A new Figueres Presidency to hand Costa Rica over to the U.N.

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | SEPTEMBER 24, 2012

Former Costa Rican president, Jose María Figueres Olsen.

The first time I heard about sustainable development was during high school and throughout my college years. In 1994, Costa Rica had elected president a member of one of the most influential families in the history of the country. Jose Maria Figueres Olsen, the son of Jose Figueres Ferrer, served himself — not the country — from 1994 to 1998. During this time I worked as a Journalist for a local television station in the north region of the country, which allowed me to become aware about environmental issues.

Mr. Figueres made it one of his campaign’s highlights to speak about sustainable development; how Costa Rica was already an example worldwide because of its natural riches, and how it was necessary to implement new and better policies to make sure the country championed environmentally friendly practices which guaranteed conservation.

After planting the seed about sustainable development, Figueres Olsen concluded his tenure while being involved in controversy because of a scandal related to the murder of Jose Joaquin Orozco. The case known as the Chemise Case, had the former Costa Rican president appear as a witness to the case. During four years Figueres managed to obtain international recognition because of his initiative to turn sustainable development into a governing model for Costa Rica. He continued to work on environmental issues in the private sector after disappearing from the Costa Rican political landscape.

Who is this man and what are his ideas?

Mr. Figueres likes to say that his interest about the environment is rooted on his dad’s teachings about living in harmony with nature. Only he knows whether that is truth or not, but the fact is he has managed to make a career out of his interest for sustainability. After his presidency, Figueres founded the Costa Rican Foundation for Sustainable Development. He then traveled to and lived in Europe, where he got involved in the carbon credit scheme. He met and worked with Nicolas Negroponte and Jeffrey Sachs to found the Digital Nations Consortium, an entity overseen by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Later, he was called by the former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, to head a U.N. group on Information, Communication and Technology, which later landed him the position of Chairman of the United Nations Information and Communication Technologies Task Force (ICT). In 2000, Figueres was appointed Managing Director of the World Economic Forum, the well-known globalist, elitist group where he occupied the position of CEO. After 3 years at the Forum, he resigned due to his involvement in a consultancy scandal with Alcatel.

Immediately after, Figueres got involved with an organization known today as Concordia 21 in Spain. He was also a director of the globalist run World Wild Fund and Chairman of the Carbon War Room, an organization founded by Virgin’s Richard Branson, a man who promotes the carbon credit hoax, through which individuals like Al Gore sell rights for corporations to pollute the environment as long as they pay royalties to businesses that work in the imaginary carbon emissions market. Companies such as the one headed by Gore emit worthless pieces of paper labeled as licenses that allow large corporate conglomerates to pollute at will.

Jose Maria Figueres departed Costa Rica in 1998, but in a sense he actually never left. Mr. Figueres sat out while the two main political parties voted to amend the Costa Rican Constitution so that former presidents could run for office again. Now, in 2012, and after several rapid visits, he returned a couple of months ago to his native country to present an initiative that he labeled “Proyecto País” where he invited the public to share their ideas about how to transform the country. Figueres’ plan was and still is to make people think he wants everyone involved in the transformation of the country, although the truth is that his plan is already full of preconceived ideas and plans that will be implemented whether Costa Rican people agree or not.

Figueres himself did not present any concrete plans in public, he simply seemed to be serving as a forum creator. When asked about the lack of concrete ideas, Figueres said that his “Proyecto País” was just the beginning of a long process that sought to involve the whole society. This is a very important detail which I will complement later when I explain how Mr. Figueres intends to use his international experience and name to once again run for the presidency in Costa Rica, a decision he has already made public through spokespeople.

After using the presidency as a platform to make a name abroad, Figueres spent the best part of the last decade in Geneva and Zurich, rubbing shoulders with the elite in Europe and also in the United States, learning how to implement United Nations environmental policy so that he could later implant it in Costa Rica.

While Jose Maria Figueres gained experience on the private sector abroad, his sister Christiana Figueres became the head of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This organization is the strongest pusher of United Nations initiatives to curb carbon emissions, impose the Kyoto Protocol on nations, reduce or prevent development in the third world and de-industrialize developed nations; all in the name of saving the Earth from a catastrophe that the organization blames on all humans.

Both Jose Maria Figueres and Christiana Figueres are involved in private ventures that profit from the United Nations led environmental alarmism, that is supported by people like Richard Branson, Al Gore, Ted Turner and organizations such as the World Wild Fund, and philanthropic organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. All of these people and organizations called for the implementation of policies to drastically reduce the world’s population. The Figueres siblings have also contributed to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the Climate Neutral Network,  an international initiative of which Costa Rica is a member nation.

Costa Rica already favors U.N. globalist environmental policies, such as the Carbon Neutrality Strategy, which seeks to eliminate all carbon emissions by the year 2021. UNEP praised Costa Rica’s carbon cutting scheme as one of the most innovative the organization has seen:

“[…] a balanced zero or negative national inventory of emissions by sources and absorption by sinks of all anthropogenic activities of the different sectors considered by the IPCC Guidelines on Inventories of Greenhouse Gases. This strategy seeks to have zero impact on the climate.”

A second Figueres presidency will simply mean an acceleration in the hand over of the Costa Rican territory to the United Nations.

But how will this be accomplished? The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the U.N. organization headed by Christiana Figueres, created a model to tie up all nations and to absorb them as “champions” of the environment. In a document called Establishing National Authorities for the CDM, which was edited by Christiana herself, the organization explains how to infiltrate and conquer nation-states from the inside, while establishing a UN led National Environmental Authority (NA) governed by rules and regulations created by the United Nations.

How will Figueres hand over Costa Rica to the U.N.?

CDM stands for Clean Development Model and the idea is to challenge national organizations; both governmental and NGOs to press societies to create a sort of environmental National Authority (NA) which eventually becomes the manager of everything related to the handling of resources, urban and rural development, population control, national protected territories and so on.

The idea, as the U.N. proposes on its Agenda 21 document, is to keep human populations limited to narrow pieces of land, where they live in tight, compact housing units, while most of the territories remain untouched. See below the future map of the United States as the United Nations intends to turn the country into an off-limits area should Agenda 21 be fully implemented.

As you can see, only a small fraction of the American territory — shown in light green — is left for humans to live, while most of the continental U.S. is “saved” for the purposes of “sustainable development”. The same model being applied today in the United States will be enacted everywhere else in the world where governments signed in favor of the Kyoto Protocol, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the World Heritage Program and where society permits the creation and legitimation of National Authorities such as the one described on the CDM document. It is necessary to emphasize that given the drastic reduction of land where people will be allowed to live, the UN expects two things to happen. One, concentrate populations in highly compact urban centers, where everything is controlled by the government. Two, a significant decrease in the number of people who live on this planet.

Although the complete PDF is filled with revelations as to how the globalists intend to grab national territories from the hands of their rightful owners, most of the juicy details regarding the ways a National Authority works is explained beginning on page 53 and up until page 64 of the guide created specifically for developing countries. Page 53 begins with an explanation about how National Authorities have evolved throughout the years.

The Takeover

Before implanting the NA, the document advises interested parties to conduct an assessment on the conditions available in each country. That assessment, it says, must include the political environment, political stability, ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, institutional rivalries, intersectoral communication, technical knowledge and so on. The U.N. basically requires the interested parties to complete the field work to gauge the level of acceptance or rejection that a NA would have, before implanting its policy framework.

The PDF warns about resistance from “climate skeptics, environmentalists who oppose certain side effects of projects and activists that may feel that there are more urgent social or economic issues to be supported. If these groups can have a negative impact on the NA’s implementation, the strategy must consider working with them in identifying how national needs can be met through the CDM.”

This is a typical approach from globalist organizations which intends to make people feel involved in the decision-making process, even though all the relevant decisions have already been made. What Agenda 21 is trying to implement are a series of policies created at global conflagrations to be implemented at the local level. The same model used with the NA’s is implemented during U.N. environmental gatherings such as the Rio+20 in 2012.

According to the CDM document, the steps to create an NA are as follows:

* Define the NA’s mission and objectives (a process that has been already completed by the U.N. but that is left open-ended so that globalist minions in each country convince their people to accept the idea that country’s objectives are the same ones sought by the U.N.).

* Obtain official status (this steps seeks to legitimize the NA’s work at the national level as well as to look for government exceptions, funding from the taxpayers, force nations to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and so on).

* Review and establish national legal framework (as explained in the CDM document, this step intends to make any and all decisions made by the NA binding for the government and all organizations associated with it. In a sense, it is the legal takeover of the country).

*Align program strategies with national sustainable development priorities (during this process, the NA acts as if it is trying to involve the community, but in reality, what it does is present already prepared policies which people then vote on, as supposed to creating their own initiatives).

* Attain broad stakeholder participation (through this step, the NA seeks to get important social and corporate groups involved. The broad stakeholders will be the founders of the NA until it manages to obtain government and international donations from foundations, philanthropic groups and the U.N. itself).

* Obtain financial and non-financial resources (at this point the NA has earned the respect and visibility of the society, as a tool to execute projects that intend to “conserve and protect” natural resources, but that in reality seek to limit the access of the population to those areas, which are later developed for elite members).

* Staff the NA (the organization opens its doors to local shakers and movers, but the management is done from outside the country either by having a UN minion come into the country, or by training local uninformed people who are compartmentalized).

* Establish relationships with the national focal point for climate change and other ministries (the NA takes over the policies of local ministries and their work in construction, development, housing, conservation, and creates rules for the administration of existing national parks and conservation areas already in the hands of the United Nations).

That is, in a nutshell, how the take over happens. If you would like to learn more details, please read the complete document.

The Implementation Process

While reading the CDM document, it is clear that right off the bat, the U.N. and its organizations intend to make countries abide by its own rules. The U.N. provides no chance for locals to bring their own ideas. The process of creating a National Authority limits participant organizations and nations to simply vote on the already existing rules and regulations. On page 75 of the CDM, the guide is very clear about how the evaluation and approval process of projects will be conducted.

“The evaluation and approval process can be designed in four steps: 1) adopt international criteria 2) develop national criteria 3) establish national procedures for the evaluation and approval of projects and 4) establish guidelines for the presentation of projects.”
Noticeably, everything begins with the adoption of international criteria, from everything else is created.

Those criteria stem from the Kyoto Protocol, which many nation-states signed onto since its inception in 1992. The CDM guide provides three criteria for evaluating and approving projects:

1. Projects must assist Non-Annex I Parties “in achieving sustainable development and contributing to the ultimate objective of the Convention.”
2. Projects must result in “real, measurable and long-term benefits related to the mitigation of climate change.”
3. Projects must result in “reductions in emissions that are additional to any that would occur in the absence of the certified project activity.”

The job of the National Authorities is to capture countries from the inside, given the failure of the United Nations attempts to do it from the outside through their failed international meetings. As explained of pages 75 and 76 of the CDM guide, the projects created through the NA must have “Consistency with UNFCCC decisions”. For a project to be deemed as compliant, it must provide solutions to the widely debunked global warming and climate change hoaxes that the U.N. have been running since the early 1980s. That is right, the globalists  who know warn us about global warming, are the same people who in the 70s and 80s tried to scare the world about “global cooling”.

Everything surrounding the National Authority’s operation deals with initiatives to curb carbon emissions, global warming and development. All projects must comply with so-called national sustainable development objectives, be congruent with national climate policy and/or carbon offset strategies and whether such projects meet eligibility criteria originated from CDM-established activities, technologies, and so on.

As seen on the diagram above, the National Authority provides a prepared evaluation procedure under which the NA itself decides in every step of the way whether a project is approved or not, based on its own conditions. Through its screening process, the NA can mandate the reformulation of the projects or simply discard them if they do not comply with its rules. This process is completely opposite to what a real grassroots environmental organization — which is what the NA intends to be — would use to approach environmental challenges. In that situation, the communities and their organizations would ultimately decide what projects should be implemented.

Marketing and Propaganda

The work of a National Authority goes beyond being the decider on environmental policy. It is also the marketer of projects which are carefully filtered so that they adhere to U.N.’s policies. Just as it happens in the decision-making process, the marketing of projects works based on the deeply flawed belief — not scientifically proven — that human activity is the generator of the largest amounts of greenhouse gases, and that these gases are the cause of climate change and global warming. So according to the CDM guide, for a project to be considered as a valid initiative, it must have it at its core to reduce greenhouse gases.

“At the basic level it is important to understand what all CDM projects have in common: the environmental objective of lowering the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” says the document. It goes on to refer people to another flawed instrument to measure a project’s eligibility. “The details of any of these methodologies can be found in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) Reference Manual.”

The success of the propaganda campaign is based on diverting people’s attention from real environmental problems such as Genetically Modified Organisms, and to concentrate efforts on proven lies. That is why the NA will always refer people to failed policies regarding renewable energy, energy efficiency, emission reductions, transportation, waste management and the most important of all, land use change. On ways to use lands, especially publicly owned lands (government-owned lands) the document suggests the use of pep-talk on hoaxes such as biodiversity protection, soil conservation, watershed maintenance and sustainable forest management.

The Figueres Connection

The Figueres connection between globalist policies and the management of Costa Rica as a nation is very well established. Not only have the Figueres siblings gained experience in the private sector regarding so-called sustainable development, but they have also been trained to bring U.N. propaganda and policies to Costa Rica. The Proyecto País that Jose María Figueres presented a couple of months ago in San José has at its core the same goals that the United Nations has: to avoid the development of third world countries.

According to Alvaro Ramírez, the Executive Coordinator of the project said it very clearly. The Proyecto País seeks to change the direction of the country from the traditional development-centered process to a ‘soul-seeking’ adventure. Ramírez regurgitated United Nations talking points about how development and the enjoyment of benefits that wealth have usually provided are bad, and that people need to start thinking about ways to live in harmony with themselves and the environment. He added that Costa Rica is today a nation without goals or purposes and that this is where the plan presented by Figueres intends to help.

Jorge Oller, another Figueres assistant in the Proyecto País initiative, explained that he is in it because as a Costa Rican person, he wants to contribute with the former president’s idea to “turn all this process into a collective dream.” Not only there is a political and private sector connection between the Figueres family and the U.N., but also an ideological one. “This new star we are proposing to be the guide for the country is based on four pillars that are included in our document presented yesterday.” Those pillars: identity and values of the Costa Rican society, inclusion of segregated sectors of the Costa Rican society, innovation, and the fourth pillar is, as you might have guessed already, sustainability.

In case you only know sustainability as a tool to help conserve the environment, which is the hoax the United Nations uses to swindle people into supporting its rules and regulations, please let me explain the part that the U.N. does not want you to know.

The United Nations works through various organizations that fancy themselves as pro environment, pro conservation, pro humanity and pro life. However, the core of these organizations revolve around exactly the opposite. Take for example the UN Population Fund (UNPF), which in numerous occasions called for a global population reduction by use of family planning which is code for depopulation by decreasing fertility among humans. A recent study by this organization claims that as urbanization extends further outside large population centers, the planet’s biodiversity will suffer dearly due to human activity which will increase the impact of global warming.

Scientists working for UNPF suggest that humans would be served better if they lived in large dense and highly controlled and monitored cities. “We certainly don’t want them strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together],” said their study. Studies conducted by universities state that urbanization will expand out of control and that such expansion must be curbed in order to protect the planet’s resources from being used by humans. But this calculation and the impact the alleged expansion will have is measured according to the already debunked global warming and climate change alarmism.

Environmental organizations, philanthropic foundations, universities and of course the United Nations, all of which favor Agenda 21 policies as the base for social control, seek to transform current living standards around the planet but not so that everyone lives equally well. In fact, those policies intend to make people equally poor — with the exception of the global elite. The globalists themselves call the new transformed cities eco-communities and they will be placed that respect United Nations regulations regarding production of CO2 to the and development.

One of the most noticeable successes of the U.N. has been the way it has infiltrated countries through fake grassroots entities that seem to organically push for conservation. These entities are funded by programs promoted by the hijacked governments or by international environmental organization who receive large donations from globalists. Just last week, Costa Rica announced the funding 11 new conservation projects at a cost of 208 million colones, just over $400,000. The monies taken from taxpayers pockets will work on projects related to biodiversity and climate change. The local mainstream press announced the projects financing as an exchange between the governments of Costa Rica and the United States. According to the reports, the U.S. forgives Costa Rican debt in exchange for investment in environmental projects.

The monies given to these projects are managed by the Costa Rica Por Siempre Association, a supposed non-profit organization that manages public-private initiatives developed by the Costa Rican government. According to its web page, the association works with known globalist organizations such as the Nature Conservancy. In fact let’s take a look at the goals established by the Costa Rica por Siempre Association as the organization displays them on its website:

1. Costa Rica will at least duplicate the extension of its marine protected areas.

2. The government of Costa Rica will improve the management of protected areas through specifically developed administrative tools, by updating the management plans and also by improving its tax collection system.

3. Costa Rica will identify and label the threats, potential impacts and adapting capacity of ecosystems that are more vulnerable to climate change.

4. External members of the initiative (The Nature Conservancy, Linden Trust for Conservation, Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation, Walton Family Foundation), will create a source of continuous funding to be utilized for the protection of protected areas through a privately managed trust fund. Such trust fund will be used as the government deems it appropriate in a plan that seeks to achieve the goals established by the United Nations Convention of Biological Diversity.

As seen in this example, the ultimate goal this and other environmental associations and organizations have is to help enable a system of globalist domination at the local level. In doing so, the globalist-controlled organizations will seek to use taxpayer funds to rob Costa Rican people of their natural resources which will fall in the hands of the United Nations.

But there is more. The creators of the Clean Development Mechanism actually say the CDM and the National Authorities it promotes are the only way forward. “COP-7 marked a milestone in the climate change negotiations as Parties to the Protocol sat down to decide on the rules and modalities for the CDM as a global mechanism, and the procedures for individual CDM projects. The CDM executive board continues to move this agenda forward.”

As in most cases it is in the hands of the Costa Rican people to prevent the handover of their country to the United Nations. Costa Rica must avoid the election of Jose Maria Figueres or anyone else, from any political party, who seeks to steal Costa Rican from the Costa Rican people. They must also reject through voting and effective forms of social opposition the adoption of policies originated in international globalist organizations that intend to control the land and the people of Costa Rica. One good first step would be to abandon the United Nations, which would liberate Costa Rica of the tyrannical compromises that were signed by previous governments including that of Figueres himself.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the use of the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web, unless you request and receive written permission to do so. If permission is granted, you must publish the article EXACTLY as it appears on The Real Agenda.

UN Rio+20 Summit Entertains Anti-Human Declaration

By SUSANNE POSEL | OCCUPY CORPORATISM | JUNE 15, 2012

The UN’s Earth Summit on Sustainable Development in Rio+20 this month has attracted more than 100 science academies and leaders from all across the globe to discuss population control and human consumption, among other topics of global domination.

Humanity is a viable threat to the eco-system and future of planet Earth, say scientists from the UK’s Royal Society .

“The overall message is that we need a renewed focus on both population and consumption – it’s not enough to look at one or the other,” said Prof Charles Godray from the Martin School at the University of Oxford, who chaired the process of writing the declaration. “We need to look at both, because together they determine the footprint on the world.”

Globalist academics decry humanity’s footprint is getting “heavier and heavier”. They have released a public declaration to coerce developed and developing nations to join forces to combat humanity’s assault on our planet.

The declaration states: “The global population is currently around seven billion, and most projections suggest that it will probably lie between eight and 11 billion by 2050. Global consumption levels are at an all-time high, largely because of the high per-capita consumption of developed countries.”

The fear-mongers assert that if governments fail to enact these changes, “will put us on track to alternative futures with severe and potentially catastrophic implications for human well-being.”

Population control and severely limiting human consumption, being discussed at the UN Earth Summit, will admonish governments to agree to “commit to systematically consider population trends and projections in our national, rural and urban development strategies and policies.”

The drafted agreement claims all governments pledge to “change unsustainable consumption and production patterns” to reflect Agenda 21  Sustainable Development policies within sovereign nations so that the UN can usurp authority by ratification of international mandate within individual countries.

The report claims that over population in under-developed countries has resulted in unsustainable consumption worldwide.

Eliya Zulu, executive director of the African Institute for Development Policy  in Nairobi, co-author of the report from the Royal Society, says: “Many African countries are feeling the effects of population growth, and are finding they’ll need to deal with it in order to continue developing as well as to address their environmental issues. If you look at a country like Rwanda, it’s one of the most densely populated in Africa and the government believes one of the reasons behind the genocide was high population density and competition for resources. And the economic downturn that started in the late 1980s made people realize that in order to reach the Millennium Development Goals [MDGs], you can’t do it if your population is growing rapidly.”

Zulu points out that women in Africa are contributing to the over-population problems, which is causing the need to increase family planning provisions in Africa.

“This is an absolutely critical period for people and the planet, with profound changes for human health and wellbeing and the natural environment,” said Sir John Sulston, the report’s chairman, who headed the Human Genome Project , and currently chairs the Institute for Science Ethics and Innovation . “Where we go is down to human volition – it’s not pre-ordained, it’s not the act of anything outside humanity, it’s in our hands.”

These globalists believe that while more people are born, over-consumption becomes an issue of over-population. Under-developed countries are being blamed for ushering our planet toward destruction because of lack of access to family planning services.

By controlling fertility rates, as well as consumption of food, water and other resources, these experts assert that the environment, CO2 emissions and the status of the planet will be saved.

The Royal Society has used gross national product (GDP) to define how a nation’s economy can sustain its population. Their focus is to protect the environment over the rights of humanity as a whole.

While the UN discusses how to deal with the rising human population, radical environmentalists are speaking at the UN Earth Summit, urging that biodiversity be protected from the effects of humanity.

The World Wildlife Federation (WWF) has also released a report called the Living Planet Report that condemns the ecological disaster our planet is becoming from the direct influence of man.

It was the WWF who published a false report  on the polar bear population last year. By purveying the myth that the polar bears are drowning due to ice sheets melting because of global warming, the WWF participated in the alarmism of climate change.

Real world observations from researchers found that polar bear populations are estimated at 66% higher than climate change alarmists predicted.

David Nussbaum, CEO of the WWF in the UK, says: “The Rio+20 conferences are an opportunity for the world to get serious about the need for development to be made sustainable. We need to elevate the sense of urgency, and I think this is ultimately not only about our lives but the legacy we leave for future generations.”

The report from the WWF is compiled from data obtained from the Zoological Society of London  (ZSL), as well as analysis from the Global Footprint Network  (GFN) to further globalist agendas for global sustainability and encompassing the world’s ecological footprint. They assert issues surrounding the use of fossil fuels, deforestation for agricultural use, logging wood, and depleting fish populations as a food source.

The ZSL claims 30% of the species of the world have been in a steady decline since 1970, while tropical species have been waning at a rate of more than 60% because of the destruction to tropical lakes and rivers.

Tim Blackburn, director of the Institute of Zoology at the ZSL, maintains: “Nature is more important than money. Humanity can live without money, but we can’t live without nature and the essential services it provides.”

Nations under pressure by the UN and defined as completely unsustainable are: Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates countries, Denmark, Belgium, Australia, Ireland, United Kingdom.

The WWF report points out that 405 river systems are under attack worldwide, as well as the 30% food wastage caused by countries in the West contribute to the global food shortages and infrastructure in under-developed countries.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, has launched a “ global conversation ” to keep the appearance that the UN is interested in creating the “future we want”.

Through Facebook , Twitter or simply mailing in concerns, the panelists and event participants will answer “questions, expectations, or comments . . . at the event on November 22, 2012 at 10am EST.”

The UN hope to continue to purvey the ruse that they are an international community dedicated to making our world a better place. In the shadows, the globalist Elite lurks and patiently wait while the very right to human existence is stripped from sovereign nations through international directives.

This vision of the future is not what we want.

From 7 Billion People To 500 Million People

The Sick Population Control Agenda Of The Global Elite

The American Dream
October 27, 2011

Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

The United Nations has officially designated October 31st as 7 Billion Day.  On that day, the United Nations estimates that the population of the earth will hit 7 billion for the very first time.  But instead of celebrating what a milestone 7 billion people represents, the UNPF is focusing instead on using October 31st to raise awareness about “sustainability” and “sustainable development”.  In other words, the United Nations is once again declaring that there are way too many people on the planet and that we need to take more direct measures to reduce fertility.  In recent years, the UN and other international organizations have become bolder about trying to push the sick population control agenda of the global elite.  Most of the time organizations such as the UN will simply talk about “stabilizing” the global population, but as you will see in this article, there are many among the global elite that are not afraid to openly talk about a goal of reducing the population of the world to 500 million (or less).  To you and I it may seem like insanity to want to get rid of more than 90 percent of the global population, but there is a growing consensus among the global elite that this is absolutely necessary for the good of the planet.

As we approach October 31st, dozens of articles are appearing in newspapers all over the globe that are declaring what a horrible thing it is that we are up to 7 billion people.

In fact, it surely is no accident that the United Nations put 7 Billion Day on the exact same day as Halloween.  Perhaps they want to highlight how “scary” it is that we have 7 billion people on the planet, or perhaps they are trying to send us a message by having 7 Billion Day occur on the same day as “the festival of death”.

In any event, it seems like way too much of a coincidence that 7 Billion Day just happens to fall on the same day as Halloween.

Today, “sustainable development” has become one of the key buzzwords that those in the radical environmental movement love to use, but most Americans have no idea that one of the key elements of “sustainable development” is population control.

So what precisely is considered to be an ideal population for the earth by those pushing “sustainable development”?

Well, of course there is much disagreement on this issue, but many are very open about the fact that they believe that the earth should only have 500 million people (or less) on it.

For example, the first of the “new 10 commandments” on the infamous Georgia Guidestones states the following….

“Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”

CNN Founder Ted Turner would go even farther….

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Dave Foreman, the co-founder of Earth First, says that reducing our population down to 100 million is one of his three main goals….

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

Sadly, this kind of garbage is even being taught at major U.S. universities.  For example, Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka once wrote the following….

I do not bear any ill will toward people. However, I am convinced that the world, including all humanity, WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.

Mikhail Gorbachev thinks that reducing the global population by 90 percent would be just about right….

“We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”

But most of the time, the way that the global elite speak of population control is much more “politically correct”.  They tend to use terms such as “sustainable development” and “reduction of fertility rates” and “quality of life” when discussing the need to reduce our population.

As 7 Billion Day has approached, there have been articles popping up in major publications all over the globe that are advocating increased population control measures.  Of course in the western world such measures are always framed as being “voluntary”, but that is the way that they always introduce things like this.  Once enough people get on board with the “voluntary” population control measures they will become “mandatory”.

So now that you are aware of some of the buzzwords that are used, check out what has been written on some of the biggest news websites in the world recently….

Jeffrey D. Sachs, the director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, recently said the following in an article for CNN….

“The arrival of the 7 billionth person is cause for profound global concern. It carries a challenge: What will it take to maintain a planet in which each person has a chance for a full, productive and prosperous life, and in which the planet’s resources are sustained for future generations?

“How, in short, can we enjoy ‘sustainable development’ on a very crowded planet?”

For Sachs, one of the “keys” to sustainable development is the “stabilization” of the global population….

“The second key to sustainable development is the stabilization of the global population. This is already occurring in high-income and even some middle-income countries, as families choose to have one or two children on average. The reduction of fertility rates should be encouraged in the poorer countries as well.”

In a recent article for the Guardian, Roger Martin stated that all of the problems that humanity is facing would be easier to solve if less people were running around the planet….

“…all environmental (and many economic and social) problems are easier to solve with fewer people, and ultimately impossible with ever more.”

He also says that if we reduce the population, it will mean better lives for all the rest of us….

“On a finite planet, the optimum population providing the best quality of life for all, is clearly much smaller than the maximum, permitting bare survival. The more we are, the less for each; fewer people mean better lives.”

But is that really the case?

Of course not.

There has been tremendous human suffering all throughout history.  If we eliminated 90 percent of the global population it would not suddenly usher in some kind of “golden age”.

But many among the global elite are truly convinced that we are spoiling “their planet” and they don’t want so many of us around anymore.  Thanks to technology, they only need a few hundred million people to run their system, and they view the rest of us as “useless eaters”.

This all may sound quite bizarre to many of you, but this is the kind of stuff that is being taught in colleges and universities across the western world.

In fact, you are starting to see an increasing number of people in the western world actually suggest that we adopt a “one-child policy” such as China has.  For example, the following is from an opinion piece that appeared in the National Post….

A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

The author of the opinion piece believes that such a “one-child policy” would reduce the global population to 3.43 billion by 2075….

The intelligence behind this is the following:

-If only one child per female was born as of now, the world’s population would drop from its current 6.5 billion to 5.5 billion by 2050, according to a study done for scientific academy Vienna Institute of Demography.

-By 2075, there would be 3.43 billion humans on the planet. This would have immediate positive effects on the world’s forests, other species, the oceans, atmospheric quality and living standards.

This is the kind of stuff that a lot of these people sit around and think about all day long.

They are obsessed with death and with reducing the population as rapidly as possible.  They see us as a “plague” that is ravaging the planet, and they believe that by getting rid of us they would actually be saving the earth.

Due to public opinion, population control advocates have to tread lightly in the western world.  But where they can get away with it, they are not afraid to be very forceful.

I have already discussed the horrific one-child policy in China.  As the Epoch Times recently noted, enforcement of this policy can be absolutely brutal….

“Pregnant women lacking birth permits are hunted down like criminals by population planning police in China and forcibly aborted.”

If you don’t believe something like this can ever happen in the western world, you might want to think again.

Limitations on child births are already showing up in popular television shows.  For example, a new show on Fox called Terra Nova portrays the future of the earth as a living hell due to overpopulation.  People in the future can hardly breathe the air due to overwhelming pollution and a strict “two-child policy” is rigidly enforced.

The family featured in Terra Nova is able to go through a portal to a prehistoric world that is 85 million years in the past.  In this “new world”, humans have set up a wonderful new socialist society where everyone is provided for and where “green technology” is helping them to avoid making the “mistakes” of the past.

Unfortunately, socialist utopias such as the one portrayed on Terra Nova only exist in works of fiction.

Instead, what happens most of the time in real life is that the “good intentions” of social planners devolve into absolute tyranny when put into practice.

For example, just check out what a recent National Geographic article said happened when social planners in India tried to aggressively reduce birth rates in India in the 1970s….

The Indian government tried once before to push vasectomies, in the 1970s, when anxiety about the population bomb was at its height. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay used state-of-emergency powers to force a dramatic increase in sterilizations. From 1976 to 1977 the number of operations tripled, to more than eight million. Over six million of those were vasectomies. Family planning workers were pressured to meet quotas; in a few states, sterilization became a condition for receiving new housing or other government benefits. In some cases the police simply rounded up poor people and hauled them to sterilization camps.

How would you feel if you were rounded up and hauled off to a sterilization camp?

Sterilization programs (most of the time they are “voluntary”) are in full force all over the globe.  Much of the time they are sponsored and funded by the United Nations.  The global elite are absolutely obsessed with getting women to have less babies.

That is one reason why abortion is so very important to them.

Recently, Al Gore made the following statement regarding population control….

“One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principle ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women. You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children have, the spacing of the children.

The elite love to use terms such as “fertility management” and “family planning”, but what they really intend is for there to be less pregnancies and more abortions so that the population will not grow as quickly.

They certainly do not intend to empower women to have more children.

This agenda was also very much reflected when the March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief asked this shocking question….

“What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?”

Now who in the world gave the UN the right to be trying to “accelerate fertility decline” for women in poor countries?

But to many in the global elite, trying to get women to have less babies makes all the sense in the world.  In a recent editorial for the New York Times entitled “The Earth Is Full“, Thomas L. Friedman made the following statement….

You really do have to wonder whether a few years from now we’ll look back at the first decade of the 21st century — when food prices spiked, energy prices soared, world population surged, tornadoes plowed through cities, floods and droughts set records, populations were displaced and governments were threatened by the confluence of it all — and ask ourselves: What were we thinking? How did we not panic when the evidence was so obvious that we’d crossed some growth/climate/natural resource/population red lines all at once?

These people honestly and truly believe this stuff.

Unfortunately, this agenda is even represented in the highest levels of our own government.

Barack Obama’s top science advisor, John P. Holdren, once wrote the following….

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

Holdren also believes that compulsory abortion would be perfectly legal under the U.S. Constitution….

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

The following are 8 more quotes that show the mindset that a lot of these population control advocates have….

#1 Microsoft’s Bill Gates….

“The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

#2 U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg….

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

#3 David Rockefeller….

“The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.”

#4 Jacques Cousteau….

“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”

#5 Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh….

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

#6 David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club….

“Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

#7 Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger….

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

#8 Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12….

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”

When you believe that the earth has way too many people, human life becomes cheap, and abortion becomes a way to get rid of undesirables.

According to a recent article in the Daily Mail, thousands of “abnormal” babies are now being selectively aborted in the UK each year….

Thousands of pregnancies were aborted last year for ‘abnormalities’ including 500 for Down’s syndrome, new figures reveal.

In total, there were 2,290 abortions for medical problems with the foetus, with 147 performed after 24 weeks.

In a world that is “overpopulated”, babies that are not “perfect” become more “disposable” than ever.

In fact, the truth is that the population control agenda and the “abortion rights movement” have been inseparably linked for decades.  Those that are obsessed with “overpopulation” view abortion as a very necessary method of birth control, and one of their main goals is to expand access to “reproductive health care” to as many women around the globe as possible.

But in the end, our “voluntary” actions are not going to be nearly enough to reduce the population and most population control advocates realize that.  Many of them are openly calling for a “benevolent” global authority to take charge to lead us through the “necessary” transition that is ahead.

In a previous article, I described the type of world that the radical population control advocates see for our future….

Imagine going to sleep one night and waking up many years later in a totally different world.  In this futuristic world, literally everything you do is tightly monitored and controlled by control freak bureaucrats in the name of “sustainable development” and with the goal of promoting “the green agenda”.  An international ruling body has centralized global control over all human activity.  What you eat, what you drink, where you live, how warm or cold your home can be and how much fuel you can use is determined by them.  Anyone that dissents or that tries to rebel against the system is sent off for “re-education”.  The human population is 90 percent lower than it is today in this futuristic society, and all remaining humans have been herded into tightly constricted cities which are run much like prisons.

This is the endgame for the radical green agenda.  In order to save the earth, they feel as though they must dramatically reduce our numbers and very tightly control our activities.

But is that the kind of a future that anyone would actually want to live in?  Would anyone actually choose to live in a future where bureaucrats micromanage our lives for the good of the environment?

Personally, I think that the 7 billion people on earth would do just fine if they were given a lot more liberty and freedom to live their own lives as they see fit.

But letting people decide how to run their own lives is anathema to those that have bought into the population control agenda of the global elite.

They actually believe that they are smarter than all of the rest of us and that they need to tell us what to do for the good of humanity and for the good of the planet.

This patronizing approach should truly sicken all freedom-loving Americans.

So what do you think of the population control agenda of the global elite?

Please feel free to leave a comment with your opinion below….

Sustainable Development: Genocide turned into a Necessity

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | APRIL 30, 2011

Often times, we hear sustainable development and sustainability were originated in the early 70’s and strengthened through the 80’s and 90’s. During any given research effort, most publications allege that the concern to maintain natural resources as tools for current and future generations was born in 1972, when a United Nations Conference in Sweden brought forward three principles: the interdependence of human beings and the natural environment, the links between economic development, social development, and environmental protection and the need for a global vision and common principles. Credit for developing those principles is given to the World Commission on Environment and Development of 1987.

The United Nations is the main enactor of Eugenics, a policy initiated by the founders of the Nazi movement.

Common wisdom portrays the collectivist view that sustainability and sustainable development with policies and initiatives to protect the environment from humanity’s abuses and with this to promote the benefit of the masses. Nowadays, the protection of the environment has become the most luminous spear carried by anyone and everyone, independent of race, social status, age or religion. In fact, environmentalism has become in itself the religion of choice for many. The environmentalist support for sustainability is almost inherently rooted in our lives; more than we even think. It has been applied to economics, construction, community planning, agriculture, security, natality and so on.

Countless meetings were arranged in the past 50 years in order to convince the masses that no future was complete without a sustainable approach to human existence. First, the Club of Rome came up with documents like “Limits of Growth” and “A New Path for World Development” which have as their bastion the movement to globalize the planet and social engineer everything from social values to employment, trade, demographics, politics, economics and so on; all in an effort to deindustrialize the planet and turn it into what predecessor organizations -League of Nations- wanted. Along with think-tanks like the Club of Rome, other equally prominent organizations operate in order to bring a new social, economic and developmental order into place. The United Nations, a child of the globalists who founded the League of Nations with the intention of ‘ending conflict’, has its own list of pro-deindustrialization branches and documents. For example, the United Nations Environment Programme for Development (UNEP), preaches the principles of failed green policies and green economies. The United Nations Conference on Environmental Development of 1992, better known as the Earth Summit, promotes plans like Agenda 21, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity which intend and are slowly achieving Kurt Waldheim’s ecofacist dream to depopulate the planet.

Where did modern environmentalism originate?

Although there is plenty of documentation regarding how false environmentalism is linked to the so called “green wing” of the Nazi Party, no one gets into that history in depth. Main line historians and environmentalists usually decide to ignore it and the public that is bamboozled into believing the dogmas of modern genocidal ecology does not know about it. Pertinent questions to ask regarding the Nazi origins of the green movement is, What is its inspiration? What were the goals it wanted to achieve? How did the murdering ideology of the National Socialist Party gave in to what is in appearance an unheard love for nature?

Germany was not only the place where the genocidal policy of sustainability was born, but it was also the land where it became reality. The Nazi germans and its followers adopted many of the green policies we see in modern societies and brought them to prominence. Science and the study of creatures and their environments were first talked about in Germany during the years that preceded the Nazi rise to power. The genocidal nature of environmentalism originated from a demented love for nature. (1)

Nazi thinkers and some predecessors were sure humans had to be equaled to plants, animals and insects in order to have balance in the world. These train of thought has been seen in modern environmentalist minds such as Bolivian president Evo Morales and the promoter of the Gaia theory, James Lovelock, who believe that massive amounts of people must die in order to gain natural balance. Recently, author and environmentalist Keith Farnish used one of his books to call for acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism like blowing up dams and destroying cities to return the planet to its form before the Industrial Revolution occurred. Along with Farnish, other highly respected so-called scientists like NASA’s Dr. James Hansen endorsed this line of thought.

Ernst Moritz Arndt

One of the fathers of what we call today environmentalism is Ernst Moritz Arndt. Together with Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl, Arndt had infinite hatred for the Enlightenment. Both were well-known for their extreme nationalistic views which they used to advance the ideals of the welfare state. These two men, but mainly Arndt was identified as the first ecological thinker. Arndt wrote on an 1815 article that “When one sees nature in a necessary connectedness and interrelationship, then all things are equally important — shrub, worm, plant, human, stone, nothing first or last, but all one single unity.” (2) What separated Arndt’s environmentalist ideas from those of others was that he closely blended his thoughts on respecting nature with xenophobic discourses and entangled them with the very existence of the Germans and Germany. While he defended the environment in most of his writings, he also called for racial purity and damned other races such as the Jews and the French. It was that love for nature and hatred towards the Jews what would later guide the persecution and murder of those who were not Arians.

Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl, a graduate from Arndt’s school of thought made sure his teacher’s work did not wastefully dissipate. In an article dated 1853, Riehl showed his strong opposition to industrialism and said: “We must save the forest, not only so that our ovens do not become cold in winter, but also so that the pulse of life of the people continues to beat warm and joyfully, so that Germany remains German.” (3) He opposed any type of urbanization while using anti-Semitism to approve of peasantry and its way of life. Both Riehl’s and Arndt’s ideas were later adopted by the völkisch movement, which was a mixture of nationalistic populism and mad love for nature. The leaders of the völkischs advocated a move back to the simplicity of living off the land while blaming urban living and rationalism for the environmental destruction. (4) At the core of the hatred was an old but meaningful element that had driven antisemitic groups like the völkischs for a long time: The Jewish people. Why? The Jews were the middle class of the time, and the apparent sick love for nature and the environment included an equally sickening hatred for anyone and anything that endangered that thought or way of life. (5)

After establishing their long sought relation between antisemitism and love towards nature, the völkischs extended their prejudice through the 19th and 20th centuries. The anti-industrialization, anti-jewish type of speech rooted itself along with racial purity and Arian superiority just in time for the rise of the Nazi Party’s trip to power.

Nazi ecology and the link to racism

In 1867, Ernst Haeckel, a German zoologist first used the term “ecology” and linked it to the study of creatures and their environments. Haeckel was heavily influenced by social Darwinism to a point that he became the father of a kind of social Darwinism known as “monism”. He founded the German Monist League, an organization guided by völkisch principles. Haeckel as well as Riehl and Arndt believed in racial superiority and were strongly opposed to social mixing. In addition, he also approved of racial eugenics. His thoughts were the base for what later would be known as the anti-semitic National Socialism in Germany. Indeed, Haeckel became a prominent speaker on racism, nationalism and the german model of imperialism. (6) Towards the end of his life, Haeckel became a member of the Thule Society, an organization that later served as the political base for the creation of the Nazi Party. (7) Haeckel, as the creator of ecology, Riehl and Arndt as his predecessors and other thinkers such as Willibald Hentschel, Wilhelm Bölsche and BrunoWille, get all the credit for tightly threading environmentalism to national socialism, racism, anti-Semitism and the political environmental that we all know took over Germany pre and post World War I.

One of the most revealing facts about ancient and current ecological authoritarianism is the belief by sponsors of this view that humans must be encapsulated in “biological categories” and “biological zones” over which an iron fist technocratic authority must rule. Haeckel said that civilizations and nature should be governed by the same laws. The origin of this way of thinking is a reactionary anti-humanist thought. The Monists, believed humans although not themselves- were insignificant when compared to the greatness of the environment. Similar ideas are seen in modern initiatives sponsored by the Club of Rome, The Carnegie Foundation, The United Nations, NASA, as well as some colleges and universities that are funded by globalists who endorse eugenics for the sake of cleansing the planet. Take for example the text of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversitywhich has been named as the politics and religion of modern environmentalism. Among other goals, the Convention intends to “reorganize” Western civilization by excluding all human activity from 50 percent of the American continent. It wants to divide the land into “bioregions” with “buffer zones” and “corridors”. Under this plan, humans will live in tightly guarded and heavily monitored areas, from which they can never leave. This green globalist agenda is promoted by the United Nations since 1992, when it was officially presented during the first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The same policies will be implemented in Asia, Africa and Europe.

Ernst Haeckel

Writings from the Carnegie Foundation also commit treasure to the implementation of policies like Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biodiversity. The foundation has expressed pride on ancient practices that resembled mass murder by the powers that be in an effort to cleanse the lands from undesirable people. The Carnegie Institution touted the work of Emperor Ghengis Khan and “validated his work as a “green emperor” due to the fact his actions included the murder of 40 million people. According to its writings, this helped lower carbon emissions and keep the planet cool.

Monists used their anti-humanist sentiment together with the völkisch ideas to discriminate against progress, urbanism and those who thought differently. On his Lebensgesetze (Laws of Life),biologist Raoul Francé, wrote that natural order determines social order. He said racial mixing was unnatural. He is up until today an acclaimed founder of contemporary eco-fascism for “pioneering the ecological movement.” (8) Francé also promoted an alleged connection between environmental purity and ‘racial’ purity. Francé and his disciples claimed that a change from peasant life to modernism would mean the degradation of the race and that the cities were diabolical and inorganic. (9)

By the early years of the twentieth century an ‘ecological’ argumentation, saturated with right-wing political content, had become somehow respected within the culture of Germany. During the turbulent period surrounding World War I, the mixture of ethnocentric fanaticism, regressive rejection of modernity and genuine environmental concern proved to be a very deadly mixture.

The Nazi Environmentalism in Action

Some people see it as a contradiction that modern eugenicists although still pushing for Nazi-style environmentalism also belong to the technocratic corporate elites. This is not a surprise because the elites that supported the Third Reich were also industrialists who, as it usually happens, controlled many segments of the population and the thinking classes. This practice has always born fruits because it guarantees complete control, no matter what the outcome is. Men like Fritz Todt, a heavy weight of the National Socialist movement in Germany as well as Albert Speer, his successor after 1942, were involved in the construction of infrastructure such as the Autobahn, one of the largest projects in the history of engineering in Germany. Todt wanted to build the Autobahn in a way that benefited his class the most, but that at the same time promoted and maintained certain sensitivity towards nature. (10)

“Todt demanded of the completed work of technology a harmony with nature and with the landscape, thereby fulfilling modern ecological principles of engineering as well as the ‘organological’ principles of his own era along with their roots in völkisch ideology.” (11) Just as it happened with Arndt, Riehl and Darré, Todt and his partners had an endless and inseparable bond to völkisch nationalism. Todt said once: “The fulfillment of mere transportation purposes is not the final aim of German highway construction. The German highway must be an expression of its surrounding landscape and an expression of the German essence.” (12) One of Todt’s aides, Alwin Seifert, was the Reich’s advocate for the Landscape. In discharging his official duties Seifert stressed the importance of wilderness and energetically opposed monoculture, wetlands drainage and chemical agriculture. He criticized Darré as too moderate, and “called for an agricultural revolution towards ‘a more peasant-like, natural, simple’ method of farming, ‘independent of capital’.” (13)

The prominent place that nature had within the Nazi Party helped enact the massive industrial and military advancement that enabled Hitler to bully the rest of Europe for a while. The most radical initiatives were created and carried out as they always received the seal of approval by the highest officers of the Nazi state. Another influential member of the Reich was Chancellor Rudolph Hess, who was the green wing’s strong point within the party. Hess’s power in the governmental institutions of the National Socialist regime as he was Hitler’s personal assistant. Many even consider him the Führer’s most trusted man.Hess became a member of the Nazi party in 1920 and rapidly made his way up to the top. He was the second man in the waiting list to take power if Hitler and/or Göring were unable to take on the duty. Any and all new laws that were approved by the government were had to go through Hess’ hands first, before being enacted.

In the photo: Adolf Hitler, Göring and behind him, Rudolph Hess.

In the early thirties, a complete series of laws and ordinances were passed under Hess’ sponsorship. One of those ordinances which closely hits home today is the the foundation of the nature preserves. But perhaps the most successful accomplishment of Nazi environmentalism in Germany was the Reichsnaturschutzgesetz. This nature protecting law established guidelines for safeguarding flora, fauna, and “natural monuments” and restricted commercial access to remaining tracts of wilderness. Similar policies have been written now under United Nations Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biodiversity. Just as it happens with these two documents, the Nazi required local officials to ask for permission to higher authorities before making any alterations in the countryside.Along with the Reichsnaturschutzgesetz, the most important contribution that the Nazis made to modern eugenics and false environmentalism was to integrate mainstream environmentalism into the Nazi enterprise.

Sustainable Development Today

Page 350 of the Global Biodiversity Assessment Report says that livestock such as cows, sheep, goats and horses are not sustainable. People and organizations that support sustainable development claim that animals humans should stop eating meat, because animals pollute the environment. The complete program of sustainability is based on an effort to change human behavior to states that ordinarily humans would not approve or enjoy. This changes in human behavior are mostly brought upon by instigating fear. Fear of global warming, climate change, natural disasters, wars, famine, droughts and so on.

What kinds of things does sustainable development actually want to do? Sustainability and changes in human behavior are not only related to environment, agriculture and pollution. It is a complete package of reforms that will ultimately change societal behavior at a global scale. It is common to find educational programs that sponsor and teach children how to prepare in order to live in a sustainable world. But when the tactics do not work successfully, the globalists in charge of the sustainable agenda, the foundations and organizations financially supported by globalist corporations resort to fear tactics.

Along with the educational systems, the sustainable agenda also acts directly in the economies, health care systems, farming, social and cultural affairs as well as public safety. In the last 50 years we have seen a run to create alliances between corporations and the government, which has resulted in the corporate controlled governmental systems or corporate fascism we all live under. On private property, new ordinances and laws continue to end the right to buy and maintain any kind of land without the auspices of the authorities. That is why property taxes are charged to property owners even though money was paid when the purchase of such land occurred. Under the guidelines of Agenda 21 and the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity, the largest masses of lands, namely national parks, natural reserves and conservation areas have been signed to the United Nations.

The obesity pandemic that ravages the planet up until today, brought upon by massive propaganda campaigns paid for by the food industry was the tool to bring along laws and directives that basically allow the government to tell people what they can eat or drink. In the United States, school principals and boards now do not allow parents to pack their children’s lunches and snacks. In the meantime, new regulations introduced through Codex Alimentarius ban the sale and use of natural supplements and the plantation of food crops in small and medium sized farms, while allowing big agricultural corporations to pollute the environment with genetically modified plants and animals. These kind of policies have caused the suicide of hundreds if not thousands of Indian farmers who have gotten in debt to purchase Monsanto’s genetically engineered pesticide ready corn and cotton seed. Since farmers signed their lives away to Monsanto, crop yields have been significantly lower, and the soils have been completely depleted of all nutrients.

In the social and cultural aspects, political correctness has been massively adopted and dissent is seen as a form of racism and terrorism. Immigration policies have gone from mildly protecting private property and the rights of the individual to sponsoring open borders, fake free-trade agreements that destroy industry and production in the west costing the jobs of millions of people across the continents. Religious criticism of homosexuality and other practices or ways of living is labeled as homophobic, while deep religious beliefs are seen as extremist. Mobility in urban areas has also been touched by the fake environmentalist policies first thought out by the Nazis. Oil speculation and price manipulation by the OPEC cartel makes the cost of transportation to rise exponentially. The same has happened with food prices. Car pooling as well as bus and train commuting is encouraged in order to reduce CO2 pollution, while the elites that beg for the end of industrialization live in lavish palaces and fly around the planet in their fuel-guzzling private jets and yachts.

When it comes to societal safety, the governments, also under policies of sustainable development continue to work on laws to step over the constitutions of the sovereign states they claim to represent and defend. Freedom of speech, freedom of movement and the rights to privacy are continuously violated with the establishment of a techno-military industrial complex that monitors everyone’s moves, financial records, behaviours, health, habits, politics, religious beliefs and so on, all in the name of security.

What is the ultimate goal of the current sustainable development policies? Population reduction. Sustainable Development is indeed a plan to be applied for the length of human existence. It is a plan created by someone else to apply it to you, your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. The belief behind the supposed need to massively reduce the planet’s population is Thomas Malthus’ mistaken idea that population growth outpaces food availability. He thought overpopulation occurred due to reductions in mortality rates and that the world would be out of food by 1890. He then recommended to kill the poor, the old and the sick, and leave the rest to die of hunger. Malthus’ ideas were picked up more recently by Paul Earlich in 1968. Earlich said that irresponsible reproductive behavior would leave the planet with no food in the 1970’s. This imaginary crisis has proven false every time the globalists schedule another date for it to happen. Calculations of the Population Research Institute reveal that today the world’s population can live comfortably with enough food in an area the size of the American state of Texas.

The truth is that at the current natal rate, many countries in Europe and Asia are experiencing the problems related to an aging population which is not being properly replaced by new citizens. In North, Central and South America, governments struggle to support their traditional welfare systems due to the fact that more people are retiring and less people are contributing to the coffers of the central governments, social security and health care programs. Ironically, population growth will become stable naturally -that is it will stop growing and begin to decrease- once the sum of all humans gets to about 9 billion. Learn more about the science of population growth here.

Well, so what if there is enough land mass to leave? Is there enough food for everyone? If you are a believer of only ‘official’ information an statistics, it so happens that the very own United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation as well as the World Food Programme agree that there is currently enough food on the planet to feed everyone. The problem is, not everyone has access to food. Why? Several reasons. Price speculation, using food such as corn and sugar cane to produce inefficient fuels and of course artificially created food scarcity. Modern cultivation techniques would even allow to plant crops in the most arid areas of Africa. Many believe that the giant continent may be able to feed the whole world if such techniques are applied with due diligence. So, why are more people going hungry everyday? Simply put, poverty, conflict and poor agricultural infrastructure in countries where those hungry people live. War is one of the main causes of crop destruction. And who are the sponsors of war and conflict? The military industrial complex controlled by the same globalists who want us to be green and friendly to the environment. Reducing the number of people on the planet would not solve an overpopulation problem, if it existed. That is just another fear tactic used by the globalists who up until today perpetuate the Nazi dream. For a detailed explanation on how the United Nations hides its eugenics programme under supposed initiatives to promote reproductive health, end poverty and decrease the appearance of disease, watch the four-part report (Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4)

Sources for this article include:

(1) Raymond H. Dominick, The Environmental Movement in Germany: Prophets and Pioneers, 1871-1971

(2) Der Begriff des Volksgeistes in Ernst Moritz Arndts Geschichtsanschauung, Langensalza, 1914.

(3) Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl, Feld und Wald, Stuttgart, 1857, p. 52.

(4) George Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich, New York.

(5) Lucy Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews 1933-1945, New York, 1975, pp. 61-62.

(6) Daniel Gasman, The Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League, New York, 1971, p. xvii.

(7) Gasman’s thesis about the politics of Monism is hardly uncontroversial; the book’s central argument, however, is sound.

(8) See the foreword to the 1982 reprint of his 1923 book Die Entdeckung der Heimat, published by the far-right MUT Verlag.

(9) Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology, p. 101.

(10) Bramwell, Ecology in the 20th Century, p. 197.

(11) Karl-Heinz Ludwig, Technik und Ingenieure im Dritten Reich, Düsseldorf, 1974, p. 337.

(12) Quoted in Rolf Peter Sieferle, Fortschrittsfeinde? Opposition gegen Technik und Industrie von der Romantik bis zur Gegenwart, München, 1984, p. 220.

(13) Dominick, “The Nazis and the Nature Conservationists”, p. 529.