Greta Thunberg: Inconvenient Truth of Capitalism's Green Greed.

THE MANUFACTURING OF GRETA THUNBERG – FOR CONSENT: THE MOST INCONVENIENT TRUTH: “CAPITALISM IS IN DANGER OF FALLING APART” [ACT III]

Wrong Kind of Green Jan 28, 2019 The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg - for Consent: The Most Inconvenient Truth: "Capitalism is in Danger of Falling Apart"

January 28, 2019

http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/01/28/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-most-inconvenient-truth-capitalism-is-in-danger-of-falling-apart/

By Cory Morningstar

This is ACT III of the six-part series: The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg – for Consent: The Political Economy of the Non-Profit Industrial Complex

In ACT I of this new body of research I opened the dialogue with the observations of artist Hiroyuki Hamada:

“What’s infuriating about manipulations by Non Profit Industrial Complex is that they harvest good will of the people, especially young people. They target those who were not given skills and knowledge to truly think for themselves by institutions which are designed to serve the ruling class. Capitalism operates systematically and structurally like a cage to raise domesticated animals. Those organizations and their projects which operate under false slogans of humanity in order to prop up the hierarchy of money and violence are fast becoming some of the most crucial elements of the invisible cage of corporatism, colonialism and militarism.”

The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg – for Consent has been written in six acts. [ACT I • ACT II • ACT III • ACT IV • ACT V • ACT VI] [Addenda: I]

In ACT I, I disclosed that Greta Thunberg, the current child prodigy and face of the youth movement to combat climate change, served as special youth advisor and trustee to the burgeoning mainstream tech start-up, “We Don’t Have Time”. I then explored the ambitions behind the tech company We Don’t Have Time.

In ACT II, I illustrated how today’s youth are the sacrificial lambs for the ruling elite. Also in this act I introduced the board members and advisors to “We Don’t Have Time.” I explored the leadership in the nascent We Don’t Have Time and the partnerships between the well established corporate environmental entities: Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project, 350.org, Avaaz, Global Utmaning (Global Challenge), the World Bank, and the World Economic Forum (WEF).

In ACT III, I deconstruct how Al Gore and the Planet’s most powerful capitalists are behind today’s manufactured youth movements and why. I explore the We Don’t Have Time/Thunberg connections to Our Revolution, the Sanders Institute, This Is Zero Hour, the Sunrise Movement and the Green New Deal. I also touch upon Thunberg’s famous family. In particular, Thunberg’s celebrity mother, Malena Ernman (WWF Environmental Hero of the Year 2017), and her August 2018 book launch. I then explore the generous media attention afforded to Thunberg in both May and April of 2018 by SvD, one of Sweden’s largest newspapers.

In ACT IV, I examine the current campaign, now unfolding, in “leading the public into emergency mode”. More importantly, I summarize who and what this mode is to serve.

In ACT V, I take a closer look at the Green New Deal. I explore Data for Progress and the targeting of female youth as a key “femographic”. I connect the primary architect and authors of the “Green New Deal” data to the World Resources Institute. From there, I walk you through the interlocking Business & Sustainable Development Commission and the New Climate Economy – a project of the World Resources Institute. I disclose the common thread between these groups and the assignment of money to nature, represented by the Natural Capital Coalition and the non-profit industrial complex as an entity. Finally, I reveal how this has culminated in the implementation of payments for ecosystem services (the financialization and privatization of nature, global in scale) which is “expected to be adopted during the fifteenth meeting in Beijing in 2020.”

In the final act, ACT VI [Crescendo], I wrap up the series by divulging that the very foundations which have financed the climate “movement” over the past decade are the same foundations now partnered with the Climate Finance Partnership looking to unlock 100 trillion dollars from pension funds. I reveal the identities of individuals and groups at the helm of this interlocking matrix, controlling both the medium and the message. I take a step back in time to briefly demonstrate the ten years of strategic social engineering that have brought us to this very precipice. I look at the relationship between WWF, Stockholm Institute and World Resources Institute as key instruments in the creation of the financialization of nature. I also take a look at what the first public campaigns for the financialization of nature (“natural capital”) that are slowly being brought into the public realm by WWF. I reflect upon how mainstream NGOs are attempting to safeguard their influence and further manipulate the populace by going underground through Extinction Rebellion groups being organized in the US and across the world.

With the smoke now cleared, the weak and essentially non-existent demands reminiscent of the 2009 TckTckTck “demands” can now be fully understood.

Some of these topics, in addition to others, will be released and discussed in further detail as addenda built on the large volume of research.

sustainable continued borrowing (in your name)

AGENDA 21 IS REPACKAGED SOCIALISM, UNSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

by CHRISS W. STREET 9 Feb 2012 1POST A COMMENT

SHARE THIS: 0 6

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/02/09/agenda-21-is-repackaged-socialism-unsustainable-development

http://www.chrissstreetandcompany.com/

This year marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the United Nation’s Brundtland Report, which defined Sustainable Development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." But aristocratic socialists have corrupted the sustainable development movement into a vehicle to achieve vast administrative power for themselves. Nations that adopt Sustainable Development are doomed to fail at meeting the needs of the present generation and through debt accumulation from deficit spending will consign future generations to a life as debt slaves.

Through the early 1980s, socialist Latin American economies powered growth by quadrupling their indebtedness from $75 billion to $315 billion. With aristocrats controlling government, while the poor had no voice in these loan matters, nor did they benefit from them as most of the loan proceeds were siphoned off to benefit the aristocrats and their crony amigos.

When Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980, the U.S. economy had suffered a decade of stagflation, turning our Midwest manufacturing base into the Rust Belt. Reagan was determined to regain international economic dominance by reasserting our Founding Father’s demand for limited government and maximum personal liberty. Reagan viscerally believed what John Adams wrote:

“ the moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence”

Reagan’s relentless focus overcame the bi-partisan drumbeat to continue the socialist expansion of the money supply to promote growth. He then leveraged monetary restraint with the largest income tax cut in American history to power the American economy to sustained growth with low inflation.

---

The inflated prices of raw material exports that Latin American socialists relied upon to pay their inflated debts, plunged by 40%. Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina became insolvent as per capita GDP fell by 9% between 1980 and 1985 and 50% of their people fell into poverty. Popular uprisings drove Brazil's military junta and Argentine’s authoritarian regime, from power. In desperation, Latin nations turned to the U.S. dominated International Monetary Fund as lender-of- last-resort. But IMF support came with mandatory demands for austerity budget cuts, public industry privatizations, and elimination of trade barriers to shrink socialist power. By 1987, the capitalist U.S. economy was the world’s growth engine and a tidal wave of foreign investment was pouring into capitalist friendly Latin economies. World socialism was in shambles as the Soviet Union disintegrated and China embraced the market economy. The release of the Brundtland Report was seen as recognition of the burgeoning capitalist globalized economy.

By 1992 memories of the pain of the Latin American Debt Crisis were fading. Aristocrats repackaged socialist plans to again usurp economic power into Agenda 21 and introduced this socialist manifesto at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Agenda 21 envisioned bestowing the UN, government bureaucracies, and major interest groups the power to suspend the rights of property under law regarding all global, national and local human economic and social interaction that might affect the environment.

Agenda 21’s four main pillars of action are (1) combating poverty, promoting health, making consumption sustainable (2) assuring atmospheric protection, protecting fragile environments, conserving biodiversity, preventing pollution and regulating biotechnology (3) strengthening the roles of children, youth, women, NGOs, local authorities, workers and indigenous peoples (4) through science, technology transfer, education, international financial mechanisms.”

European aristocrats also quietly embedded Agenda 21 powers into the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, which united 17 sovereign nations under the three pillar structure of the European Union (1) prevent sovereign debt from exceed 60% of GDP (2) delegate authority to supranational decision makers authority to regulate all human economic and social interaction that might affect the environment (3) embrace the euro as their supranational currency.

With aristocratic socialists in control of supranational economic decision making, deficit spending became the preferred stimulus for European economic growth. From 1999 to 2008, the average debt to GDP for Eurozone nations grew from 50% to 70%. But as the Reinhart and Rogoff’s book: “This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly” famously warned in early 2009; “once a nation’s debt rises above the threshold of 90%, then growth rates fall.”

When Greece hit over 100% of debt to GDP later that year, rumors swirled the nation would default. Greek GDP shriveled and panicked depositors across Europe pulled their cash out of banks and the European Debt Crisis exploded. Total Eurozone debt now stands at a dangerous 87% of GDP and Greek short term interest rates are at 1400%. Supranational committees are enforcing austerity spending cuts, but the unemployment rate is at a depression level of 20% in Greece and 23% in Spain.

There is no Reaganesque figure today in Europe willing to battle entrenched aristocratic socialists in support of limited government and maximum personal liberty. Instead, the “present” generation of Europeans will continue to be impoverished until a future generation becomes unwilling to endure life of a debt slaves and violently over-throws their aristocratic masters.

Feel free to forward this Op Ed and or follow our Blog at www.chrissstreetandcompany.com

Modern Environmental Doomsayers

Environmental Doomsayers Have Been Wrong Many Times Before.

“At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.” In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore’s hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and “in the 1970s … hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich’s predictions about England were gloomier: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book “The Doomsday Book,” said Americans were using 50 percent of the world’s resources and “by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them.” In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, “The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000.”

Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, “… civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 “… somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”"

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/05/environmental_d.html

How do you evaluate wind energy?

A Problem With Wind Power 
[www.aweo.org]   [click here for printer-friendly PDF]by Eric Rosenbloom 
http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html

Wind power promises a clean and free source of electricity that would reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels and the output of greenhouse gases and other pollution. Many governments are therefore promoting the construction of vast wind "farms," encouraging private companies with generous subsidies and regulatory support, requiring utilities to buy from them, and setting up markets for the trade of "green credits" in addition to actual energy. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) aims to see 5% of our electricity produced by wind turbine in 2010. Energy companies are eagerly investing in wind power, finding the arrangement quite profitable.

A little research, however, reveals that wind power does not in fact live up to the claims made by its advocates [see part I], that its impact on the environment and people's lives is far from benign [see part II], and that with such a poor record and prospect the money spent on it could be much more effectively directed [see part III]. Links to aid the reader's own research are provided throughout this paper as well as at the end [see Links; off-site links will automatically open to a new window or tab]. Click here for an abbreviated version of this paper. Click here for an even briefer version (a handy model for letters). This paper is also available as a 7-page typeset PDF file (156 KB) -- click here.

I.
[ Top • II • III • Links ]
In 1998, Norway commissioned a study of wind power in Denmark and concluded that it has "serious environmental effects, insufficient production, and high production costs." 

Denmark (population 5.3 million) has over 6,000 turbines that produced electricity equal to 19% of what the country used in 2002. Yet no conventional power plant has been shut down. Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity. Most cannot simply be turned on and off as the wind dies and rises, and the quick ramping up and down of those that can be would actually increase their output of pollution and carbon dioxide (the primary "greenhouse" gas). So when the wind is blowing just right for the turbines, the power they generate is usually a surplus and sold to other countries at an extremely discounted price, or the turbines are simply shut off. 

A writer in The Utilities Journal (David J. White, "Danish Wind: Too Good To Be True?," July 2004) found that 84% of western Denmark's wind-generated electricity was exported (at a revenue loss) in 2003, i.e., Denmark's glut of wind towers provided only 3.3% of the nation's electricity. According to The Wall Street Journal Europe, the Copenhagen newspaper Politiken reported that wind actually met only 1.7% of Denmark's total demand in 1999. (Besides the amount exported, this low figure may also reflect the actual netcontribution. The large amount of electricity used by the turbines themselves is typically not accounted for in the usually cited output figures. Click here for information about electricity use in wind turbines.) In Weekendavisen (Nov. 4, 2005), Frede Vestergaard reported that Denmark as a whole exported 70.3% of its wind production in 2004. 

Denmark is just dependent enough on wind power that when the wind is not blowing right they must import electricity. In 2000 they imported more electricity than they exported. And added to the Danish electric bill are the subsidies that support the private companies building the wind towers. Danish electricity costs for the consumer are the highest in Europe. [Click here for a detailed and well referenced examination by Vic Mason.] 

The head of Xcel Energy in the U.S., Wayne Brunetti, has said, "We're a big supporter of wind, but at the time when customers have the greatest needs, it's typically not available." Throughout Europe, wind turbines produced on average less than 20% of their theoretical (or rated) capacity. Yet both the British and the American Wind Energy Associations (BWEA and AWEA) plan for 30%. The figure in Denmark was 16.8% in 2002 and 19% in 2003 (in February 2003, the output of the more than 6,000 turbines in Denmark was 0!). On-shore turbines in the U.K. produced at 24.1% of their capacity in 2003. The average in Germany for 1998-2003 was 14.7%. In the U.S., usable output (representing wind power's contribution to consumption, according to the Energy Information Agency) in 2002 was 12.7% of capacity (using the average between the AWEA's figures for installed capacity at the end of 2001 and 2002). In California, the average is 20%. The Searsburg plant in Vermont averages 21%, declining every year. This percentage is called the load factor orcapacity factor. The rated generating capacity only occurs during 100% ideal conditions, typically a sustained wind speed over 30 mph. As the wind slows, electricity output falls off exponentially. [Click here for more about the technicalities of wind as a power source, as well as energy consumption data. Click here for conversions between and explanations of energy units.] 

In high winds, ironically, the turbines must be stopped because they are easily damaged. Build-up of dead bugs has been shown to halve the maximum power generated by a wind turbine, reducing the average power generated by 25% and more. Build-up of salt on off-shore turbine blades similarly has been shown to reduce the power generated by 20%-30%. 

Eon Netz, the grid manager for about a third of Germany, discusses the technical problems of connecting large numbers of wind turbines [click here]: Electricity generation from wind fluctuates greatly, requiring additional reserves of "conventional" capacity to compensate; high-demand periods of cold and heat correspond to periods of low wind; only limited forecasting is possible for wind power; wind power needs a corresponding expansion of the high-voltage and extra-high-voltage grid infrastructure; and expansion of wind power makes the grid more unstable. [Click here for a good explanation of why wind-generated power can not usefully contribute to the grid and only causes greater problems, including the use of more "conventional" fuel.] 

Despite their being cited as the shining example of what can be accomplished with wind power, the Danish government has cancelled plans for three offshore wind farms planned for 2008 and has scheduled the withdrawal of subsidies from existing sites. Development of onshore wind plants in Denmark has effectively stopped. Because Danish companies dominate the wind industry, however, the government is under pressure to continue their support. Spain began withdrawing subsidies in 2002. Germany reduced the tax breaks to wind power, and domestic construction drastically slowed in 2004. Switzerland also is cutting subsidies as too expensive for the lack of significant benefit. The Netherlands decommissioned 90 turbines in 2004. Many Japanese utilities severely limit the amount of wind-generated power they buy, because of the instability they cause. For the same reason, Ireland in December 2003 halted all new wind-power connections to the national grid. In early 2005, they were considering ending state support. In 2005, Spanish utilities began refusing new wind power connections. In 2006, the Spanish government ended -- by emergency decree -- its subsidies and price supports for big wind. In 2004, Australia reduced the level of renewable energy that utilities are required to buy, dramatically slowing wind-project applications. On August 31, 2004, Bloomberg News reported that "the unstable flow of wind power in their networks" has forced German utilities to buy more expensive energy, requiring them to raise prices for the consumer. [Note, April 2012:  State support for industrial wind fluctuates, but the trend noted here has continued.] 

A German Energy Agency study released in February 2005 after some delay [click here] stated that increasing the amount of wind power would increase consumer costs 3.7 times more than otherwise and that the theoretical reduction of greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved much more cheaply by simply installing filters on existing fossil-fuel plants. A similar conclusion was made by the Irish grid manager in a study released in February 2004 [click here for 172-KB PDF]: "The cost of CO₂ abatement arising from using large levels of wind energy penetration appears high relative to other alternatives." 

In Germany, utilities are forced to buy renewable energy at sometimes more than 10 times the cost of conventional power, in France 3 times. In the U.K., the Telegraph has reported that rather than providing cheaper energy, wind power costs the electric companies £50 per megawatt-hour, compared to £15 for conventional power. The wind industry is worried that the U.K., too, is starting to see that it is only subsidies and requirements on utilities to buy a certain amount of "green" power that prop up the wind towers and that it is a colossal waste of resources. The BWEA has even resorted to threatening prominent opponents as more projects are successfully blocked. Interestingly, long-term plans for energy use and emissions reduction by both the U.K. and the U.S. governments do not mention wind [click here for more about this (the article is in Spanish)]. Flemming Nissen, head of development at the Danish utility Elsam, told a meeting in Copenhagen, May 27, 2004, "Increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish CO₂ emissions." 

School Breakfasts

simpleton1 (81) Says: 
December 11th, 2012 at 12:03 pm

Would all the helpful people wake up early in the morning and go with a donation of a dozen eggs and loaf of bread and butter, or a packet of weetbix and a tin of fruit with a carton of milk or packet of porridge.

Whether planned the day before or not,
Then knock on the door of a supposed poor family house, announcing that they would love to share a breakfast, just break out the pots and pans, plates and cutlery, enlist any young helpers and or parent so that the family all learns how to start the day with a breakfast. Afterward all dishes are done and then off to school and work.

No judgement of how things are, just get done what is needed during that hour. Answer any queries to be helpful with out pushing things.

That way the kids and parents can see how to do things, recognize what may be bought in a shop, and eventually phase over to doing it themselves. If they are not interested then move on to where there is a better attitude and response. They have made their choice.

Why can not all these helpful people put their important time, and really just a helpful small change contribution. It is the personal touch that is so important, that can be inspirational and motivational.

Surely this would be much better than “I am the man from the government and I am here to help you” with social welfare and other people’s money. Just how generous are others who then feel so good demanding other people’s money to give away on hare brained schemes after they heavily clipped (salaried) the system.

simpleton1 (85) Says: 
May 3rd, 2013 at 1:40 pm

I posted this on December 11th, 2012 at 12:03 pm and I feel bears repeating and I have added a few bits and pieces.

Would all the helpful people wake up early in the morning and go with a donation of a dozen eggs and loaf of bread and butter, or a packet of weetbix and a tin of fruit with a carton of milk or packet of porridge. For helping to make lunch maybe some marmite, peanut butter jam.
I am sure others can think of maybe even better budget alternatives.

Whether planned/consulted the day before or not,
Then knock on the door of a supposed poor family house, announcing that they would love to share a breakfast, just break out the pots and pans, plates and cutlery, enlist any young helpers and or parent so that the family all learns how to start the day with a breakfast. Then bread buttered and spreads ready for lunch.
Afterward all dishes are done and then all off to school and work.

No judgement of how things are, just get done what is needed during that hour. Answer any queries to be helpful with out pushing things.
That way the kids and parents can see how to do things, recognize what may be bought in a shop, and eventually phase over to doing it themselves. If they are not interested then move on to where there is a better attitude and response. They have made their choice.

That was how families used to do things, older brothers and sisters helping, and so when the younger ones became older they were also expected to be helpful. Sure in this day and age late night tv/ computers/games may conflict, but it is a life learning things of discipline, losses/ rewards and taking responsibility.

Why can not all these helpful people put their important time, and really just a helpful small change contribution. It is the personal touch that is so important, that can be inspirational and motivational.
Sure some changes/tweaks to my initial concept, like a barbecue out front to do a cook up, and then the helped ones bring out plates cutlery etc.
What has to happen is the ones being helped have to take some responsibility, and with the new knowledge increasing responsibility and respect for themselves and others.

Surely this would be much better than “I am the man from the government and I am here to help you” with social welfare and other people’s money. Just how generous are others who then feel so good demanding other people’s money to give away on hare brained schemes after they heavily clipped (salaried) other peoples taxes.
New school building for kitchens cafeterias etc and then staffed and a major bureaucracy that needs an administration and budgets etc as it builds up another empire. And what will the children learn ? ? ?

Free Breakfasts: Another Destructive Liberal Idea

By Dennis Prager - May 7, 2013

Email

Print

116

Comments

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) announced last week that it will discontinue the free school breakfast plan it initiated last year.

Called "Food for Thought," the plan provides school breakfasts to about 200,000 students.

sustainability is everywhere

Controlling the frightened low information humans into the green compliance and indoctrinating the next generation into the smart growth of green

What Is Sustainability?

- Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh (Bio and Archives)  Tuesday, April 9, 2013

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.” - Professor Maurice King

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary lists “sustain” as “to give support or relief to, to nourish, to keep up, prolong. The Barnhart Etymological Dictionary (p. 1098) gives its Latin root of “sustinere” as “to hold up, keep up, support, endure,” as a variant to hold.

The word “sustainability” is another matter. It seems that environmentalists with a certain agenda have written the definition in Webster’s. Sustainable, besides “capable of being sustained,” is also a “method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged, sustainable techniques, sustainable agriculture, and a lifestyle involving the use of sustainable methods.”

Wikipedia is even bolder and more complex in their definition ofsustainability—they are shamelessly preaching U.N. Agenda 21 goals. “Achieving sustainability will enable the earth to continue supporting human life.” I am not sure how the earth supported human life for eons, it must have been sheer luck, we cannot leave it to chance, and it must be controlled by the environmental non-government powers with plenty of government funding and regulations. Today we are doomed to fail miserably without sustainability. Wikipedia broadly explains and describes sustainability as:

• Wetlands
• Diversity
• Eco-economics
• Urban planning
• Lifestyles
• Ethical consumerism
• Eco-villages
• Eco-municipalities
• Sustainable cities
• Permaculture
• Green building
• Sustainable agriculture
• Green technologies
• Renewable energy
• Sustainable fission
• Fusion power
• Sustainable engineering
• Sustainable forestry
• Environmental management
• Environmental science
• Earth science
• Conservation biology
• Human consumption and resources

In addition to controlling the frightened low information humans into the green compliance and indoctrinating the next generation into the smart growth of green, there are fortunes to be made from the sustainability schemes and scams at the expense of the middle class: carbon taxes, carbon swaps, carbon footprint, electric cars, wind and solar energy generation, expensive regulations filling the coffers of government bureaucracies, of unions, and of a few elites who push the green scam zealously.

Since 1987, Sustainable Development of U.N. Agenda 21 has turned every economic activity possible into Sustainable Everything, from education to food. My local diner advertises food cooked with sustainable turkeys.

At the center of Sustainable Development are public policy objectives to “protect the environment, control economic development, and promote social equity.” Who can argue with protecting the environment and who does not want a pristine environment? It is how the environment will be protected to the detriment of humans, the economic control and the social equity goals that disturb higher information Americans.

Global warming is a political movement solidified by U.N. Agenda 21 to bring about global justice, equality, and wealth redistribution, power to a handful of global elites, total economic control, and population reduction to the levels that “consensus” scientists and journalists, who manufacture temperature data and misinformation, deem necessary to gain control of the uninformed and frightened masses.

The hoax of global warming as a political movement will bring about the fundamental transformation of America promised to us during the presidential campaign, the new world order/global governance.

Vice President Joe Biden said on April 5, 2013 at the Export-Import Bank conference in Washington, “The affirmative task we have now is to actually create a new world order because the global order is changing again and the institutions of the world that worked so well in the post-World War II era for decades, they need to be strengthened and some have to be changed.”

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” (Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment)

If the MSM repeats in tandem bold lies and misinformation enough times and with confidence, “It does not matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” (Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace)

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” (Timothy Wirth, President of the U.N. Foundation)

Paying a tax to reduce carbon footprint is meant to alleviate the guilt of the elites, liberals, politicians, the rich, and the hypocritical Hollywood celebrities who have not stopped “polluting” with their jets, huge mansions, and excessive, in your face, lifestyles. But the majority of middle class Americans can ill-afford these taxes.

Sustainable Development will solidify global governance as promoted by the World Core Curriculum. According to James Lovelock’s Gaia Hypothesis, “the earth is a living organism, the giver of life, every species is equal in value, and that both animate and inanimate objects have rights.”

Dr. Robert Muller, who developed the World Core Curriculum, claims that “every member of every species is a cell in the global organism and that the evolution of the United Nations represents the development of the earth’s brain.”

This curriculum teaches students that it is a sin to cut down a tree, that animals have rights, and humans (Americans in particular) are “killing” the earth by burning fossil fuels. God is greatly ridiculed and the faithful are marginalized. The “Earth Charter,” which seeks to replace the Ten Commandments with a global green religion, was promoted by Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev.

Maurice Strong, “a native Canadian who is widely deemed to be one of the key instigators of the global environmental movement, living a low-profile in China for the past half-decade,” is considered “the godfather of global environmentalism and organizer of the United Nations’ 1992 Rio environmental Earth Summit.” (George Russell, Godfather of Global Green Thinking Steps out of Shadows at Rio+20, Fox News Insider, June 20, 2012)

How will new world order/global governance be achieved through the political movement of Sustainable Development Everything? Aside from academic indoctrination into the scam of green, man-made global warming hoax, and learned helplessness, a massive change of zoning laws, severe regulations and restrictions of land use, home building, energy consumption, consumerism, fossil fuels exploration and use, visioning committees at local levels will change the face of western countries through “regional” shadow governments, unelected individuals who will dictate policy on every economic issue. “Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself.” (U.N. Commission on Global Governance)

Various executive orders and laws have established regionalism and have already implemented U.N. Agenda 21 goals of Sustainable Development. There is no federal government body left that does not have plans for Sustainable Development. Most universities now offer degrees or have professorial chairs in Sustainable Development. Job titles have been renamed to contain the words “green growth” or “sustainable.”

We’ve reached this point of no return with the help of left wing journalists who have abandoned any pretense of objectivity. They are nothing but the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party - Democrat operatives, propagandists, political commentators, and lobbyists, politicizing anything that will grow the socialist government, including the manufactured science of global warming.

In criticizing and ridiculing global warming skeptics, disingenuous journalists cite the “science consensus,” not bothering to explain that science is exact, not a consensus. Conveniently forgotten is the fact that debunked scientists with an agenda (such as those at the University of East Anglia) promoted the false notion of man-made global warming by deleting data from climate computer models that contradicted their hypothesis.

(0) Comments

Listen to Dr. Paugh on Butler on Business (WAFS 1190), every Wednesday at 10:49 AM EST
Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh, (Romanian Conservative) is a freelance writer (Canada Free Press, Romanian Conservative, usactionnews.com), author, radio commentator (Silvio Canto Jr. Blogtalk Radio, Butler on Business, The Liberty Express, Free Market Radio, and Republic Broadcasting Network), and speaker. Her book, “Echoes of Communism, is available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle. Short essays describe health care, education, poverty, religion, social engineering, and confiscation of property. A second book, “Liberty on Life Support,” is also available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle. A third book, “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy,” is a best seller at Amazon.com under Globalism, Politics, and Environmental Policy.
Her commentaries reflect American Exceptionalism, the economy, immigration, and education.Visit her website, ileanajohnson.com.Dr. Johnson can be reached at: ileana@canadafreepress.com