August 28, 2012
An article published yesterday in the blog section of Foreign Policy magazine titled “Sinister globalist plot opposed in GOP platform draft” is yet another attempt by the establishment to put a halt to the anti-Agenda 21 movement increasingly saying no to the UN “action plan” and all the guises by which it attempts to slither its way into our personal liberties.
The article, written by Foreign Policy associate editor Joshua Keating, builds a classic straw-man by using the words “plot” and “sinister” in relation to Agenda 21- and by doing so, hoping to discredit the growing awareness of Agenda 21 by an increasing amount of people in the United States. Describing any opposition to binding or non-binding UN treaties “black helicopter territory”, Keating quotes the “Sovereign Americal Leadership” section of the draft GOP platform which reads as follows:
“Under our Constitution, treaties become the law of the land. So it is all the more important that the Congress — the senate through its ratifying power and the House through its appropriating power — shall reject agreements whose long-range impact on the American family is ominous or unclear. These include the U.N. Convention on Women’s Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty as well as the various declarations from the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development. Because of our concern for American sovereignty, domestic management of our fisheries, and our country’s long-term energy needs, we have deep reservations about the regulatory, legal, and tax regimes inherent in the Law of the Sea Treaty and congratulate Senate Republicans for blocking its ratification. We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty, and we oppose any form of U.N. Global Tax.”
On the subject of Agenda 21, the associate editor downplays the comprehensiveness of the UN action plan, describing it as innocent and optional. By wrongly asserting that Agenda 21 “doesn’t actually legally compel its signatories to do anything” he forgets to mention that the UN plan is implemented mostly by stealth, working indirectly through treaties, non-governmental agencies and local initiatives, thereby bypassing national democratic elected parliaments and their inherent vetoing powers.
In his diffuse and lazy article, Keating also felt it necessary to mention Infowars, arrogantly calling the popular website an “all-purpose conspiracy theory clearinghouse”, and describing critical reporting on the UN as fear mongering in regards to Agenda 21. With a wide brush Keating continues to equate all criticism of Agenda 21 as “fringe”- of course without quoting the actual information supporting the fact that UN social engineers are consciously and incrementally implementing their plans for the world through- as the UN itself describes– “a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.”
There is a good reason why the establishment is throwing a fit in the face of increasing resistance to the bureaucratic onslaught in the name of the environment. In recent years the Agenda 21 snake-oil salesmen- and women have watched their climate change Trojan Horse fall apart in front of their eyes. To keep up the appearance of credibility all criticism to the so-called “global consensus” is being equated to backwardness, all those questioning the UN and its motives equated to madmen and racists. This reaction is of course a typical panic-response, resembling a burglar who is being caught red handed.
At a January 25 2011 lecture titled Stabilising the global population: Where next for the Millennium Development Goals for health and nutrition professor Anthony Costello of the Institute of Global Health told his audience that “climate denialism” in the US is “a major problem”, both culturally and politically, “that’s got to be addressed.”
Preceding these remarks Costello stressed that the phrase “climate skeptics” needs to be removed from the vocabulary when describing those not willing to go along with the disproved and debunked “climate change” hoax. Rather, Costello argues, the phrase should be replaced by “climate denialists”. In the following clip (from 38 minutes onward) the professor can be seen and heard spouting his dangerous views:
“I think America is deeply depressing”, Costello stated, “because they are 49 out of 50 of the latest republicans elected to whichever chamber it was were kind of skeptics. I mean… (inaudible).. I think we should remove the word “skeptics”, as Chris Rapley says, climate denialists. They don’t just don’t accept…. and there’s a major cultural problem I think in the United States politically, and that’s got to be addressed.”
This was not the first time Costello said that questioning the politically driven voodoo-science of global warming constitutes a “major problem”. During a 2010 Policy Symposium on the Connection between Population Dynamics, Reproductive Health and Rights and Climate Change (page 5), the professor stated outright that “climate skepticism kills.”
Of course Costello’s comments are by no means the incidental ravings by some overzealous demographer. They represent views held by a large bulk of the scientific community. The professor’s words also tie in with those written down by professor Karo Norgaard who not too long ago called for the “cultural resistance” to the concept of man-made climate change to be “recognized and treated” as abnormal behavior.
There is also the case of a University of Amsterdam philosopher named Marc Davidson who in 2007 wrote that those who are skeptic about global warming equal those who defended slavery.
At a UNESCO conference in September of 2009 on how to best “communicate” the IPCC conclusions, 20-year BBC veteran environment reporter Alex Kirby compared climate-skeptics to Apartheid proponents (Session 1, 01:36:35):
“I’ve never thought it is part of the journalists’ job to try to inject an artificial and spurious balance into an unbalanced reality. If I have been sent to do a story on Apartheid or poverty or starvation, I hope to God I would not have tried to do a balanced story. And I think the same applies to climate change.”
Even more interesting than the statement itself is the fact that it is not included in the transcript of his speech, posted here on the UNESCO-website.
Another scholar joining the sickening choir is Andrew J. Hofman of the University of Michigan, who in his paper Climate change as a cultural and behavioral issue: Addressing barriers and implementing solutions wrote that “(…) the magnitude of the cultural and moral shift around climate change is as large as that which accompanied the abolition of slavery.”
In his paper Hofman also stressed that “humankind has grown to such numbers and our technologies have grown to such a capacity that we can, and do, alter the Earth’s ecological systems on a planetary scale. It is a fundamental shift in the physical order – one never before seen, and one that alters the ethics and morals by which we judge our behavior as it relates to the environment around us and to the rest of humanity that depends on that environment.”
Altering our ethics, altering our morals- that’s exactly what Agenda 21 is all about- specifically and altering these ethics and morals to more “environmentally friendly” ones. This, as we have learned, has nothing to do with the environment these professors profess to care about. It is just the most elaborate and sophisticated excuse they can come up with to sell a de-industrialization agenda of the West planned out long ago by elitist engineers. Comparing all climate skepticism to apartheid is a clear-cut indication that the propaganda-induced slumber is wearing off. Calling all opposition to Agenda 21 “fringe”, as Keating does, only brings the defeat of Agenda 21’s implementation in the United States one step closer to fulfillment.