimes that is simply because of unintended consequences flowing from a poorly thought-out plan. Sometimes it is because no one told us that there was no “sunset” or natural end to what was sold as temporary. But too often it is because we were told to look at the good stuff while the bad stuff was hidden behind a screen of obfuscation and made too difficult to easily access. So, hook in mouth, we are unwitting or ignorant facilitators of the grand schemes of people who talk a good line but in fact have neither love nor respect for us apart from whether or not we can get them re-elected and impose their grand agendae on the rest of the country… and then world.
A few years ago, at an ecology summit in Rio, the U.N. (United Nations) floated a comprehensive plan called “Agenda 21.” In it were a number of very positive and noteworthy goals; goals for the betterment of the environment that no one would find fault with and fail to back. Some were marvelous goals that, had the agenda stopped there, I would readily support. But the overall topic was “sustainability” and “biodiversity” and the 40-Chapter document buried the real goals deep in the bowels of the fine print of that and supporting documentation yet to come.
The U.S. representatives had the gall to read it carefully and promptly refused to sign it on the grounds that it asked nations to give up sovereignty over even ancillary things like education and private property to U.N. regulators. This was in spite of the fact that the first President Bush supported it. As more of its fine print became public, and as more ancillary documentation, guidebooks, etc. appeared, support started to fall away when more and more people realized this was not about the environment per se, it was a plan, using the environment as a cover, to create a new world order run by the U.N. and to which all nations would be subservient.
The cat escaped the bag, for those willing to follow along and read the documents as they became available, when UNESCO created the supporting documents referred to as their “Global Biodiversity Assesment.” For the U.S. it was essentially dead except for those who had read only the headlines and still thought it was designed to save the planet.
But on 6/9/2011 King Barrack I signed on to the agreement and then, to make sure we couldn’t find any pesky loopholes in the musty old Constitution that might prohibit us taking orders from foreign governments, while we were all titillated by the sleaze surrounding the Senator Weiner self portrait scandals, signed Executive Order 13547 on 7/19/2011, which basically restated the main points of Agenda 21 so that they applied specifically to Rural America. i try to stay up on these things but i confess the misdirection worked on me too and I have just, in the past few weeks, become aware of it all being revived. It has taken a bit to research it (because Idid not believe it at first) but even though I’ve not been able to research all of the ramifications, there are a few that need to be talked about now as we head into a new election cycle.
I can already hear all of the environmentalists saying that is a good thing; we are finally going to protect the environment. Hey, I’m in favor of protecting the environment but not at the cost of human rights or at the cost of turning over U.S. sovereignty to countries that wish us harm. I think we can protect the environment without that extraneous stuff. And unless you are a rabidly extreme environmental terrorist, who sees humans as, at best, terrestrial skin cancer to be eradicated if possible and controlled at least, I can almost guarantee you that you will not like what goes along with the sustainability parts but are part of the U.N.’s mandated agenda.
(By the way, I’m going to cite and quote passages from some pertinent documents. But we all know that is easy to fudge so if any of this matters to you, since ALL of them are online and easy to “Google,” before you accuse me of spinning this out of control, take the time to find on your own (so you cannot say I gave you a false document) and read the complete documents yourself. Not just the good parts you like but ALL of them and see if, when taken as a whole, you cannot see a better plan by saving the good stuff to stand alone and getting rid of the parts that threaten your nation. And while you are at it, ask yourself why those other parts might be there in the first place if the authors wished us well?)
So what are those other parts to which I am obviously opposed? Most strenuously I am opposed to those parts having to do with Private Property and Education. Let’s start with private property rights.
To me the foundational human right from which all others flow, is the right to earn by our own efforts, contract for, and keep sacred and sacrosanct, our own property. If the rights to earn and hold the fruits of our own labor are removed then we are no better than slaves to who ever controls them. When the means of production and the distribution of the results of that production are controlled by any outside authority other than the individual then there really IS no individual freedom remaining. All of the other freedoms flow from this one.
So I am unalterably opposed to anything that diminishes that right. And what do the pages of, and documents flowing from, Agenda 21 say about it? The U.N. “Global Biodiversity Assessment” seeks the centralizing of all — ALL — property management under U.N. oversight and states clearly that, “property rights are not absolute.” To underscore that, the same document shows maps leading to the collecting of humans in specific areas leaving the rest of the country (approximately 90% of it) out of bounds for not only human ownership but in many cases human presence of any kind. THe color coded map shows those areas where humans are allowed and where they are not. For those who thought it untenable the way we put native americans on reservations, i would think you would have a problem with this plan since it effect you.
And where humans ARE allowed they can only conduct very tightly prescribed agricutural practices. The EO mentioned above seeks to make it a felony — a felony — to grow anything not allowed under government mandates and connects, as specified participants in overseeing and enforceing the mandates, virtually every department in the U.S. government.
Under such a scheme you may hold some paper title to some property but if you can only do with it as the government tells you then the truth is you have no property rights remaining. A government that can tell its rural citizens what to grow has no problem telling its urban ones what to do.
Some forums have commented this is not likely to happen because no educated and informed population would ever allow it. I think that is true, as far as it goes. The only way to accomplish such things is with a radically dumbed down populace. But i have argued long that we are systematically and systemically doing that now. but while I argued that from observation and logic, the U.N. supplied the documentation to show it is not just a U.S. goal but one of the U.N.’s as well.
The years 2005-2015 Unesco decreed was the “Decade of Education for Sustainable Development.” They knew what communist “re-educators” from Marx to Lenin to Mao wrote that you only need one generation of school kids to change a country’s thinking. Think of the chilling efficiency with which the Third Reich created “The Hitler Youth” or Mao created his Red Brigades. In keeping with the observable success of generational re-education, the U.N.’s avowed goal of that decade was to “encourage changes in behavior to create a more sustainable future via implementation of Agenda 21.”
Well, so what is wrong with that? Nothing, if it stopped there. But it did not. This plan as further enumerated aimed to transfer loyalty from the family to the government whose goals were, of course, only interested in sustainability while traditional families were painted as plunderers of the earth. That is a very different reality from the one we know. So how to you alter it? Well you have to teach students to not trust what they think of as reality and so, true to that need, on page 10 of the document we are told that under this plan (referring to the approved pedagogy called “constructionism” that
“…students construct (their own) understanding of reality and (come to realize) that objective reality is not knowable.”
Any scientists among you find a problem with that? Well since most higher sciences have a basis in mathematics, if this goal is to be realized, you are a dying breed anyway. The recommended math text under this constructivist program (provided of course by UNESCO) is “Getting to Know Connected Mathematics.” Following this text, students, according to the intro,
“…learn that mathematics is man-made, that it is arbitrary, and that good solutions are arrived at by concensus among those who are considered expert.”
What? We can never know “objective reality” and therefore math and science is a matter of consensus by “experts” (meaning the world should still be flat since most did not agree with Aristarchus). For centuries the expert consensus was that the sun and universe actually revolves around the earth and witchcraft or the devil is the cause of most disease. Science is a search for truth not consensus and it uses immutable mathematical principles and laws to do it.
So does it work? In the teacher’s guide in the back of the book on Page 84, it says,
“Because the curriculum does not emphasize arithmetic computations done by hand, some CMP students may not do well on tests in favor assessing computational skills. We believe such a trade-off in favor of CMP is very much to the students’ advantage in the world of work.”
if it works then why would you need such a disclaimer. And if science and math results are to be arrived at by consensus, especially in the higher realms of math used by physicists, where would we be?
We would be a whole lot more ignorant, that is where we would be… and you all know it. So why would any modern organization work so hard to kill education when it is education alone that has allowed humans to progress through the ages? This seems utterly self-contradictory.
Well, I thought there was only one logical answer and they would hide the truth of it. But to my surprise, they are be happy to tell you the answer to that. Hang on to your hat because this is the thinking you will be supporting if you get behind this U.N. (and now U.S.) program. Remember that goal for the educational decade I noted a few paragraphs above? Well it follows the UNESCO Paper titled “Education for Sustainable Development” in which the following stunning assertion is found…
“Generally more highly educated people, who have higher incomes, consume more resources than poorly educated people who tend to have lower incomes. In this case, more education increases the threat to sustainability.”
So tell me, all you liberal educators, how well that goes down? You claim to believe in education but your dear leader and exhalted messiah has signed onto a world view that sees education not as a solution but as a threat. Have you ever read a more Orwellian statement than that outside the pages of fiction? This is not about saving the planet but preparing the planet for a new order run by people hostile to our existence. And once again there are only two ways to interpret his action: (1) he is rock stupid and never bothered to actually read it or (2) he is brilliant, read it all, agrees with it, and this plan helps him further his own agenda.
Bad as that is, it does not stop there. Our Secretary of State is supporting our signing onto the U.N.’s “Small Arms Treaty: which essentially destroys the 2nd Amendment. Even if you oppose the Second Amendment it is still part of our Constitution and surely you are not in favor of setting a precedence of allowing that foundational document to be obviated by foreign fiat without a vote of the people. Are you willing to let the U.N. with members such as Libya, China, North Korea, Cuba, tell us which clauses in our own constitution we can keep and which we much throw away?
King Barrack is willing to do that. Do you not see a trend here? We have an administration with its own agenda that is in conflict with the Constitution. OK, that is a legitimate debate to be had, as it was with the Federalists and Anti-Federalists in the first place. Let the citizenry, at least the few remaining who can read, get involved and then vote the ideas up or down. But no matter which side of the political fence you graze on, you cannot, surely, fail to see the unintended consequences of letting one side or the other toss away the Constitution by executive order or by agreeing to a U.N. treaty, because the next time, it might be the other side doing it and quoting precedent to excuse it.
Or do you all simply not care anymore? If they keep giving you the handouts and protecting you from your own laziness you are fine with it, is that the case? No, I don’t think so because I don’t think you would have read this far if it was.
Now, I would like very much to believe that none of that is even remotely achievable in the short term. And Ihope that the people advancing that agenda either are booted out of positions of authority or grow weary of failure and give it up. So I am not trying for a moment to “lock and load” to man the ramparts to literally launch the next revolution to stave off this idiotic plan. But what I am trying to do is tell you, show you, that such ideas are alive and well and sponsored by people you may never have suspected of such intellectual perfidy. Whether or not they succeed is, as always, the choice of the people who allow it and who will deserve the outcome no matter what it is.
But the point is that such philosophical nonsense is alive and well, it is out there, and it is seriously getting in the way of REAL progress and REAL solutions to these problems, including environmental ones, because it is misdirecting us from the thinking that might actually work. And because of that, for those who seriously think we need to address environment issues, you should send these mental scoundrels packing as soon as possible. Like those who think you can solve a debt crisis by borrowing more money, those who think you can solve complex environmental issues by reducing education and computational skills, are simply trying to take you eyes off of their real goal which is power and domination achieved through destruction of the present systems. Or they are true morons. And why would you throw your support behind either of those types?
So at what may be the most critical time in our history since the civil war, teetering on a pivot point that could send us forward or backward, never has your attention to the details been more important. Don’t take anyone’s word for anything in this age of spinmeisters. And that includes me! Look the documents up for yourselves and read them! Follow their suggestions to the logical extreme and see if you still like the outcome and if those are in synch with the outcomes they “promise” you.
We all enjoy being fooled by the guy on stage in the top hat, cape, wand, and pretty assistant. But unless you truly hate this country and want to see it destroyed rather than fixed, you are not going to enjoy the results of the illusions being performed for you by the current politicians. if you don’t like the magician the theater will often give you your money back. If you facilitate this show and then realize you do not like it, there will be no money to give back and it won’t matter, because you will have no standing to ask for it anyway.