The Three Stooges: Hansen, Lovelock and Ehrlich


The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) has recently published a collection of “key messages” written by the usual suspects, including eugenicist Paul Ehrlich, climate dictator James Lovelock and NASA’s own terror-endorsing James Hansen.

In the statement titled “Environment and Development Challenges: The Imperative to Act”meant to inspire the UN and its upcoming 2012 Earth Summit, the fiends call for a global implementation of population policies. To effectively implement these policies the authors propose rights being infringed upon in order to address what they call “the population issue”:

“The population issue should be urgently addressed by education and empowerment of women, including in the work-force and in rights, ownership and inheritance; health care of children and the elderly; and making modern contraception accessible to all.”, they write.

We of course know perfectly well what they mean by “health care of children and the elderly”. We have recently seen the terrible results of health care for children in the eugenicists’ model-state of China.

Decrying that “funding (for worldwide fertility control) decreased by 30% between 1995 and 2008, not least as a result of legislative pressure from the religious right in the USA and elsewhere”, the authors call for “education and planning needed to foster and achieve a sustainable human population and lifestyles.”

How does one do that exactly, “achieve a sustainable human population”, you may wonder:

“Globally, we must find better means to agree and implement measures to achieve collective goals.”

Finally, in a dramatic turn the band of eugenic brothers turn to the old Malthusian trick of scaring the children into action:

“In the face of an absolutely unprecedented emergency, society has no choice but to take dramatic action to avert a collapse of civilization. Either we will change our ways and build an entirely new kind of global society, or they will be changed for us.”

Read Full Article →

Get Your Hands off My Water

Prepare for the ‘Water Wars’ says intelligence analysis


A report issued by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) warns about a new kind of wars to come in a decade’s time. The report released on Thursday cites water shortages, polluted water and floods as the potential causes for increasing conflict in countries where the US has explicit vested interests. Intelligence analysts not related to the ODNI are already questioning what this report means for the type of activities the United States carries out abroad or that may already be carrying out either in representation of the country itself, or in combination with transnational corporations which dominate the water market.

“During the next 10 years, many countries important to the United States will almost certainly experience water problems – shortages, poor water quality, or floods – that will contribute to the risk of instability and state failure and increase regional tensions,” reads the report from the office of the director of national intelligence states. According the report, there are at least seven important river basins in the Middle East Asia and Africa that the United States deems important for its security interests. Those river basins are the Indus, Jordan, Mekong, Nile, Tigris-Euphrates, Amu Darya and Brahmaputra basins.

It is likely that the strong concentration of water resources in few corporate hands together with ongoing military conflict in those regions of the world will contribute greatly to bring even more instability to the people of those countries. There is a change that conflict will not be limited to fighting inside the countries themselves, but that it can expand to turn nation against nation. Even though countries’ borders are clearly drawn today, water basins and the rivers those basins supply generally go through many countries at a time and this is the key point when determining whether there will be war or not. The intelligence report says that in a decade or so water in shared basins will increasingly be used not as a resource, but as leverage over friends and foes.

“It’s very difficult to be specific about where because it depends upon what individual states do and what actions are taken on water issues between states,” said a senior U.S. intelligence analyst. If water as a resource becomes more scarce as a result of monopolization, a technique used by the United States government with other essential resources such as land and food, there is a potential for water to be used as a weapon. This weapon is considered even more powerful than many others because water is perhaps the most essential resource to guarantee the survival of people. The report warns that more powerful may decide to block the flow of water from rivers to other less powerful countries which would mean immediate scarcity for the weaker nations.

The intelligence report did not waste the opportunity to fear monger by saying that available water sources could also be poisoned by terrorists — because there is a terrorist under every single bed and rock. “Because terrorists are seeking more high visibility items to attack, in some cases we identified fragile water infrastructure that could potentially be a target for terrorism activity.” Can terrorists contaminate water to a greater degree that what it is now with fluoride, lithium, aluminum and other heavy metals that water companies already put in it? The report went even further to warn that terrorists could also blow dams as a way to threaten populations. It says that terrorists would take advantage of population displacement to target large groups of people who move away from their lands to seek fresh water in weak nations.

The report also took the opportunity to connect water scarcity to population growth, a talking point commonly used by the fake environmental movement that seeks to impose policies originated at the core of the United Nations. This organization, through numerous initiatives, already controls large masses of land that include National Parks and Conservation Areas. It is exactly those large areas the ones that possess vast amounts of fresh water sources. The U.N. also intends to amass control over water resources through policies such as Agenda 21, and the Law of the Sea Treaty. In theory, this convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world’s oceans. It also provides policies for businesses, the environment, and the management of oceanic natural resources. In practice, the Law of the Sea Treaty gives power to the U.N. to govern over the oceans.

The report also took a shot at Climate Change as a the origin of future water driven conflicts. It is the belief of much of the environmental movement that the naturally changing world climate — a change they blame on humans —  will result in lack of adequate water for people to drink or to use in their daily activities. Environmentalists have changed their doomsday warnings from Global Warming to Climate Change, or even adventure themselves to talk about these two as if they were the same thing. The intelligence report does the same, referring to Climate Change as a potential source of problems for populations that do not have access to clean water. “Food markets are threatened by depletion of ground water in some agriculture areas of the world. Food production will decline, increasing the stress on global markets,” asserts the report. More of a reason for people to prepare and become independent and self-sufficient instead of waiting for the government or the corporations to offer magical solutions.

The report which concentrates heavily on how U.S. interests may or may not be threatened, concludes that by 2040 water shortages and pollution will harm the economic performance of some important trading partners. It does not say which countries these partners are, though. As it is commonly done nowadays, the report does not propose any measures to stave off the consequences of water wars. It simply mentions that current actions such as “improved water management” could compensate for the increasing demand in decades to come. The intelligence paper cites technological advances as a possible tool to aid large scale agriculture, but does not highlight anything that could help small and mid-size farmers.

In the past few months, third world countries such as Venezuela and Bolivia have moved to secure their own water resources, kicking out multinational corporations such as Nestle, which sought to monopolize the water market in those nations. But the 10 intelligence agencies that helped write the report conclude that underdeveloped nations will turn to the United States to lead the effort to resolve water problems. The study about water security and how it impacts American interests around the world was requested by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has voiced her concern about how lack of clean water may threaten U.S. interests overseas. Clinton announced Thursday what she called the U.S. Water Partnership, an initiative that according to her will bring private sector — corporations — and government agencies to confabulate about solutions to water problems.

Let’s hope the result of these talks do not end in policies such as the White House Security Memorandum 200, a document issued by the U.S. government where they explain how the United States will officially combat development in third world nations as well as curb population growth in those countries because the U.S. thought development and population growth threatened their national security. Based on the policies adopted under White House Memorandum 200, the U.S. has waged war against those countries through trade penalties, conditioning aid to the adoption of population control measures, artificially created famine and military destabilization operations, among others.

You may share our original content as long as you respect our copyright policy as shown on our website footer. Please don’t cut articles from The Real Agenda to redistribute by email or post to the web if you don’t follow our policies.

Luis Miranda is the founder and editor of The Real Agenda. For more of his stories, subscribe to our article feed. You can also follow him on Twitter and Facebook. Email article ideas and insights through the Contact page.

Bill Gates Finances Insane Geo-Engineering Programs

by John Vidal
The Guardian
February 8, 2012

A small group of leading climate scientists, financially supported by billionaires including Bill Gates, are lobbying governments and international bodies to back experiments into manipulating the climate on a global scale to avoid catastrophic climate change.

The scientists, who advocate geoengineering methods such as spraying millions of tonnes of reflective particles of sulphur dioxide 30 miles above earth, argue that a “plan B” for climate change will be needed if the UN and politicians cannot agree to making the necessary cuts in greenhouse gases, and say the US government and others should pay for a major programme of international research.

Solar geoengineering techniques are highly controversial: while some climate scientists believe they may prove a quick and relatively cheap way to slow global warming, others fear that when conducted in the upper atmosphere, they could irrevocably alter rainfall patterns and interfere with the earth’s climate.

Geoengineering is opposed by many environmentalists, who say the technology could undermine efforts to reduce emissions, and by developing countries who fear it could be used as a weapon or by rich countries to their advantage. In 2010, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity declared a moratorium on experiments in the sea and space,except for small-scale scientific studies.

Concern is now growing that the small but influential group of scientists, and their backers, may have a disproportionate effect on major decisions about geoengineering research and policy.

“We will need to protect ourselves from vested interests [and] be sure that choices are not influenced by parties who might make significant amounts of money through a choice to modify climate, especially using proprietary intellectual property,” said Jane Long, director at large for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US, in a paper delivered to a recent geoengineering conference on ethics.

“The stakes are very high and scientists are not the best people to deal with the social, ethical or political issues that geoengineering raises,” said Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace. “The idea that a self-selected group should have so much influence is bizarre.”

Pressure to find a quick technological fix to climate change is growing as politicians fail to reach an agreement to significantly reduce emissions. In 2009-2010, the US government received requests for over $2bn(£1.2bn) of grants for geoengineering research, but spent around $100m.

As well as Gates, other wealthy individuals including Sir Richard Branson, tar sands magnate Murray Edwards and the co-founder of Skype, Niklas Zennström, have funded a series of official reports into future use of the technology. Branson, who has frequently called for geoengineering to combat climate change, helped fund the Royal Society’s inquiry into solar radiation management last year through hisCarbon War Room charity. It is not known how much he contributed.

Professors David Keith, of Harvard University, and Ken Caldeira of Stanford, are the world’s two leading advocates of major research into geoengineering the upper atmosphere to provide earth with a reflective shield. They have so far received over $4.6m from Gates to run theFund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (Ficer). Nearly half Ficer’s money, which comes directly from Gates’s personal funds, has so far been used for their own research, but the rest is disbursed by them to fund the work of other advocates of large-scale interventions.

Read Full Article…

UN Wants to Destroy Economy to Save the Environment

The Economic Collapse
February 3, 2012

The United Nations says that the earth is in great danger and that the way you and I are living is the problem.  In a shocking new report entitled, “Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing” the UN declares that the entire way that we currently approach economics needs to be changed.  Instead of focusing on things like “economic growth”, the UN is encouraging nations all over the world to start basing measurements of economic success on the goal of achieving “sustainable development”.  But there is a huge problem with that. 

The UN says that what we are doing right now is “unsustainable” by definition, and the major industrialized nations of the western world are the biggest culprits.  According to the UN, since we are the ones that create the most carbon emissions and the most pollution, we are the ones that should make the biggest sacrifices.  In addition, since we have the most money, we should also be willing to finance the transition of the developing world to a “sustainable development” economy as well.  As you will see detailed in the rest of this article, the United Nations basically wants to crash the world economy in order to save the environment.  Considering the fact that the U.S. and Europe are in the midst of a horrible economic crisis and are already drowning in debt, this is something that we simply cannot afford.

There is certainly nothing wrong with taking care of the environment.  But what the United Nations wants is a fundamental restructuring of the global economy based on flawed science.

And who could possibly be behind the UN’s society-destroying policies? See below:

In this new UN report, we find the following statement….

Achieving sustainability requires us to transform the global economy. Tinkering on the margins will not do the job.

This is absolutely crucial to understand.

The folks over at the UN don’t just want to change things a little.

Their goal is a radical transformation of the entire world.

According to the United Nations, if we don’t implement their recommendations the consequences will be absolutely disastrous….

But what, then, is to be done if we are to make a real difference for the world’s people and the planet? We must grasp the dimensions of the challenge. We must recognize that the drivers of that challenge include unsustainable lifestyles, production and consumption patterns and the impact of population growth. As the global population grows from 7 billion to almost 9 billion by 2040, and the number of middle-class consumers increases by 3 billion over the next 20 years, the demand for resources will rise exponentially. By 2030, the world will need at least 50 percent more food, 45 percent more energy and 30 percent more water — all at a time when environmental boundaries are throwing up new limits to supply. This is true not least for climate change, which affects all aspects of human and planetary health.

So what changes are needed in order for us to achieve a “sustainable” global economy?

Well, the following are some of the disturbing recommendations that we find in the new UN report….

Read Full Article…

Our Planet Under Attack: Geoengineering the Environment

by Paul J. Watson
November 14, 2011

The fact that the planet is being bombarded with chemicals from high-altitude spraying as part of numerous geoengineering programs being conducted by U.S. government agencies and universities that have been approved with no oversight whatsoever can no longer be denied.

The re-classification of global warming, a highly contentious and often scientifically fraudulent pseudo-science, as a “national security threat” has been exploited by governments as an excuse to play God, green lighting secret experiments on a massive scale that carry innumerable dangers to humans and their environment.

However, now that increasing awareness of geoengineering as a result of the chemtrails phenomenon has propagated widely, authorities are slowly being forced to disclose certain aspects of the program. We are now not far away from full disclosure of the true extent of geoengineering experimentation.

Scientists now admit that vapor trails from aeroplanes are creating “artificial clouds” that block out the sun. This is no longer a matter of debate. The chemtrail “conspiracy theorists” were proven correct.

Reading University’s Professor Keith Shine told the Daily Mail last year that the clouds “formed by aircraft fumes could linger ‘for hours’, depriving those areas under busy flight paths, such as London and the Home Counties, of summer sunshine.”

“Experts have warned that, as a result, the amount of sunlight hitting the ground could be reduced by as much as ten per cent. Professor Shine added: “Over the busiest areas in London and the South of England, this high-level cloud could cover the sky, turning bright sunshine into hazy conditions for the entire area. I expect the effects will get worse as the volume of air traffic increases.”

The report also makes reference to a 2009 Met Office study which found that high-level winds did not disperse contrails that later formed into clouds which covered an astonishing 20,000 miles.

Of course, only the completely naive would suggest that there is no connection between chemtrails that block out the sun, a phenomenon that has been ongoing for over a decade, and open calls on behalf of scientists to ‘reduce global warming’ by injecting the atmosphere with aerosols.

Mainstream science and academia has gone from dismissing chemtrails as a fantasy of paranoid conspiracy theorists to now accepting that they exist but claiming that they are natural and not artificially induced, despite numerous patents and scientific proposals that focus around using man-made dispersal of aerosols to alter the atmosphere.

The proposal to disperse sulphur dioxide in an attempt to reflect sunlight was discussed in a September 2008 London Guardian article entitled, Geoengineering: The radical ideas to combat global warming, in which Ken Caldeira, a leading climate scientist based at the Carnegie Institution in Stanford, California, promoted the idea of injecting the atmosphere with aerosols.

“One approach is to insert “scatterers” into the stratosphere,” states the article. “Caldeira cites an idea to deploy jumbo jets into the upper atmosphere and deposit clouds of tiny particles there, such as sulphur dioxide. Dispersing around 1m tonnes of sulphur dioxide per year across 10m square kilometres of the atmosphere would be enough to reflect away sufficient amounts of sunlight.”

Experiments similar to Caldeira’s proposal are already being carried out by U.S. government -backed scientists, such as those at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River National Laboratory in Aiken, S.C, who in 2009 began conducting studies which involved shooting huge amounts of particulate matter, in this case “porous-walled glass microspheres,” into the stratosphere.

The project is closely tied to an idea by Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen, who “proposed sending aircraft 747s to dump huge quantities of sulfur particles into the far-reaches of the stratosphere to cool down the atmosphere.”

In 2008, scientist Tim Flannery also warned that “mankind might need to pump sulphur into the atmosphere to survive,” adding that, “gas sulphur could be inserted into the earth’s stratosphere to keep out the sun’s rays and slow global warming, a process called global dimming.”

Such programs merely scratch the surface of what is likely to be a gargantuan and overarching black-budget funded project to geoengineer the planet, with little or no care for the unknown environmental consequences this could engender.

Given that sulphur emissions cause ‘global dimming’, is it any wonder that the emergence of the chemtrails phenomenon coincided with an average 22% drop in sunlight reaching the earth’s surface?

What is known about what happens when the environment is loaded with sulphur dioxide is bad enough, since the compound is the main component of acid rain, which according to the EPA “Causes acidification of lakes and streams and contributes to the damage of trees at high elevations (for example, red spruce trees above 2,000 feet) and many sensitive forest soils. In addition, acid rain accelerates the decay of building materials and paints, including irreplaceable buildings, statues, and sculptures that are part of our nation’s cultural heritage.”

Read Full Article…