2 1

Anything Goes: Macron is an Idiot

The little Napoleon wannabe, that never was. WEF puppet idiot. Sorry idiot born with a silver spoon in his mouth and up his ass.

Let them eat zee bugs.

Krunoslav 9 Aug 25
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Governments have screwed up things so badly that they are just blaming all our "crises" on the fact there are too many people on the planet and the only solution to them is to ensure the population shrinks. It is all the people's fault who have lived too high on the hog for too long.
No. It is government's fault for not managing society just indulging itself in the production of the populace. Now it is in the situation where it can no longer just increase taxes to solve social problems they have neglected while giving themselves great wages and privileges. Politicians have bought all manner of schemes because of their ignorance in the subjects they should at least have a working knowledge in if they are going to engineer society. "Experts" in psychology, sociology, economics, medicine, have all managed to convince some politician that their idea is the best when in fact it is best for their field of expertise to have government giving them huge taxpayer funding. Political ignorance opens the door to all manner of fraud in areas that affect us all.

Have bankers bamboozled politicians? You only need to look over the last century to see that our monetary system has moved to bankers having full control over money, its supply and its flows. Politicians don't even know why money is important. Taxing and spending to them have absolutely nothing to do with the economy. Is there any doubt as to why western nations have huge debts. Debt is good they will tell you, if you should be curious enough and brazen enough to ask. Why is inflation high? Why is housing increasingly not affordable? Why are tent cities springing up like mushrooms? So taxpayers suffer!

Have behavioral scientists bamboozled politicans? Don't ask them why people are dying of overdoses in the streets of our major cities. Don't ask why Johnny can't read. Don't ask why men and women can't form bonding relationships anymore. Don't ask why crime is rising. Don't ask why there is a growing number of homeless on our streets. Politicians don't know but they will ask the experts they have been funding for the last century. The experts need to be kept funded and important so they will come up with a plan but they can't make behavioral problems go away or they will no longer be valuable to society and be able to claw out the big bucks from the taxpayer. So taxpayers suffer!

Have pharmaceutical companies and medical insurance companies bamboozled politicians?
Well, do I have a safe and effective vaccine for you. Great. We'll fund that. It is a crisis, ya know.

Naw, We're not funding any gain of function research. Well, thanks be to, Bob. Here's some cash to make sure you stay on the straight and narrow and do the important work we know you are doing.

We have developed ways to more efficiently detect when children need drugs to help them learn. Excellent, here is some more cash so you can do further research.
So taxpayers suffer!

"Science" says the climate is changing which, incidentally, it has never ceased to do. But now we are the cause of it changing. Does anyone ask a politician what percentage the anthropogenic contribution is?
Meanwhile to tell if the climate is changing we need about a century of data. Not a severe winter storm or a drought. That has to do with weather, not climate. Here's some cash so you can tell us what to do to stop the climate from changing because it should never change. So taxpayers suffer!

All anthropogenic crises - climate change, pollution, resource depletion, wealth distribution and whatever else you can think of that has to do with humans can be solved by bringing the population down. Well, we, the people, aren't trying to bring the population down. We'd like to see good management of our planet and experts say the solution to all human problems is to keep the population from growing and actually bring it down to a sustainable level.
So it's easy to sell gullible politicians that good management is population control. The biggest problem with that is they will start to determine who has a right to live. Certainly not all you bonehead conservatives and republicans. It hasn't come to that - yet. But it is headed that way in leaps and bounds.
By now we are at the breaking point of what taxpayers can suffer.

Environmentalism, by the way, is not just managing the environment, it is super-control over human activity, lest you water your lawn on the wrong day without permission. It is probably true that you shouldn't even have a lawn. It's dandelion soup for you with a side of locust wings. Politically, what would you call that supercontrol of behavior dictated by a central authority - you got it - socialism.

These politicians aren't idiots they have just made it impossible for you to figure out what they are doing. It looks so bizarre. They don't want you to know they have reached the limit of what the taxpayer can bear and so wish to have a re-try by decimating western civilization and doing socialism the right way because noone has ever done that.

That may be true. Among other influences a lot of it was originally influenced by a book/report.

The Limits to Growth (LTG) is a 1972 report[2] that discussed the possibility of exponential economic and population growth with finite supply of resources, studied by computer simulation.[3] The study used the World3 computer model to simulate the consequence of interactions between the earth and human systems.[a][4] The model was based on the work of Jay Forrester of MIT,[2]: 21  as described in his book World Dynamics.[5]

Commissioned by the Club of Rome, the findings of the study were first presented at international gatherings in Moscow and Rio de Janeiro in the summer of 1971.[2]: 186  The report's authors are Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III, representing a team of 17 researchers.[2]: 8 

The report concludes that, without substantial changes in resource consumption, "the most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity". Although its methods and premises were heavily challenged on its publication, subsequent work to validate its forecasts continue to confirm that insufficient changes have been made since 1972 to significantly alter their nature.

Since its publication, some 30 million copies of the book in 30 languages have been purchased.[6] It continues to generate debate and has been the subject of several subsequent publications.[7]

Beyond the Limits and The Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update were published in 1992 and 2004 respectively,[8][9] in 2012, a 40-year forecast from Jørgen Randers, one of the book's original authors, was published as 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years,[10] and in 2022 two of the original Limits to Growth authors, Dennis Meadows and Jorgen Randers, joined 19 other contributors to produce Limits and Beyond.

In commissioning the MIT team to undertake the project that resulted in LTG, the Club of Rome had three objectives:[2]: 185 

Gain insights into the limits of our world system and the constraints it puts on human numbers and activity.

dentify and study the dominant elements, and their interactions, that influence the long-term behavior of world systems.

To warn of the likely outcome of contemporary economic and industrial policies, with a view to influencing changes to a sustainable life-style.


After reviewing their computer simulations, the research team came to the following conclusions:[2]: 23–24 

If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years.[b] The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.

It is possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability that is sustainable far into the future. The state of global equilibrium could be designed so that the basic material needs of each person on earth are satisfied and each person has an equal opportunity to realize his individual human potential.

If the world's people decide to strive for this second outcome rather than the first, the sooner they begin working to attain it, the greater will be their chances of success.

— Limits to Growth, Introduction

The introduction goes on to say:

These conclusions are so far-reaching and raise so many questions for further study that we are quite frankly overwhelmed by the enormity of the job that must be done. We hope that this book will serve to interest other people, in many fields of study and in many countries of the world, to raise the space and time horizons of their concerns and to join us in understanding and preparing for a period of great transition-the transition from growth to global equilibrium.


....from book Technocracy rising - the Trojan horse of global transformation, 2014 by Patrick M. Wood

Transforming Economics

Technocracy proposed a completely different economic system that had never been implemented in the history of the world. It was to be a system run by scientists and engineers who would make decisions based on their application of the Scientific Method to control both social and economic matters. Price-based economics, with its proven laws of supply and demand, would be replaced with an energy-based system controlled by the distribution and consumption of energy. Consumers would be forced to abandon traditional money in return for energy credits that would be spent to acquire goods and services that are artificially priced based on the energy consumed in bringing those goods and services to the marketplace. People would work at assigned jobs deemed to be best suited for their education, skills, intelligence and temperament. Thus, the Technocracy would therefore minimize the use of raw materials by assuring maximum efficiency, minimum waste, and reasonable amounts of end-user consumption. Who would decide what is reasonable for your personal consumption? They would. Each person would receive according to his need, as long as his need was within bounds allowed by the technocratic regulators.

The elements of this new economic system can thus be seen very clearly in the Technocracy Study Course:

  • Register on a continuous 24 hour-per-day basis the total net conversion of energy.
  • By means of the registration of energy converted and consumed, make possible a balanced load.
  • Provide a continuous inventory of all production and consumption.
  • Provide a specific registration of the type, kind, etc., of all goods and services, where produced and where used.
  • Provide specific registration of the consumption of each individual, plus a record and description of the individual.

The second item above intended to “make possible a balanced load,” and this is the heart of the system. Incessant monitoring of every action within the system makes possible the calculations necessary for a state of balance, or equilibrium. This would require continuous adjustment of both output and consumption, with the limiting factor being resource usage.

If it seems to you that such an economic model is completely Orwellian in nature, it is because that is exactly the case. It would micromanage every last detail of your life according to the formulas and algorithms created by the enlightened scientists and engineers.

The apparent lunacy of Technocracy becomes more clear as you dig deeper into it. How is it then, that we find the United Nations as the primary driver for Technocracy in all the nations of the world? This is a pressing question that will be answered in short order, but not before a little further explanation to lay the groundwork.

The United Nations has had a uniform strategy across all of its many units to foster the creation of a so-called “green economy”. A partial definition of what this means is found in a statement by the United Nations Governing Council of the U.N. Environmental Programme (UNEP):

A green economy implies the decoupling of resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth... These investments, both public and private, provide the mechanism for the reconfiguration of businesses, infrastructure and institutions, and for the adoption of sustainable consumption and production processes.

Sustainable consumption? Reconfiguring businesses, infrastructure and institutions? What do these words mean? This is not merely a reshuffle of the existing order but a total replacement with a completely new economic system, one that has never before been seen or used in the history of the world. This is underscored by UNEP when it further states, “our dominant [current] economic model may thus be termed a ‘brown economy.’” To UNEP, there is a consistent sense of urgency to kill off the existing brown economy in favor of a green economy.

Brown is bad. Green is good. Brown represents the failed past. Green represents the bright future.

However, to grasp what it means to decouple resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth, the focus must be on the word decoupling. The International Resource Panel (IRP), another unit of UNEP, gives a clear definition:

While ‘decoupling’ can be applied in many fields, from algebra to electronics, the IRP applies the concept to sustainable development in two dimensions. Resource decoupling means reducing the rate of the use of resources per unit of economic activity. Impact decoupling means maintaining economic output while reducing the negative environmental impact of any economic activities that are undertaken. Relative decoupling of resources or impacts means that the growth rate of the resources used or environmental impacts is lower than the economic growth rate, so that resource productivity is rising. Absolute reductions of resource use are a consequence of decoupling when the growth rate of resource productivity exceeds the growth rate of the economy.

Note that decoupling has no meaning outside of the UN’s concept of sustainable development.

UNEP actually maintains a dedicated web site titled Green Economy where prominently labeled subsections are seen: Climate Change, Ecosystem Management, Environmental Governance and Resource Efficiency. Their initiative, Partnership for Action on Green Economy (PAGE), states that it is,

…a response to the outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), entitled The Future We Want, which recognizes the green economy as a vehicle for sustainable development and poverty eradication.

Who is the “we” in The Future We Want? Well, since none of this was ever put to a public vote in any country in the world, it is obvious that it refers only to themselves.

Nevertheless, we can see that the green economy is “a vehicle for sustainable development and poverty eradication.” It is also clear that the green economy concept is an outcome of the U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20, held in Rio de Janeiro on June 20-22, 2012). The U.N.’s first Rio conference held in 1992 created the original and definitive document for sustainable development called Agenda 21. The Rio+20 conference was held to further Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development on a global basis.

The above mentioned PAGE document further states that there are four main U.N. agencies that are focused in unison on creating the green economy:

  • United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
  • International Labour Organization (ILO)
  • United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)
  • United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)
  • Together, PAGE will build enabling conditions in participating countries by shifting investment and policies towards the creation of a new generation of assets, such as clean technologies, resource efficient infrastructure, well-functioning ecosystems, green skilled labour and good governance.

Note that it is the U.N. who asserts that they will shift investment and policies in order to achieve their desired outcomes of efficiency and governance. In direct Technocracy lingo, governance refers to management of society by engineering experts who alone can create a “resource efficient infrastructure”.

In this short treatment of the green economy, I have purposely tread lightly to show that it is wrapped up in a network of global agendas that is squarely focused on the original tenet of Technocracy, namely, Sustainable Development. No doubt a technocrat reading this book will cry “foul!” at this assertion. While it is true that the literal term of “Sustainable Development” was not coined by the original Technocrats, most would be jealous that someone else beat them to it. The fact of the matter is that Sustainable Development is conceptually identical to Technocracy’s “balanced load”.

The foundational document for Technocracy, Inc. was the book Technocracy Study Course, written primarily by co-founder M. King Hubbert. In it he stated,

Although it [the earth] is not an isolated system the changes in the configuration of matter on the earth, such as the erosion of soil, the making of mountains, the burning of coal and oil, and the mining of metals are all typical and characteristic examples of irreversible processes, involving in each case an increase of entropy.

As a scientist, Hubbert tried to explain (or justify) his argument in terms of physics and the law of thermodynamics, which is the study of energy conversion between heat and mechanical work. Entropy is a concept within thermodynamics that represents the amount of energy in a system that is no longer available for doing mechanical work. Entropy thus increases as matter and energy in the system degrade toward the ultimate state of inert uniformity. In layman’s terms, entropy means once you use it, you lose it for good. Furthermore, the end state of entropy is “inert uniformity” where nothing takes place.

The Technocrat’s avoidance of social entropy is to increase the efficiency of society by the careful allocation of available energy and measuring subsequent output in order to find a state of “equilibrium”, or balance. Hubbert’s focus on entropy is further evidenced by Technocracy, Inc.’s logo, the well-known Yin Yang symbol that depicts balance.

According to Hubbert’s thinking then, if man uses up all the available energy and/or destroys the ecology in the process, it cannot be repeated or restored ever again and man will cease to exist. Hubbert believed that mankind faces extinction unless efficiency and sustainable resource practices are maximized and that such efficiencies and practices can only be imposed by unelected and unaccountable scientists, engineers and technicians.

In short, the heartbeat of Technocracy is Sustainable Development. It calls for an engineered society where the needs of mankind are in perfect balance with the resources of nature. Furthermore, this necessitates the “decoupling of resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth” as stated above. In other words, the driver is resource availability rather than economic growth.

The introduction of the PAGE brochure reiterates this idea:

“A green economy is one that results in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities”.

The bottom line is that the U.N. agenda for a green economy is nothing more than warmed-over Technocracy from the 1930s.

Technocracy’s utopian siren call in the 1930s promised the same human well-being, social equity and abundance beyond measure. Technocrats failed to deliver on their promises and were generally rejected by society by the end of the 1930s.

It is necessary to review exactly how the United Nations arose in the first place, if for no other reason than to tie these policies to the same global elite as represented by the Trilateral Commission. Notably, the Commission was co-founded by and initially financed by David Rockefeller, who was at the time chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank. The Rockefeller family also played a prominent role in the history of the United Nations, for which I will defer to the words of U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in 2012 commemorating the Rockefeller Foundation’s “global philanthropy” and the establishment of the League of Nations Library:

I am honoured to be here on this eighty-fifth anniversary of the historic donation of John D. Rockefeller Jr. to the League of Nations Library. At the time, Mr. Rockefeller said he made the gift based on the conviction that “peace must finally be built on the foundation of well-informed public opinion.” This powerful statement rings true today.

It is fitting that we are naming this room after him. I thank the family for donating the portrait of John D. Rockefeller that was displayed at the Rockefeller Foundation for 65 years. In offering this generous gift, David Rockefeller said he hoped it would serve as a reminder of his father’s generosity – but more importantly his conviction that strong international organizations can help create a just, equitable and peaceful world.

The Rockefeller family has lived up to this conviction, providing immense support for the League of Nations and the United Nations over the years. The original donation to this library was particularly significant. Even today, the interest provides approximately $150,000 every biennium to this wonderful library. That makes it possible to care for its many priceless historical treasures, including a signed copy of the Treaty of Versailles and the Covenant of the League of Nations.

This Library also safeguards more recent history, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with original letters from Eleanor Roosevelt and René Cassin. I applaud the mission of this library to serve international understanding. I am deeply grateful to all the staff. You make an enormous contribution through your help for researchers and citizens who are interested in the United Nations’ history and work. I personally want to thank the Rockefeller family for my own office — and the entire United Nations campus on the East Side of Manhattan.

When Rockefeller’s donation of the land was announced in the General Assembly in 1945, the Hall was filled with loud applause. The United States Ambassador cheered Mr. Rockefeller’s “magnificent benevolence”. I am deeply grateful to the esteemed members of the Rockefeller family and the Rockefeller Foundation for continuing the noble tradition of supporting international organizations devoted to peace. As recently as this past June, at the Rio+20 summit on sustainable development, the Rockefeller Foundation and the United Nations Global Compact launched a new framework for action to help meet social and environmental needs.

“Magnificent benevolence”, indeed. The United Nations headquarters was built in 1949 on 17 acres of prime real estate - donated by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. - in New York City on First Avenue between East 46th and East 48th Streets. It is not hard to see the tight financial relationship between the U.N. and Rockefeller interests that started so many decades ago. It is only slightly more obscure to see what the Rockefellers have received in return for their benevolent support.

In many ways, ideology can be compared to a virus. History is riddled with failed ideas that were forgotten as soon as they were uttered; many virus mutations terminated before they ever had a chance to infect other victims. What is necessary for a virus to spread is contagion, or a medium by which it can be transmitted. In order for Technocracy to make a resurgence on the world stage, it also required a contagion by which entire societies and social systems could be successfully infected. This medium is the United Nations, and the Rockefeller consortium used it with great effectiveness to deceive the nations into believing that Sustainable Development (e.g., Technocracy’s “balance&rdquo😉 could solve all of the world’s problems and bring peace, prosperity and social justice to everyone. Indeed, the mass of global humanity is embracing the promises of technocratic utopianism as if there is no other possibility for the salvation of mankind.

As a writer with an economist perspective, it is very disappointing that economists of the academic world are completely ignoring the impacts and outcomes of the U.N.’s so-called green economy. If it were an argument in a vacuum, I would not be concerned in the slightest. But this is actually happening today where academia actually is leading the charge. No one is even questioning the outcomes of their utopian studies, much less repudiating them.

....from book Technocracy rising - the Trojan horse of global transformation, 2014 by Patrick M. Wood

Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development

Agenda 21 is Technocracy’s plan for the 21st century. The agent of implementation is Sustainable Development. The driver is the United Nations. The perpetrators are members of the Trilateral Commission and their globalist cronies. The victims are all the peoples of the world.

As you will see, it is no understatement that the policies of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development are already fully injected into the fabric of economic, political and social life everywhere. While the “what” is certainly important, the “who” is even more critical to understand. Where did Agenda 21 come from? Was it spontaneous? Was it created by legions of global wannabes at the U.N.?

In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) sponsored the Earth Summit that met in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It was attended by representatives from 172 governments with 116 being heads-of-state, who labored for 12 intense days to produce several non-legally binding documents. First, there was the 300-page Agenda 21 document that was essentially the blueprint for implementation of Sustainable Development and all of its surrounds under the aegis of “green” and “smart”. Second, there was the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, commonly known as the Rio Declaration, that set forth 27 principles that would guide implementation of Sustainable Development. Third, there was the Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development of All Types of Forests, a set of recommendations for the sustainable management of forestry.

The Rio Declaration also produced three legally binding agreements that were opened for signature by participating nations. First, there was the Convention on Biological Diversity that covered ecosystems, species and genetic resources, and that ultimately produced the massive 1,140-page Global Biodiversity Assessment document. Second, there was the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that led to the so-called Kyoto Protocol in 1997; the purpose of UNFCCC was to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Third, there was the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) that addressed Sustainable Development in countries that experience serious drought or increase in desert areas.

During the Rio conference, the then-Secretary General of the U.N., Boutros-Ghali, also called for the creation of the Earth Charter which was later completed and published on June 29, 2000. The preamble to the Earth Charter states,

We stand at a critical moment in Earth’s history, a time when humanity must choose its future. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent and fragile, the future at once holds great peril and great promise. To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.

It is not coincidental that the principal author of the Earth Charter was Stephen C. Rockefeller, the son of the former Vice President Nelson Rockefeller and nephew of David Rockefeller. Stephen Rockefeller has been a key player in the Rockefeller family by serving as a trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and as a director of the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors. Stephen has never been a member of the Trilateral Commission, but he was a founder of the interfaith movement and has been active for decades to infuse globalization into religion all over the world.

At any rate, the Rio Declaration was a busy and productive event, kicking off the biggest salvo of globalist mumbo-jumbo the world has ever seen at one time. As you might expect by now, there is more to the story. Indeed, Rio did not materialize out of nowhere, but rather was carefully planned and orchestrated for years in advance.

According to an important U.N. document published in 2010 and titled Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio 2012,

In 1983, the UN convened the WCED [World Commission on Environment and Development], chaired by Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. Comprised of representatives from both developed and developing countries, the Commission was created to address growing concern over the “accelerating deterioration of the human environment and natural resources and the consequences of that deterioration for economic and social development.” Four years later, the group produced the landmark publication Our Common Future (or the Brundtland report) that provided a stark diagnosis of the state of the environment. The report popularized the most commonly used definition of sustainable development: “Development that meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

In the very next paragraph, the U.N. ties the knot between the Rio Declaration and the so-called Brundtland Commission:

The Brundtland report provided the momentum for the landmark 1992 Rio Summit that laid the foundations for the global institutionalization of sustainable development… Agenda 21 included 40 separate chapters, setting out actions in regard to the social and economic dimensions of sustainable development, conservation and management of natural resources, the role of major groups, and means of implementation.

Thus, the Brundtland Commission can be directly credited with two important things: memorializing the phrase “Sustainable Development” and laying the groundwork for the 1992 Rio conference that produced all of the above-mentioned documents, agreements and memorandums.

There were admittedly other U.N. activities dating as far back as 1972 that provided some fuel to the fire that was ignited by the Brundtland Commission, but this Commission is and has been widely understood to be the quintessential creator of Agenda 21 and modern Sustainable Development.

The Chair of the Brundtland Commission was none other than Trilateral Commission member Gro Harlem Brundtland. She has been universally acclaimed as being the main driver behind the Commission and the principal architect and editor of its concluding report, Our Common Future. Formerly the Prime Minister of Norway, Brundtland was Harvard educated and a long-time activist for environmental causes.

If this were likened to a football game, the United Nations might have held the ball in place, but it was Brundtland who performed the initial kickoff.

It is an interesting side-note that Brundtland is currently co-chair of a global organization known as The Elders, whose website states,

“The Elders is founded on the idea that we now live in a ‘global village’, an increasingly interconnected, interdependent world.”

Other elders include Trilateral Commission members Jimmy Carter, Mary Robinson and Ernesto Zedillo. Of course, The Elders are self-appointed but nevertheless view themselves as the real elders of the global village known to them as planet earth.

After the Earth Summit was completed, the Trilateral Commission’s influence was hardly over. President George H. Bush had personally attended the Summit in Rio, and while he rejected some parts of the signing ceremonies, he did sign the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Soon-to-be President William Jefferson Clinton blasted Bush for his inept leadership and stated, “I would be signing every one of those documents--proudly.”

After his election, President Clinton wasted no time in starting the implementation of Agenda 21. On March 3, 1993, just one month before the official Agenda 21 book was released, Clinton hastily announced a program called the National Performance Review (NPR) and appointed Vice President Al Gore as its first director. On September 11, 1993, Clinton finalized the NPR by signing Executive Order 12862. In 1998, the truer colors of NPR were revealed when it was renamed the National Partnership for Reinventing Government.

Why the need to reinvent our government? In short, implementing Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development would require a different form of government that was out of the view of the public and lawmakers alike. Agenda 21 would be implemented across America through a system of regional governance entities called Councils of Governments, or COGS. At the local level, these COGS quietly apply these un-American policies while generally keeping the public in the dark. Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Regional governance by unelected and unaccountable COGS is the polar opposite of a Republican Form of Government.

On April 23, 1993, the official Agenda 21 300 page, 40-chapter book was published, and it was widely heralded by the rest of the world. In the U.S., it was mostly a non-event. There is little doubt that if the Agenda 21 book had been circulated in the U.S. as an official policy document, there would have been a significant backlash, if not outright rebellion. Clinton instead opted for an “end-run around national sovereignty” by signing Executive Order 12852 on June 29, 1993 that created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). Vice President Al Gore wrote about Clinton’s intent:

Its goal, he declared, was to find ways “to bring people together to meet the needs of the present without jeopardizing the future.”

This direct quote from Bill Clinton rings back to Gro Brundtland’s definition of Sustainable Development found in Our Common Future:

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. [Emphasis added]

Although there would be no record of it, my guess is that somewhere in the 1980s, the Trilateral Commission (or some prominent members thereof) met to purposely hammer out a clever marketing slogan that would sell their Technocracy to the world. It has definitely made the rounds. You will frequently find this exact phrase in general planning documents for local cities, towns and counties all across America!

By 1998, the PCSD produced its own book, Sustainable America, that personalized Agenda 21 policies for the U.S. According to one report,

The crown jewel of the PCSD’s work is the national action strategy articulated in the report, Sustainable America. The report spells out a specific set of national goals, backs these with a broad set of policy recommendations, and details specific actions necessary to support their implementation. Finally, the report also includes a tentative set of indicators to measure the country’s progress toward achieving the goals proposed. The PCSD’s co-chairs and the task forces kept their eyes on the prize: articulating a road map for the U.S.104 [Emphasis added]

Roadmap, indeed. The only problem is that the rest of America was never told what was going on right under their nose.

In regional and local implementation scenarios, it became known as Local Agenda 21, or simply, LA21. However, don’t think the American public wasn’t catching on and throwing up a roadblock; and don’t think that the PCSD didn’t feel the heat. J. Gary Lawrence, an advisor to the PCSD, gave a telling speech in June 1998 in England, titled The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium and let the proverbial cat out of the bag:

Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society such as the National Rifle Association, citizen militias and some members of Congress. This segment of our society who fear “one-world government” and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined “the conspiracy” by undertaking LA21. So, we call our processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth. [Emphasis added]

If you have ever wondered why local officials don’t know what you are talking about when you mention Agenda 21 or LA21, now you know why. The language was changed. Instead, ask them what they know about comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth and you will have a lengthy conversation!

As Lawrence concluded his talk, he hinted at the sea of change directly ahead in 1999 and beyond: “The next step is organizational transformation so that LA21 is not a process but a state of being.” Today, his goal has largely been met with 717 regional government entities across 50 states, all continuously implementing Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development policies.

Some readers may still be wondering exactly how Sustainable Development is related to Technocracy. The answer is contained in the word “development” which in all cases refers to economic development. The U.N.’s so-called “green economy” is synonymous with Sustainable Development, which is prescribed by Agenda 21, which is derived from the Technocracy-based economic model. Virtually every local planning document created in the last ten years will have economic development language embedded in it; frequently used terms include public-private partnerships, smart growth, comprehensive planning, urban renewal, collaborative planning, land use planning and so on. In every instance, you must remember that the green economy is not the same as America’s traditional capitalist economy. The green economy changes the rules of the game and produces new winners and losers. Those who haven’t recognized this changing economic landscape will most often find themselves on the outside looking in wondering what happened to the world they once understood.

What is Sustainable Economy?

What does the green economy mean in practical terms? To answer this question we must turn to the official documents of Sustainable Development:

Agenda 21: Programme of Action For Sustainable Develop-ment. (A21) This 294 page, 40-chapter book, published in 1993, is the original specification for Agenda 21 that was decided at the Earth Summit in Rio in June 1992.

Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA). This 1140-page document was published by the United Nations Environment Programme in 1995 and greatly expands many sections of the Agenda 21 document.

The following will give a short summary of a few areas that are clearly addressed in the A21 and GBA documents.


Education was seen as foundational to promote Sustainable Development dogma. In order to promote global transformation, global education standards were needed. Agenda 21 addressed this in Chapter 36:

Education is critical for promoting sustainable development and improving the capacity of the people to address environmental and development issues… [members agree to] achieve environmental and development awareness in all sectors of society on a world-wide scale as soon as possible… non-governmental organizations can make an important contribution in designing and implementing educational programmes.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for instance, is such a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) that made an “important contribution” by funding the development of Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for education in 2008 - to the tune of $239 million! Gates turned to another NGO, the National Governors Association (NGA), to spread Common Core State Standards throughout America. The NGA’s website claims that Common Core is a “state-led effort”, but nothing could be further from the truth; it was a top-down implementation of a global program, forced down the throat of unsuspecting state educators and parents.

Free Trade

Agenda 21’s treatment of Free Trade and Protectionism quickly give away the people who created it, namely, members of the Trilateral Commission and their globalist friends. It is therefore not surprising that A21 states that all nations should

Halt and reverse protectionism in order to bring about further liberalization and expansion of world trade… facilitate the integration of all countries into the world economy and the international trading system… implement previous commitments to hold and reverse protectionism and further expand market access.

Such promotion by Trilateral members started well before 1992, however. In 1976, Trilateral Commission member Carla A. Hills chaired the U.S. delegation to the U.N. Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I). Her report stated,

To achieve universal progress in the quality of life, a fair and balanced structure of the economic relations between states has to be promoted. It is therefore essential to implement urgently the New International Economic Order, based on the Declaration and Programme of Action approved by the General Assembly in its sixth special session, and on the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of the States.

Thus, Hills set the tone for the outcome of the Habitat I conference, namely, to stimulate the urgent implementation of the “New International Economic Order”, a phrase and concept that was found nowhere else except in Trilateral Commission literature and talking points.


The Global Biodiversity Assessment calls for a reduction of agricultural acreage, restrictions on unsustainable activities, and a return of existing land to native habitat condition:

And while agriculture has benefitted enormously from biodiversity, its success has contributed increasingly to the loss of biodiversity. Land use for human food production now occupies over one-third of the world’s land area - in 1991 cropland covered 11% of the world’s land area, and permanent pasture 26% - and is the leading cause of habitat conversion on a global basis.

Agriculture makes a relatively small contribution to overall economic activity in America as measured by the Gross Domestic Product, but it represents a large part of personal expenditures and is necessary for the sustaining of life. Nevertheless, pressure has been increasingly placed on American farmers and ranchers to curtail their production activities, to the extent that tens of thousands have been driven out of business over the last 25 years.

Dams and Reservoirs

Policies and calls for the destruction and removal of dams began during the Clinton Administration under Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, who was also a member of the Trilateral Commission along with Clinton and Gore. In 2012 Babbitt wrote, “dam removal has evolved from a novelty to an accepted means of river restoration.”110 The GBA was instrumental in moving the destruction of dams from Babbitt’s novelty to what it is today:

…dam construction is the most obvious human intervention leading to the loss of wetland habitats… Rivers are also being influenced through human activities in their catchments, which are being influenced by embankments, draining deforestation, urbanization and industry. The remaining free-flowing large river systems are relatively small and nearly all situated in the far north.

There are approximately 65,000 dams in the United States, and some 22,000 have been targeted for removal. There is nothing logical about dam removal. Hydroelectric power is the cheapest and most efficient source of energy available where it is possible. Economic activity surrounding lakes and reservoirs includes marinas, campgrounds, restaurants, housing developments, recreation facilities, etc., all of which would be wiped out if the water disappears.

Property Rights

Private property is eschewed, calling for government control of rights and resources that will be “licensed” in certain situations:

Property rights can still be allocated to environmental public goods, but in this case they should be restricted to usufructual or user rights. Harvesting quotas, emission permits and development rights… are all examples of such rights.

The word “usufruct” is derived from Roman law and means “the legal right of using and enjoying the fruits or profits of something belonging to another.” Since Rome claimed ownership to everything, people had to apply for “rights” which they would never be able to own outright. Such rights can be revoked by the owner at any time.

In 1976, Trilateral Commission member Carla A. Hills said the following about land and property rights:

Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.

The consistent use of the word “usufruct” in documents such as the GBA serve to explain why the Federal government is rushing to lock up as much as 50 percent of all the available land in the United States. For those property owners who will not sell, their property rights are then diminished to the point where their property has no remaining value in the market.

Population Control

It is stating the obvious that all economic activity ultimately depends on people as consumers. People buy things for survival and for pleasure. Increasing population has afforded economic growth in America since the day it was founded in 1776. Agenda 21 and GBA declare that in order to put resources back into balance with current human consumption, there will have to be a significant shrinkage in population:

A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be one billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2-3 billion would be possible.

There are approximately 7.2 billion people on the planet today. While the GBA does not suggest ways to get rid of 5-6 billion people outright, it does suggest that we must lower our standard of living to the point of being in balance with what they think the environment can supply to us. In 1804, global population was one billion people. Extrapolating consumption per capita back to that level would almost satisfy the GBA’s criteria. Of course, that would be an economic disaster because 95% of all commercial enterprises would be put out of business, and those that remain would be shrunken beyond recognition.

Information management

As documented in the Technocracy Study Course in 1934, three of the original requirements were:

  • Provide a continuous inventory of all production and consumption
  • Provide a specific registration of the type, kind, etc., of all goods and services, where produced and where used
  • Provide specific registration of the consumption of each individual, plus a record and description of the individual.

It is not surprising to see this exact Technocracy-inspired terminology turn up in the A21 document:

Expand or promote databases on production and consumption and develop methodologies for analyzing them… Assess the relationship between production and consumption, environment, technological adaption and innovation, economic growth and development, and demographic factors… Identify balanced patterns of consumption worldwide.

Other things that have been deemed unsustainable by A21 and the GBA include things like power line construction, harvesting timber, hunting, dams and reservoirs, automobiles, fencing off pasture, private land ownership, grazing of livestock, livestock, electric appliances, rural living, paved roads, railroads, and a plethora of others. Any activity to expand activities in these areas will now be met with fierce resistance, while activity to curtail them will be praised as sustainable.

Sustainable Development is a Trojan horse that looks good on the outside but is filled with highly toxic and militant policies on the inside. It promises a utopian dream that it cannot possibly deliver. There is no economic growth if living standards and consumption patterns regress back into the 1800s, or if population is curtailed. There is no economic satisfaction if people cannot easily enjoy and transfer real property or accumulate wealth and savings. There is no personal satisfaction if people are constantly under a microscope for analysis of their sustainable activity, or the lack of it.


Never trust a man who marries a woman fit to be his mother.

sqeptiq Level 9 Aug 25, 2022

Recent Visitors 5

Photos 8,668 More

Posted by Sensrhim4hizvewz The time has come... This man is a repeat criminal offender who has broken laws and oaths and committed numerous ethics breaches and who cares ONLY of power

Posted by JohnHoukCCP Control System & YOU The puppet-Coup-Installed Dem-Marxist Biden regime is working to install a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) control-the-people system in the USA (AND thanks to the WEF, the ...

Posted by KrunoslavWashington, How Twitter Helped Biden Win the US Presidency The short message service Twitter massively influenced the US presidential election campaign two years ago in favor of the then candidate ...

Posted by JeffHoneyagerDo you agree?

Posted by JeffHoneyagerCould this be true?

Posted by JohnHouk(Puppet) Biden Regime Wants to Wreck S.

Posted by EdgeworkBiden voters, pay attention!

Posted by JohnHoukReclaim Liberty – Resist Tyranny SUMMARY: I have two Rumble videos today demonstrating the TYRANNY is upon you.

Posted by ObiwannosiWhat a genius

Posted by timon_phocasFederalist: The Most Passionate Science Deniers Are Pro-Trans ‘Experts’ Who Profit From Carving Up Kids. []

Posted by KrunoslavAin't the hypocrisy of the "elites" and compliance of the sheep truly disgusting?

Posted by KrunoslavAin't the hypocrisy of the "elites" and compliance of the sheep truly disgusting?

Posted by KrunoslavAin't the hypocrisy of the "elites" and compliance of the sheep truly disgusting?

Posted by KrunoslavAin't the hypocrisy of the "elites" and compliance of the sheep truly disgusting?

Posted by KrunoslavAin't the hypocrisy of the "elites" and compliance of the sheep truly disgusting?

Posted by KrunoslavAin't the hypocrisy of the "elites" and compliance of the sheep truly disgusting?

  • Top tags#video #youtube #world #government #media #biden #democrats #Police #truth #USA #children #reason #Canada #money #society #god #rights #freedom #culture #China #hope #racist #vote #death #politics #evil #TheTruth #justice #kids #socialist #communist #conservative #evidence #hell #democrat #Socialism #nation #laws #liberal #crime #racism #federal #climate #fear #community #military #politicians #violence #book #joebiden ...

    Members 9,316Top