Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Conspiracy, In Theory

How right-wing scaremongering about a U.N. global takeover has evolved into a surprisingly effective political strategy across the country.


State lawmakers in Missouri last week revived an effort to significantly curtail local planners’ ability to adopt the type of smart-growth policies long touted by urban developers, demographers, and climate scientists. The bill, which sailed through the state’s lower chamber this past Monday, represents the latest victory for a onetime fringe movement that has spent the past two decades slowly gaining traction among conservatives by warning of an actual, real-life U.N.-orchestrated global takeover.

The specific target of the Missouri legislation may be well-known to heavy consumers of conservative media, but most Americans have probably never heard of it: Agenda 21, a nonbinding resolution that was signed by President George H.W. Bush and 177 other world leaders at the end of the United Nations’ 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The effort was hailed at the time as an important, albeit voluntary, action plan to promote sustainable development in the face of a rapidly expanding global population, but ultimately failed to become much more than a feel-good Democratic talking point back in the United States. In 2012 a full 85 percent of Americans didn’t know enough about the U.N. resolution to have an opinion on it, according to a poll commissioned by the American Planning Association that summer.
 
My Take - This article was written to make a mockery of those who the author - and many others - call 'conspiracy theorists' regarding Agenda 21 and decry their efforts in attempting to prevent its implementation. The picture is typical of an attempt to make anyone who believes Agenda 21 is dangerous to freedom is a loon.  However we should try and understand that a theory is substantiated by facts.  Let’s review. 
 
First of all Agenda 21 really does exist.  He says so in the article when he states;
 
“Agenda 21, a nonbinding resolution that was signed by President George H.W. Bush and 177 other world leaders at the end of the United Nations’ 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.”
 
So he acknowledges the existence of Agenda.  This wasn’t made up by a bunch of loons.  Right?  He also states;
 
“The effort was hailed at the time as an important, albeit voluntary, action plan to promote sustainable development in the face of a rapidly expanding global population…..”
 
So the author acknowledges Agenda 21 exists and it is an “action plan”.  And what is this “action plan” supposed to do?  Promote sustainable development, which is one of the most indefinable terms ever utilized by the green/left.  That will be an evolving term in the minds of world globalists, making it mean anything they want it to mean.
 
So, how is this “voluntary” program going to work?  First it's necessary to convince the western world via the media with mocking articles such as this – which is right out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals to denigrate, humiliate and isolate those against Agenda 21 – that worldwide population growth is out of control, CO2 levels are so dangerous the world is going to burst into flames, worldwide poverty can only be overcome by adopting Agenda 21, get more women involved in government and the entire host of the leftist agendas that promotes utopia.   And how is this utopian world to come into being?  By adopting this ‘voluntary’ program called Agenda 21.  And just who does he think is going to run and administrate it if it isn’t the U.N.?
 
He attempts to paint those against Agenda 21 as irrational scaremongers because they claim Agenda 21 would “culminate with the seizure of land and guns, and an end to the American way of life.” 
 
Well, why is that such deranged thinking?  Those are stated agendas in various treaties with the U.N. today.  They want to control guns, they want to be able to seize private property in favor of animals and even insects – remember this is only an issue in the U.S. where private property rights is foundational to the American way of life – and we already face this kind of attack on Constitutional rights via the Endangered Species Act, Clear Water Act, Clean Air Act, via agencies such as the EPA, BLM, and the Wildlife Service.  “Voluntarily” adopting Agenda 21 will clearly give the U.N. the authority and responsibility to do this, probably via these already oppressive agencies that are already destroying the American way of life.  So why are those opposing Agenda 21 irrational since it’s already happening? 
 
Make no mistake about this.  Once local governments “voluntarily” adopt Agenda 21 it will no longer be “voluntary”, it will be compulsory and that will end local government authority over their own jurisdictions because the way this stuff works is – once you’re in you’re never allowed to back out – and all control will then go to activists and bureaucrats, which will be categorized as “stakeholders”, another term used by the green/left to confuse the public, because the locals will not be allowed in the decision making process thereafter.  They won’t even be allowed to vote these plans out. This already exists under the UN run World Heritage Sites scheme, does anyone think it would be less virulent under Agenda 21.
 
And make no mistake, globalists like the Bush’s have been working to make Agenda 21 happen incrementally.  In 2005 a huge and oppressive new U.N. bureaucracy was proposed “Dubbed the Strategic Approach to Global Management of Chemicals” or SAICM.  “SAICM would attempt to regulate basically all substances in commerce–manmade and natural–and would attempt to manage all the world’s solid and hazardous waste. And in time, it could easily spill into other areas–air and water."
 
If you read the documents published by SAICM negotiators, you might think you are reading Al Gore’s 1992 book, Earth in the Balance, in which he proposed making the environment the “central organizing principle for civilization.” In the chapter titled “A Global Marshall Plan,” Gore outlines a utopian vision for a “Strategic Environment Initiative” through which world regulators could effectively “discourage and phase out” supposedly “inappropriate technologies and the same time develop and disseminate a new generation of environmentally benign substitutes.”
 
Then there’s the LOST treaty, which would turn complete authority over the world’s oceans to the U.N.
 
This one world government theme isn’t a theory, it’s a plan, and this scheme has been going on for decades incrementally imposing laws, treaties and international standards on the U.S.  that are identical to the goals as outlined in Agenda 21.
 
The author states that these anti-Agenda 21 provisions would force local governments “to cut ties with everyone from the Kiwanis Club to the Girl Scouts”.  Well, that’s merely hyperbole, but even if it does – so what?
 
He states that “in 2012 a full 85 percent of Americans didn’t know enough about the U.N. resolution to have an opinion on it”, but when people like Fox News’ Eric Bolling and Glenn Beck – whom he categorizes as “rabble rousers”,  started publically talking about it the mood in the country changed.  It would appear the more people did learn about Agenda 21 the more they realized just how – as was stated in the 2012 Republican National Committee platform – it was “erosive of American sovereignty."
 
So we return to the main question.  Why is it those opposing Agenda 21 are conspiracy theorists?  Agenda 21 does exist!  It clearly is an insidiously planned scheme to overturn rights as outlined in the U.S. Constitution!  It clearly will be administered by the U.N.  And as Jacques Chirac said when he was president of France when discussing the Kyoto Accords regarding Global Warming, “this is the first step in global governance”.
 
These are all provable facts, which are foundational to a theory.  This isn't scaremongering - it's scary! 
 
The beginning of wisdom is coming to the realization that the left lies.  Lies of commission and lies of omission! This article is full of lies of omission.  I have attempted to show these concerns aren’t the rantings of insane “theorists”, but the final implementation of programs that already exist or have been proposed. 
 

No comments:

Post a Comment