by Lorraine Day, M.D.
The United Nations Agenda 21 was signed by the United States in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Very few people have even heard of it yet it is being implemented in every city, community, and region in America. Agenda 21 is a 40 chapter document listing goals to be achieved globally. It is the global plan to change the way we “live, eat, learn, and communicate” because we must “save the earth.”
“Its regulation would severely limit water, electricity, and transportation – even deny human access to our most treasured wilderness areas, it would monitor all lands and all people. No one would be free from the watchful eye of the new global tracking and information system,” according to Berit Kjos, author of Brave New Schools.
Maurice Strong, Secretary-general of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro said, “. . . Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat consumption and large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.
In other words, the Global plan is for us to live on the level of third world nations. That means limited use of fuel of any kind (we will ride bicycles instead of riding in automobiles), no air-conditioning, and we will all be forced to live in tiny apartments in tenement buildings in the middle of a city.
That same year, 1992, Al Gore wrote his book, “Earth in the Balance,” and began promoting the Hoax of Global Warming. But it took Bill Clinton to actually introduce something so invasive to our nation and get by with it without the public becoming aware. He appointed his “President’s Council on Sustainable Development” through which he literally gave away the rights and freedoms the framers of the Constitution had provided.
Many Americans naively cringe at the mention of “global government” or “conspiracy.” But it is a basic element of human nature to seek wealth and power, and people throughout human history have conspired together to do so.
What is Sustainable Development?
According to its authors, this is the cover story. The objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social, environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components: global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.
Social Equity (Social Justice)
Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people (except the elitists, of course) “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.” That means the Redistribution of wealth. Private property is considered a social injustice (except for the elitists, of course) since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care (controlled by the elitists, of course) is a social justice. These are ALL part of Agenda 21 policy.
Public Private Partnerships (PPP) – which means that all public roads, utilities, public buildings, etc. that have been built and paid for with taxpayers’ dollars, will be given to Private Corporations to do with as they choose. Special dealings between government (which is already controlled by the mega corporations) and certain, “chosen” corporations which get tax breaks, grants and the government’s power of Eminent Domain to implement sustainable policy.
Eminent Domain has been extended to allow the government in any area, including City, and State, to take your property at will.
Government-sanctioned monopolies are also part of Agenda 21.
What gives Agenda 21 Ruling Authority?
More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy during the signing ceremony at the Earth Summit. US president George H. W. Bush signed the document for the U.S. As a result, with the assistance of many groups like the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), Sustainable Development is now emerging as government policy in every town, county, and state in the nation.
Revealing Quotes from Planners
“Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on earth. . . it calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people. . . Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced. . .” Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993)
“The realities of life on our planet dictate that continued economic development as we know it cannot be sustained. . . Sustainable development, therefore, is a program of action for local and global economic reform – a program that has yet to be fully defined.” The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.
“Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project
What is not sustainable?
Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paved and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment.” UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report.
Hide Agenda 21’s UN roots from the people
“Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society. . . This segment of our society who fear One-World Government and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined the “conspiracy” by undertaking Agenda 21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.” J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development.
Here is a succinct list of Agenda 21 and related programs that will eliminate many things Americans hold dear. These have been declared “unsustainable” and will be abolished. Here are some of them:
1. ALL private property rights (ownership of private property)
2. ALL forms of irrigation, pesticides & commercial fertilizer
3. Livestock production and most meat consumption
4. Privately owned vehicles and personal travel
5. Use of fossil fuels for power generation or mechanized travel
6. Single family homes
7. Most forms of mineral extraction and timber harvesting
8. Human population must be reduced to fewer than 1 billion people (from the present population of over 6 billion people).
This is not coming directly from Washington D.C. or state legislatures for the most part. It is seeping in through local city and county governments. Agenda 21 brings with it stealthy code words, comforting words such as “smart growth,” “social justice,” “bio-diversity,” and “sustained development.” You will hear them often. Translated these terms effectively mean total environmental dictatorship and the elevation of the pagan practice of the worship of Mother Earth – Gaia!
Agenda 21 is designed to control every aspect of human life on every square inch of planet earth – and man falls to the bottom of the food chain.
If Agenda 21 succeeds animals will become more important than man as will plants and trees. We can already see ample evidence of this process in motion today. Agenda 21’s real message is: “Man is the problem. Nature must be preserved and take precedence. Mother Earth must not be scratched.”
The 4 “E’s” of Agenda 21 are not what they appear:
Education = Indoctrination into believing that nature is more important than man and the group is more important than the individual. The new purpose of education is to learn values not facts. Students must become global, not American citizens.
Equity = Theft of private property, open borders, remove God, morality and responsibility.
Economy = Redistribution of America’s wealth to foreign countries by outsourcing jobs, factories and technology creating massive unemployment
Environment = Nature is more important than man. The new god is Mother Earth. Phony science creates phony regulations destroying energy independence and industry. Each policy and regulation is in place to control more and more of your life.
So WHAT is the REAL GOAL of Agenda 21?
In simple, direct terms, the Real Goal of Agenda 21 is for the Elitist Jews to take control of the whole world, including ALL the wealth of everyone in the world, including control of ALL the resources in every country in the world, and kill off
5 1/2 billion people – ALL “Gentiles” of course – and just keep enough people around to be their slaves.
The population of America, until they can be destroyed, will have their private property confiscated, will be forced to live in tiny high rise tenement buildings in large cities where they will not be allowed to have a car. They will walk to a job for which they will receive slave labor wages. On every floor of the tenement building will be an agent of the Secret Police who will keep track of the comings and goings of everyone in the building.
Lest you think that I am exaggerating, I visited the Soviet Union in 1988, a year before the Berlin Wall came down (which was nothing more than a propaganda stunt by the Communists to make the world think Communism was “dead”). I was traveling with a group of ten other Orthopedic Surgeons in a program to meet with Russian orthopedic surgeons to share information.
Our plane landed in Moscow where we stayed overnight in a hotel before flying on to Kurgan, in Siberia. Our passports were confiscated and we were assigned to a room in the hotel. As we got off the elevator to go to our respective rooms, we had to sign in with the Secret Police agent on that floor, as we did every time we left – or returned to – our hotel room.
The next day we flew on to Kurgan, a city of 350,000 people, a city that virtually no American has ever heard of. Even though this was mid-summer and the temperatures were in the 70’s, there was no grass and no flowers anywhere – just dirt. As “special physician guests from America” we were housed in the “best” hotel in Kurgan. Each hotel room was approximately 8’ X 10’ – the size of a prison cell – with one small window. The “bed” was a thin mattress laid on a wooden surface.
Before we started on our trip, each of us had been told to bring a golf ball, but we didn’t know the reason until we got to our hotel. The bathroom was about 3 1/2’ square with no bathtub or shower that we could see. The small sink had no stopper – which was why we were told to bring the golf ball to use as the stopper.
The toilet seat was made from plywood that was cut down the center of the board – long ways – exposing the rough inner part of the plywood, making it prone to delivering splinters.
We were told that the “shower” was in the ceiling in the center of the bathroom. So one would just stand there, turn the shower on, and water would soak everything including the sink and the toilet. There was a drain in the center of the floor.
But the biggest problem was that there was NO hot water. The City administrators turned off the hot water in the Spring – for the entire city – and turned it back on in the fall, when they felt it was appropriate. So one could only shower with freezing cold water – straight from the melted ice rivers of Siberia. Each morning, I could hear the screams of everyone up and down the hotel hallway as they showered.
Finally, because we were “special” Americans, the hotel provided a bucket of boiling water outside our door each morning. That was a gracious gesture but it was useless for the purpose of showering. It could be used in the sink – mixed with cold water – for the men to shave or for any of us to take a sponge bath.
I saw no private homes in this city of 350,000. Everyone lived in a high rise tenement. We American physicians were not allowed to talk to the Russian physicians we were visiting at any time other than over the operating table as we performed surgery. We were not allowed to eat with them, nor to visit them in their apartments.
However, under dark of night, at danger to ourselves and to them, we did – at their request – sneak into their apartments to talk. Physician families of six, parents and four children, were housed in an apartment of approximately 500 square feet. Physicians were paid less than bus drivers because the policy of the Communist state was that a physician – if he made a mistake – could only kill one person at a time whereas a bus driver – if he made an error – could kill a whole busload of people.
When we were visiting them in their tiny apartments, we had to speak in whispers so no other tenants could hear us because everyone was taught to be a snitch. We had to come to their apartments and leave from their apartments by the back stairs after given a special signal of “all clear.”
We American physicians were given the opportunity to visit an Art store in Kurgan, a shop that was kept locked continuously otherwise, so no resident of Kurgan had access to it. It contained reproductions of famous artists, and books of famous classical artists, and books of classical literature. All of us bought some of these books and painting reproductions to surreptitiously give to the Russian physicians who were not allowed to have anything of beauty.
We American surgeons were appalled at the instruments the Russian orthopedic surgeons were forced to use. The equipment was at least 50 years old and completely – and dangerously – rusty. There were no disposable needles, no antibiotics and no disposable surgical gowns. All needles were also rusty and had to be sterilized and re-used. And their sterilization techniques were from the previous century. The hospital was at least 100 years old.
There were virtually no cars on the street – except for an occasional “official.”. I wanted to buy a souvenir from my visit to Kurgan so I proceeded to the only department store in the city – GUM – pronounced goom, the abbreviation for the Russian words for “main universal store.” Unfortunately, there was nothing to be purchased. There were dozens of long, old wooden cases with glass tops, remnants also of the previous century, but all they contained were black combs endlessly lined up 2 inches apart. The rest of the merchandise was made of the cheapest plastic that wouldn’t even be sold in a 99 cent store in the U.S.
There were no grocery stores that I could find. However, little old ladies in their babushkas were lined up selling what they had produced in their “garden.” The average “seller” had no more than 6 items, for example: 2 small tomatoes, 1 straggly cucumber, and 3 green onions. I never found out where any other food was sold.
However, our hotel fed us (Americans) excellent food which was imported from Moscow, just for us. None of that food was available to the Russian people.
The Russian people look just like Americans. There were many young, beautiful girls, but they aged rapidly from their very difficult life. Our guide was a lovely, outgoing, young Russian woman who spoke excellent English. At one point she was telling us how excited she was for her upcoming vacation. But she couldn’t make final plans until she got her Visa – to travel to Moscow! – a city within her own country. The Russians were not allowed to travel even to another city without a visa from Moscow, the capital, requiring all travel plans to be registered with the state.
I had to leave a day earlier than the rest of the surgeons in my group, therefore I had to board a small plane, a commercial plane that carried about 30 passengers to take me from Kurgan to Moscow. The plane had to be at least 30 years old. The seats had less than one inch of padding that covered several metal bars that drilled into one’s backside during the trip. No food or beverage was served on the trip that lasted over an hour. There was one Flight attendant, a large, fierce looking woman in her mid-fifties, who looked like Nurse Ratched from the movie, “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.” If you never saw that movie, then the next best illustration would be a woman bouncer in a low class bar.
No one was allowed to get up from their seat at any time during the flight, even to go to the bathroom. (I’m not even sure there was a bathroom on the plane.) When we reached our destination at the Moscow airport, no one got up, so I stayed in my seat, too. Finally, when the prop engines were turned off, the pilots got off the plane and they were the ones who unloaded all the luggage.
At that point, “Nurse Ratched” came to me, pointed at me, and motioned me to go with her. She spoke no words. I followed her off the plane and a black car with dark tinted windows was waiting for me at the bottom of the stairs. The driver got out of the car and motioned me to get in. I’ll have to admit, I was not totally comfortable getting into that car, not knowing where I was being taken. Only then were the other passengers allowed to de-plane.
Fortunately, I was taken directly to the plane I was to board for my flight home from Moscow, where, for the first time since coming to the U.S.S.R, I was able to feel some sense of freedom.
The Soviet Union was – and is today – ruled by the Jews, the same Jews that rule America, China, and virtually every country in the world, except for Iran, North Korea, and a few others who are now on their “mopping up” agenda.
What I experienced in Kurgan was just a taste of what we can expect in America. Our Slave-masters are the same as those in Kurgan, Moscow, and the entire Soviet Union, and every other Communist country. Our lives will be worth nothing.
Back to Agenda 21
The Deliberate LIE of the story of “saving the environment” – which is actually being destroyed by these same Elitist Jews, not the population of the world – is nothing but a “cover” story to keep the people in the dark while the “Plan” proceeds at break-neck speed. After all, if people caught on to the truth of what is going on, they might make some attempt to survive!
This is nothing less than blatant, RAW, Communism! And we, the people, are paying for it. Cities, towns, and states are being seduced into destroying their own rights, and the rights of their fellow Americans, by federal grants and “easy” money to implement these diabolical plans.
Undoubtedly, residents of any town, county, or city in the United States that treasure their freedom, liberty, and property rights couldn’t care less whether it’s called Agenda 21 or smart growth. A recent example of this can be found in Carroll County, Maryland, where a smart growth plan called Pathways was drafted by the County Planning Department in 2009. It proposed a breathtaking reshuffling of land rights:
Rezoning of thousands of acres of beautiful, low-density agricultural farmland and protected residential conservation land into office parks
Down-zoning of agriculture land to prevent future subdivision by farmers
Up-zoning of low-density residential land around small towns into higher density zoning to permit construction of hundreds or possibly thousands of inclusive housing units, including apartments and condominiums
Inclusive housing with placement of multi-family construction on in-fill lots within existing residential single family communities
Endorsement of government-sponsored housing initiatives (subsidies) to ensure healthier, balanced neighborhoods
“Balanced” means putting prostitutes, drug addicts, street people, gang members, etc. as tenants in the same buildings with middle class families. This has been going on in San Francisco for years. Upper middle class Americans bought up-scale condominiums in up-scale high rise buildings in San Francisco only to see the City give HUGE subsidies (sometimes paying as much as $4,000 per month) to put these indigent people in the same building. Their goal? To destroy the value of the condominiums owned by the upper middle class thereby destroying the largest investment they owned.
The indigent people who were put in these buildings at great expense to the city would defecate in the elevators and in the hallways, leave trash everywhere, put graffiti all over everything inside and outside the building, buy and sell dope on the property, bring their thug friends into the building, and do everything possible to make the decent tenants miserable and frightened.
This is ALL part of the “Plan” of the elitist Jews.
How can the Jews have so much control over every city and town in America?
What the “Gentile” population does not understand is that the Jews have a Network around the world that cannot be rivaled by any other group. Not only was this admitted by Harold Rosenthal (obviously Jewish), the assistant to former New York Senator, Jacob Javits (also Jewish), in an interview by a Christian magazine editor (for which Rosenthal was later murdered by the Jews for divulging so much secret information), but I found this out personally about 18 years ago when I borrowed an expensive Poster Set-up from an Orthopedic Surgeon friend of mine, who graciously offered to let me use it. He also happened to be Jewish.
This specific Poster Set-up, which I used for a presentation at a meeting, was very large and quite bulky, so I drove the 100 miles to his home to pick it up. After I used it, I drove back to his home to return it. At that time, I wanted to say “Hello” to his wife, who was not at home the first time I came. I arrived early in the afternoon, and when he took me into the house I noticed that there were many long tables set up in the living room and dining room with tablecloths and place-settings all in order. I said, “Oh, she’s obviously preparing for a party.” He responded, “It’s our monthly Jewish meeting.” Then he continued, “All Jews all over the country meet once a month in every community to network. We also have Jewish speakers who come to inform us of what is going on elsewhere in the Jewish community.”
At that time, I didn’t understand the enormous significance of what he had just told me. Jews are regularly meeting in every local community, in every city, in every state, in the entire country. What is their goal? This “Mission Statement” from the website “Jewish Federation of the Desert” in the area where I live says it very well. (http://www.jfedps.org/index.aspx)
The Mission of the Jewish Federation of the Desert, as the central communal organization for the Jewish population for the Coachella Valley, is dedicated to promoting the values and quality of Jewish life. It is committed to fostering a continuity of Jewish life for future generations. The Federation is further committed to the unity of the Jewish people worldwide, the strengthening of the state of Israel, and the helping of Jews in need wherever they reside.
These meetings of the Jews in every city and town in America are not to foster community relationships with the rest of the population, or to make America a better place. They are only concerned with the “values and quality of Jewish life, the unity of the Jewish people worldwide, and the strengthening – NOT of America – but of the state of Israel!
What is euphemistically called the “Smart Growth” plan of Agenda 21 usurps property rights and constitutional rights. Local officials, at the behest of State Government, revise zoning laws to fit into a “smart code” zoning template. A massive reshuffling of property rights ensues. Farmers may lose subdivision rights; conservation land adjacent to population centers may be rezoned into commercial employment centers; and low-density land in small towns is re-designed as growth area and rezoned to accommodate diverse housing including high-density apartments and condominiums.
Most Americans will remain unaware of the implications of smart growth and Agenda 21 until after it is promulgated in their own backyards. Ironically, these plans are more insidious than the Eminent Domain ruling by the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v City of New London. Under Eminent Domain rulings, property owners usually receive compensation for their losses.
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan which promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues. The Court held in a 5–4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible “public use” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The city eventually agreed to move Susette Kelo’s house to a new location and to pay substantial additional compensation to other homeowners. The redeveloper was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an empty lot, which was eventually turned into a dump by the city. (Source: Wikipedia)
Conversely, smart growth municipal plans, required by statute, enable municipalities to change zoning laws and engage in other regulatory actions that devalue property, restrict off-conveyances, and otherwise erode property values without payment of any compensation to the property owner.
To show you how extensively Agenda 21 has infiltrated our community, we see the following:
California declares war on detached single family homes
A recent article on Infowars.com by Paul Joseph Watson is entitled, Single family houses to be virtually illegal under global warming laws. The state of California has declared war on detached family homes, with laws passed to mitigate car use and carbon dioxide emissions now leading to policies that mandate up to 30 homes be built on a single acre of land, fulfilling the goal of climate change alarmists to pack people into densely populated prison cities.
“Metropolitan area governments are adopting plans that would require most new housing to be built at 20 or 30 or more to the acre, which is at least five times the traditional quarter acre per house. State and regional planners also seek to radically restructure urban areas, forcing much of the new hyperdensity development into narrowly confined corridors,” reports the Wall Street Journal.
What is Re-Wilding?
Rewilding is defined as the return of habitats to a natural state – the reversal of human “domestication.” This will entail confiscating all private property, bulldozing it, re-introducing wild animals and natural fauna to the area, and moving all human beings into congested cities to live in tiny apartments in high-rise tenement buildings.
One of the major teachings of humanism is that man is no better than the animals. In fact, he is just an animal more highly evolved. However, top leaders of the New World Order Plan have taken this concept to a new, and more radical, plane. They are insisting that man has evolved into such a “predatory” animal, that he threatens all other animals, and Mother Earth (Gaia is her name) herself with extinction.
Man’s “predatory” nature now threatening the world is manifested in his pollution and destruction of the environment and his destruction of the many species of wildlife. Therefore, man is a dangerous “animal” that must be controlled by other men who have spiritually “evolved” into a higher state than the rest of us humans. Of course, these “more highly evolved” humans just so happen to be the ones who are controlling governments, global institutions, and armed forces today that are spearheading the drive to the New World Order! They have concocted many extreme environmental “crises” that are global in nature, and are being promoted by schools and various governmental agencies as “turning mankind upside down.”
The New World Order Plan envisions that over 50% of America will be set aside so that no human activity whatsoever can occur within these set aside areas. This plan is being implemented, right under our very noses, and always with the highest sounding rhetoric possible. Look at two specific instances where either Congress and/or the White House has been implementing this United Nations plan to set aside over 50% of all of America for the express purpose of denying human beings access to any of this land.
Here is a quote from one of the current leaders in this effort, Reed Noss, Director of The Wildlands Project:
“The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.” From “A Special Report: The Wildlands Project Unleashes Its War on Mankind” by Marilyn Brannan, Associate Editor, Monetary & Economic Review, p. 5
Let’s compare that quote by Reed Noss to what God, the Creator of the Universe, says in Genesis 1:27,28:
So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply and fill the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves about on the earth.”
Frankly, I’ll take the Word of God any day over the word of Reed Noss – whoever he is!
As you can see, since the New World Order’s plan for Population extermination and for the elevation of animals above man is directly opposed to what God has commanded, then the New World Order’s plan is right out of the mouth of Satan!
How is this Satanic Plan being implemented?
Senate Bill S-546, called the Northern Forest Stewardship Act would “acquire” 26 million acres of rural northern New England for the express purpose of shutting down the forests and rural communities of New England, thus denying any human activity!
But, you ask, what about the private owners of this “acquired” land? What about their rights?
“Landowners need not be notified until the final stages, when, according to one patronizing section of the bill, you will be ‘involved in a meaningful way that acknowledges your concerns about public land acquisition’ – before the acquisitions proceed regardless of your ‘concerns.’ Northern New England Land Grab Legislation, July 29, 1997, Kepi Newsletter.
In other words, you, the private property owner, will be notified just before your land is to be confiscated.
The second action that the Federal Government is using to attempt to enact this U.N. “Biodiversity” Plan, whereby over 50% of all of America will be denied human access, is an initiative called “American Heritage Rivers Initiative.”
Under this American Heritage Rivers Plan, “nomination of rivers can come from any source in or outside a ‘River Community.’ In other words, a river can be ‘nominated’ to be declared a Heritage River System, either by local residents or officials in Washington, D.C.
Once someone ‘nominates’ a river system under this plan, designation will be permanent. How convenient this little detail is!!! In other words, once a particular river system is nominated, no act of Congress will be able to change this designation.
But it gets worse! This designation can include the entire watershed! A major river system can run many, many thousands of miles, and can cut through dozens of states. Furthermore, these long rivers are fed by thousands of streams and smaller rivers, creating a watershed that is of enormous size!
Tens of millions of people will be affected.
This is clearly the Plan of the New World Order Jewish Elitists to control ALL the water in this country and eventually in the world. How easy it will then be to kill large segments of the population by thirst because of lack of water. That’s a lot faster than killing them by starvation.
In addition, by making huge tracts of land unavailable to the population by putting them under Federal control, this land will then be available for the Public-Private Partnership program in which they will be handed over by the Federal Government (already run from behind the scenes by the Jews) to the Jewish Elitist One-Worlders for their private property.
How does the Federal Government plan to initialize and carry out this vast program?
“Thirteen federal agencies will be involved in planning, implementation, manage- ment and enforcement. A federally appointed ‘River Navigator’ will control all land use and management activities in the area. Federal agencies will be granted ‘…flexibility from certain bureaucratic requirements’ allowing them to avoid rules that may now limit activity. Aerial photography and satellite surveillance will be used to police the program. Only the president has final approval of the initiative.”
In other words, the Federal officials that will be implementing this program will be bound by no rules and no laws that might prevent them from absolutely taking over!
This will also prevent anyone from moving to a rural area to “live off the land” and be independent!
Already the Mississippi River and the Willamette River in Oregon are included in the American Heritage Rivers. When you realize that the entire watershed system of these rivers are part of the River Heritage plan, you can see that huge amounts of territory in North America are permanently set aside.
I also have inside information that the Colorado River, with its huge watershed system, is to be placed in this program.
Where did this idea of Environmentalism come from?
How were we, the people of this country, declared to be the enemy of the earth?
The Report from Iron Mountain is a book published in 1967 (during the Johnson Administration) by Dial Press. It is a report of a secret government panel. The book states it was authored by a Special Study Group of fifteen men whose identities were to remain secret and that it was not intended to be made public. It details the analyses of a government panel which concludes that war, or a credible substitute for war, is necessary if governments are to maintain power and control over the people. The book was a New York Times bestseller and has been translated into fifteen languages.
According to the report, a 15-member panel, called the Special Study Group, was set up in 1963 to examine what problems would occur if the U.S. entered a state of lasting peace. They met at an underground nuclear bunker called Iron Mountain (as well as other, worldwide locations) and worked over the next two years. A member of the panel, one “John Doe”, a professor at a college in the Midwest, decided to release the report to the public.
The heavily footnoted report concluded that peace was not in the interest of a stable society, that even if lasting peace “could be achieved, it would almost certainly not be in the best interests of society to achieve it.” War was a part of the economy. Therefore, it was necessary to conceive a state of war for a stable economy. The government, the group theorized, would not exist without war, and nation states existed in order to wage war. War also served a vital function of diverting collective aggression. They recommended that bodies be created to emulate the economic functions of war. They also recommended “blood games” and that the government create alternative foes that would scare the people with reports of alien life-forms and out-of-control pollution. Another proposal was the reinstitution of slavery.
On November 26, 1976, the report was reviewed in the book section of The Washington Post by Herschel McLandress, the pen name for Harvard professor John Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith wrote that he knew firsthand of the report’s authenticity because he had been invited to participate in its creation; that although he was unable to be part of the official group, he was consulted from time to time and had been asked to keep the project secret; and that while he doubted the wisdom of letting the public know about the report, he agreed totally with its conclusions.
He wrote: “As I would put my personal reputation behind the authenticity of this document, so would I testify to the validity of its conclusions. My reservation relates only to the wisdom of releasing it to an obviously unconditioned public.”
Report From Iron Mountain: Using Fear to Make People Subservient to government
© 2002 by G. Edward Griffin
Freedom Force International
This is taken from Chapter 24 of The Creature from Jekyll Island
The substance of these stratagems [for the weakening of the United States so it can be more easily merged into a global government based on the model of collectivism] can be traced to a think-tank study released in 1966 called the Report from Iron Mountain. Although the origin of the report is highly debated, the document itself hints that it was commissioned by the Department of Defense under Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara and was produced by the Hudson Institute located at the base of Iron Mountain in Croton-on-Hudson, New York. The Hudson Institute was founded and directed by Herman Kahn, formerly of the Rand Corporation. Both McNamara and Kahn were members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
The self-proclaimed purpose of the study was to explore various ways to “stabilize society.” Praiseworthy as that may sound, a reading of the Report soon reveals that the word society is used synonymously with the word government. Furthermore, the word stabilize is used as meaning to preserve and to perpetuate. It is clear from the start that the nature of the study was to analyze the different ways a government can perpetuate itself in power, ways to control its citizens and prevent them from rebelling. It was stated at the beginning of the Report that morality was not an issue. The study did not address questions of right or wrong; nor did it deal with such concepts as freedom or human rights. Ideology was not an issue, nor patriotism, nor religious precepts. Its sole concern was how to perpetuate the existing government. The Report said:
Previous studies have taken the desirability of peace, the importance of human life, the superiority of democratic institutions, the greatest “good” for the greatest number, the “dignity” of the individual, the desirability of maximum health and longevity, and other such wishful premises as axiomatic values necessary for the justification of a study of peace issues. We have not found them so. We have attempted to apply the standards of physical science to our thinking, the principal characteristic of which is not quantification, as is popularly believed, but that, in Whitehead’s words, “…it ignores all judgments of value; for instance, all esthetic and moral judgments.” (1)
The major conclusion of the report was that, in the past, war has been the only reliable means to achieve that goal. It contends that only during times of war or the threat of war are the masses compliant enough to carry the yoke of government without complaint. Fear of conquest and pillage by an enemy can make almost any burden seem acceptable by comparison. War can be used to arouse human passion and patriotic feelings of loyalty to the nation’s leaders. No amount of sacrifice in the name of victory will be rejected. Resistance is viewed as treason. But, in times of peace, people become resentful of high taxes, shortages, and bureaucratic intervention. When they become disrespectful of their leaders, they become dangerous. No government has long survived without enemies and armed conflict. War, therefore, has been an indispensable condition for “stabilizing society.” These are the report’s exact words:
The war system not only has been essential to the existence of nations as independent political entities, but has been equally indispensable to their stable political structure. Without it, no government has ever been able to obtain acquiescence in its “legitimacy,” or right to rule its society. The possibility of war provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long remain in power. The historical record reveals one instance after another where the failure of a regime to maintain the credibility of a war threat led to its dissolution, by the forces of private interest, of reactions to social injustice, or of other disintegrative elements. The organization of society for the possibility of war is its principal political stabilizer…. It has enabled societies to maintain necessary class distinctions, and it has insured the subordination of the citizens to the state by virtue of the residual war powers inherent in the concept of nationhood. (2)
A NEW DEFINITION OF PEACE
The report then explains that we are approaching a point in history where the old formulas may no longer work. Why? Because it may now be possible to create a world government in which all nations will be disarmed and disciplined by a world army, a condition which will be called peace. The report says: “The word peace, as we have used it in the following pages, … implies total and general disarmament.” (3)
Under that scenario, independent nations will no longer exist and governments will not have the capability to wage war. There could be military action by the world army against renegade political subdivisions, but these would be called peace-keeping operations, and soldiers would be called peace keepers. No matter how much property is destroyed or how much blood is spilled, the bullets will be “peaceful” bullets and the bombs – even atomic bombs, if necessary – will be “peaceful” bombs.
The report then raises the question of whether there can ever be a suitable substitute for war. What else could the regional governments use – and what could the world government itself use – to legitimize and perpetuate itself? To provide an answer to that question was the stated purpose of the study.
The Report from Iron Mountain concludes that there can be no substitute for war unless it possesses three properties. It must (1) be economically wasteful, (2) represent a credible threat of great magnitude, and (3) provide a logical excuse for compulsory service to the government.
A SOPHISTICATED FORM OF SLAVERY
On the subject of compulsory service, the Report explains that one of the advantages of standing armies is that they provide a place for the government to put antisocial and dissident elements of society. In the absence of war, these forced-labor battalions would be told they are fighting poverty or cleaning up the planet or bolstering the economy or serving the common good in some other fashion. Every teenager would be required to serve – especially during those years in which young people are most rebellious against authority. Older people, too, would be drafted as a means of working off tax payments and fines. Dissidents would face heavy fines for “hate crimes” and politically incorrect attitudes so, eventually, they would all be in the forced-labor battalions. The Report says:
We will examine … the time-honored use of military institutions to provide anti-social elements with an acceptable role in the social structure. … The current euphemistic clichés – “juvenile delinquency” and “alienation” – have had their counterparts in every age. In earlier days these conditions were dealt with directly by the military without the complications of due process, usually through press gangs or outright enslavement. …
Most proposals that address themselves, explicitly or otherwise, to the postwar problem of controlling the socially alienated turn to some variant of the Peace Corps or the so-called Job Corps for a solution. The socially disaffected, the economically unprepared, the psychologically uncomfortable, the hard-core “delinquents,” the incorrigible “subversives,” and the rest of the unemployable are seen as somehow transformed by the disciplines of a service modeled on military precedent into more or less dedicated social service workers. …
Another possible surrogate for the control of potential enemies of society is the reintroduction, in some form consistent with modern technology and political processes, of slavery. … It is entirely possible that the development of a sophisticated form of slavery may be an absolute prerequisite for social control in a world at peace. As a practical matter, conversion of the code of military discipline to a euphemized form of enslavement would entail surprisingly little revision; the logical first step would be the adoption of some form of “universal” military service. (4)
The Report considered ways in which the public could be preoccupied with non-important activities so that it would not have time to participate in political debate or resistance. Recreation, trivial game shows, pornography, and situation comedies could play an important role, but blood games were considered to be the most promising of all the options. Blood games are competitive events between individuals or teams that are sufficiently violent in nature to enable the spectators to vicariously work off their frustrations. As a minimum, these events must evoke a passionate team loyalty on the part of the fans and must include the expectation of pain and injury on the part of the players. Even better for their purpose is the spilling of blood and the possibility of death. The common man has a morbid fascination for violence and blood. Crowds gather to chant “Jump! Jump!” at the suicidal figure on a hotel roof. Cars slow to a near stop on the highway to gawk at broken bodies next to a collision.
A schoolyard fight instantly draws a circle of spectators. Boxing matches and football games and hockey games and automobile races are telecast daily, attracting millions of cheering fans who give rapt attention to each moment of danger, each angry blow to the face, each broken bone, each knockout, each carrying away of the unconscious or possibly dying contestant. In this fashion, their anger at “society” is defused and focused, instead, on the opposing team. The emperors of Rome devised the Circuses and gladiator contests and public executions by wild beasts for precisely that purpose.
Before jumping to the conclusion that such concepts are absurd in modern times, recall that during the 1985 European soccer championship in Belgium, the spectators became so emotionally involved in the contest that a bloody riot broke out in the bleachers leaving behind 38 dead and more that 400 injured. U.S. News & World Report gives this account:
The root of the trouble: A tribal loyalty to home teams that surpasses an obsession and, say some experts, has become a substitute religion for many. The worst offenders include members of gangs such as Chelsea’s Anti-Personnel Firm, made up of ill-educated young males who find in soccer rivalry an escape from boredom.
Still, the British do not have a patent on soccer violence. On May 26, eight people were killed and more than 50 injured in Mexico City,… a 1964 stadium riot in Lima, Peru, killed more than 300 – and a hotly disputed 1969 match between El Salvador and Honduras led to a week-long shooting war between the two countries, causing hundreds of casualties.
The U.S. is criticized for the gridiron violence of its favorite sport, football, but outbursts in the bleachers are rare because loyalties are spread among many sports and national pride is not at stake. Said Thomas Tutko, professor of psychology at California’s San Jose State University: “In these other countries, it used to be their armies. Now it’s their competitive teams that stir passions.” (5)
Having considered all the ramifications of blood games, The Report from Iron Mountain concluded that they were not an adequate substitute for war. It is true that violent sports are useful distracters and do, in fact, allow an outlet for boredom and fierce group loyalty, but their effect on the nation’s psyche could not match the intensity of war hysteria. Until a better alternative could be found, world government would have to be postponed so that nations could continue to wage war.
FINDING A CREDIBLE GLOBAL THREAT
In time of war, most citizens uncomplainingly accept their low quality of life and remain fiercely loyal to their leaders. If a suitable substitute for war is to be found, then it must also elicit that same reaction. Therefore, a new enemy must be found that threatens the entire world, and the prospects of being overcome by that enemy must be just as terrifying as war itself. The Report is emphatic on that point:
Allegiance requires a cause; a cause requires an enemy. This much is obvious; the critical point is that the enemy that defines the cause must seem genuinely formidable. Roughly speaking, the presumed power of the “enemy” sufficient to warrant an individual sense of allegiance to a society must be proportionate to the size and complexity of the society. Today, of course, that power must be one of unprecedented magnitude and frightfulness. (6)
The first consideration in finding a suitable threat to serve as a global enemy was that it did not have to be real. A real one would be better, of course, but an invented one would work just as well, provided the masses could be convinced it was real. The public will more readily believe some fictions than others. Credibility would be more important than truth.
Poverty was examined as a potential global enemy but rejected as not fearful enough. Most of the world was already in poverty. Only those who had never experienced poverty would see it as a global threat. For the rest, it was simply a fact of everyday life.
An invasion by aliens from outer space was given serious consideration. The report said that experiments along those lines already may have been tried. Public reaction, however, was not sufficiently predictable, because the threat was not “credible.” Here is what the report had to say:
Credibility, in fact, lies at the heart of the problem of developing a political substitute for war. This is where the space-race proposals, in many ways so well suited as economic substitutes for war, fall short. The most ambitious and unrealistic space project cannot of itself generate a believable external menace. It has been hotly argued that such a menace would offer the “last best hope of peace,” etc., by uniting mankind against the danger of destruction by “creatures” from other planets or from outer space. Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain “flying saucer” incidents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind. If so, they could hardly have been judged encouraging. (7)
This report was released in 1966 when the idea of an alien presence seemed far fetched to the average person. In the ensuing years, however, that perception has changed. A growing segment of the population now believes that intelligent life forms may exist beyond our planet and could be monitoring our own civilization. Whether that belief is right or wrong is not the issue here. The point is that a dramatic encounter with aliens shown on network television – even if it were to be entirely fabricated by high-tech computer graphics or laser shows in the sky – could be used to stampede all nations into world government supposedly to defend the Earth from invasion. On the other hand, if the aliens were perceived to have peaceful intent, an alternative scenario would be to form world government to represent a unified human species speaking with a single voice in some kind of galactic federation. Either scenario would be far more credible today than in 1966.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL-POLLUTION MODEL
The final candidate for a useful global threat was pollution of the environment. This was viewed as the most likely to succeed because it could be related to observable conditions such as smog and water pollution– in other words, it would be based partly on fact and, therefore, be credible. Predictions could be made showing end-of-earth scenarios just as horrible as atomic warfare. Accuracy in these predictions would not be important. Their purpose would be to frighten, not to inform. It might even be necessary to deliberately poison the environment to make the predictions more convincing and to focus the public mind on fighting a new enemy, more fearful than any invader from another nation – or even from outer space. The masses would more willingly accept a falling standard of living, tax increases, and bureaucratic intervention in their lives as simply “the price we must pay to save Mother Earth.” A massive battle against death and destruction from global pollution possibly could replace war as justification for social control.
Did The Report from Iron Mountain really say that? It certainly did – and much more. Here are just a few of the pertinent passages:
When it comes to postulating a credible substitute for war … the “alternate enemy” must imply a more immediate, tangible, and directly felt threat of destruction. It must justify the need for taking and paying a “blood price” in wide areas of human concern. In this respect, the possible substitute enemies noted earlier would be insufficient. One exception might be the environmental-pollution model, if the danger to society it posed was genuinely imminent. The fictive models would have to carry the weight of extraordinary conviction, underscored with a not inconsiderable actual sacrifice of life. … It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. …
It is true that the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for this purpose. … But the pollution problem has been so widely publicized in recent years that it seems highly improbable that a program of deliberate environmental poisoning could be implemented in a politically acceptable manner.
However unlikely some of the possible alternative enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration. It is more probable, in our judgment, that such a threat will have to be invented. (8)
The Report from Iron Mountain explains the reality that surrounds us. The concepts presented in it are now being implemented in almost every detail. All one has to do is hold the Report in one hand and the daily newspaper in the other to realize that every major trend in American life is conforming to the blueprint. So many things that otherwise are incomprehensible suddenly become clear: foreign aid, wasteful spending, the destruction of American industry, a job corps, gun control, a national police force, the apparent demise of Soviet power, a UN army, disarmament, a world bank, a world money, the surrender of national independence through treaties, and the ecology hysteria. The Report from Iron Mountain is an accurate summary of the plan that has already created our present. It is now shaping our future.
ENVIRONMENTALISM A SUBSTITUTE FOR WAR
It is beyond the scope of this study to prove that currently accepted predictions of environmental doom are based on exaggerated and fraudulent “scientific studies.” But such proof is easily found if one is willing to look at the raw data and the assumptions upon which the projections are based. More important, however, is the question of why end-of-world scenarios based on phony scientific studies – or no studies at all – are uncritically publicized by the CFR-controlled media; or why radical environmental groups advocating collectivist doctrine and anti-business programs are lavishly funded by CFR-dominated foundations, banks, and corporations, the very groups that would appear to have the most to lose. The Report from Iron Mountain answers those questions.
As the Report pointed out, truth is not important in these matters. It’s what people can be made to believe that counts. “Credibility” is the key, not reality. There is just enough truth in the fact of environmental pollution to make predictions of planetary doom in the year two-thousand-something seem believable. All that is required is media cooperation and repetition. The plan has apparently worked. People of the industrialized nations have been subjected to a barrage of documentaries, dramas, feature films, ballads, poems, bumper stickers, posters, marches, speeches, seminars, conferences, and concerts. The result has been phenomenal. Politicians are now elected to office on platforms consisting of nothing more than an expressed concern for the environment and a promise to clamp down on those nasty industries. No one questions the damage done to the economy or the nation. It makes no difference when the very planet on which we live is sick and dying. Not one in a thousand will question that underlying premise. How could it be false? Look at all the movie celebrities and rock stars who have joined the movement.
While the followers of the environmental movement are preoccupied with visions of planetary doom, let us see what the leaders are thinking. The first Earth Day was proclaimed on April 22, 1970, at a “Summit” meeting in Rio de Janeiro, attended by environmentalists and politicians from all over the world. A publication widely circulated at that meeting was entitled the Environmental Handbook. The main theme of the book was summarized by a quotation from Princeton Professor Richard A. Falk, a member of the CFR. Falk wrote that there are four interconnected threats to the planet – wars of mass destruction, overpopulation, pollution, and the depletion of resources. Then he said: “The basis of all four problems is the inadequacy of the sovereign states to manage the affairs of mankind in the twentieth century.” (14)
The Handbook continued the CFR line by asking these rhetorical questions: “Are nation-states actually feasible, now that they have power to destroy each other in a single afternoon?… What price would most people be willing to pay for a more durable kind of human organization – more taxes, giving up national flags, perhaps the sacrifice of some of our hard-won liberties?” (15)
In 1989, the CFR-owned Washington Post published an article written by CFR member George Kennan in which he said: “We must prepare instead for … an age where the great enemy is not the Soviet Union, but the rapid deterioration of our planet as a supporting structure for civilized life.” (16)
On March 27, 1990, in the CFR-controlled New York Times, CFR member Michael Oppenheimer wrote: “Global warming, ozone depletion, deforestation and overpopulation are the four horsemen of a looming 21st century apocalypse. … as the cold war recedes, the environment is becoming the No. 1 international security concern.” (17)
CFR member, Lester Brown, heads up another think tank called the Worldwatch Institute. In the Institute’s annual report, entitled State of the World 1991, Brown said that “the battle to save the planet will replace the battle over ideology as the organizing theme of the new world order.” (18)
In the official publication of the 1992 Earth Summit, we find this: “The world community now faces together greater risks to our common security through our impacts on the environment than from traditional military conflicts with one another.”
How many times does it have to be explained? The environmental movement was created by the CFR. It is a substitute for war that they hope will become the emotional and psychological foundation for world government.
HUMANITY ITSELF IS THE TARGET
The Club of Rome is a group of global planners who annually release end-of-world scenarios based on predictions of overpopulation and famine. Their membership is international, but the American roster includes such well-known CFR members as Jimmy Carter, Harlan Cleveland, Claiburne Pell, and Sol Linowitz. Their solution to overpopulation? A world government to control birth rates and, if necessary, euthanasia. That is a gentle word for the deliberate killing of the old, the weak, and of course the uncooperative. Following the same reasoning advanced at Iron Mountain, the Club of Rome has concluded that fear of environmental disaster could be used as a substitute enemy for the purpose of unifying the masses behind its program. In its 1991 book entitled The First Global Revolution, we find this:
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. … All these dangers are caused by human intervention. … The real enemy, then, is humanity itself. (19)
Collectivist theoreticians have always been fascinated by the possibility of controlling population growth. It excites their imaginations because it is the ultimate bureaucratic plan. If the real enemy is humanity itself, as the Club of Rome says, then humanity itself must become the target. Fabian Socialist Bertrand Russell expressed it thus:
I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. … War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. …
A scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is world government. … It will be necessary to find ways of preventing an increase in world population. If this is to be done otherwise than by wars, pestilences and famines, it will demand a powerful international authority. This authority should deal out the world’s food to the various nations in proportion to their population at the time of the establishments of the authority. If any nation subsequently increased its population, it should not on that account receive any more food. The motive for not increasing population would therefore be very compelling. (21)
Very compelling, indeed. These quiet-spoken collectivists are not kidding around. For example, one of the most visible “environmentalists” and advocate of population control was Jacques Cousteau. Interviewed by the United Nations UNESCO Courier in November of 1991, Cousteau spelled it out. He said:
What should we do to eliminate suffering and disease? It is a wonderful idea but perhaps not altogether a beneficial one in the long run. If we try to implement it we may jeopardize the future of our species. It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized, and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it, but it is just as bad not to say it. (22)
GORBACHEV BECOMES AN ECOLOGY WARRIOR
We can now understand how Mikhail Gorbachev, formerly the leader of one of the most repressive governments the world has known, became head of a new organization called the International Green Cross, which supposedly is dedicated to environmental issues. Gorbachev has never denounced collectivism, only the label of a particular brand of collectivism called Communism. His real interest is not ecology but world government with himself assured a major position in the collectivist power structure. In a public appearance in Fulton, Missouri, he praised the Club of Rome, of which he is a member, for its position on population control. Then he said:
One of the worst of the new dangers is ecological. … Today, global climatic shifts; the greenhouse effect; the “ozone hole”; acid rain; contamination of the atmosphere, soil and water by industrial and household waste; the destruction of the forests; etc. all threaten the stability of the planet. (23)
Gorbachev proclaimed that global government was the answer to these threats and that the use of government force was essential. He said: “I believe that the new world order will not be fully realized unless the United Nations and its Security Council create structures … authorized to impose sanctions and make use of other measures of compulsion.” (24)
Here is an arch criminal who fought his way up through the ranks of the Soviet Communist Party, became the protégé of Yuri Andropov, head of the dreaded KGB, was a member of the USSR’s ruling Politburo throughout the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and who was selected by the Politburo in 1985 as the supreme leader of world Communism. All of this was during one of the Soviet’s most dismal periods of human-rights violations and subversive activities against the free world. Furthermore, he ruled over a nation with one of the worst possible records of environmental destruction. At no time while he was in power did he ever say or do anything to show concern over planet Earth.
All that is now forgotten. Gorbachev has been transformed by the CFR-dominated media into an ecology warrior. He is calling for world government and telling us that such a government will use environmental issues as justification for sanctions and other “measures of compulsion.” We cannot say that we were not warned.
U.S. BRANDED AS ECOLOGICAL AGGRESSOR
The use of compulsion is an important point in these plans. People in the industrialized nations are not expected to cooperate in their own demise. They will have to be forced. They will not like it when their food is taken for global distribution. They will not approve when they are taxed by a world authority to finance foreign political projects. They will not voluntarily give up their cars or resettle into smaller houses or communal barracks to satisfy the resource-allocation quotas of a UN agency. Club-of-Rome member Maurice Strong states the problem:
In effect, the United States is committing environmental aggression against the rest of the world. … At the military level, the United States is the custodian. At the environmental level, the United States is clearly the greatest risk. … One of the worst problems in the United States is energy prices – they’re too low. …
It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class … involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and `convenience’ foods, ownership of motor-vehicles, numerous electric household appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning … expansive suburban housing … are not sustainable. (25)
Mr. Strong’s remarks were enthusiastically received by world environmental leaders, but they prompted this angry editorial response in the Arizona Republic:
Translated from eco-speak, this means two things: (1) a reduction in the standard of living in Western nations through massive new taxes and regulations, and (2) a wholesale transfer of wealth from industrialized to under-developed countries. The dubious premise here is that if the U.S. economy could be reduced to, say, the size of Malaysia’s, the world would be a better place. … Most Americans probably would balk at the idea of the U.N. banning automobiles in the U.S. (26)
Who is this Maurice Strong who sees the United States as the environmental aggressor against the world? Does he live in poverty? Does he come from a backward country that is resentful of American prosperity? Does he himself live in modest circumstances, avoiding consumption in order to preserve our natural resources? None of the above. He is one of the wealthiest men in the world. He lives and travels in great comfort. He is a lavish entertainer. In addition to having great personal wealth derived from the oil industry in Canada – which he helped nationalize – Maurice Strong was the Secretary-General of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio; head of the 1972 UN Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm; the first Secretary-General of the UN Environment Program; president of the World Federation of United Nations; co-chairman of the World Economic Forum; member of the Club of Rome; trustee of the Aspen Institute; and a director of the World Future Society. That is probably more than you wanted to know about this man, but it is necessary in order to appreciate the importance of what follows.
A PLOT FOR ECONOMIC CRISIS
Maurice Strong believes – or says that he believes – the world’s ecosystems can be preserved only if the affluent nations of the world can be disciplined into lowering their standard of living. Production and consumption must be curtailed. To bring that about, those nations must submit to rationing, taxation, and political domination by world government. They will probably not do that voluntarily, he says, so they will have to be forced. To accomplish that, it will be necessary to engineer a global monetary crisis which will destroy their economic systems. Then they will have no choice but to accept assistance and control from the UN.
This strategy was revealed in the May, 1990, issue of West magazine, published in Canada. In an article entitled “The Wizard of Baca Grande,” journalist Daniel Wood described his week-long experience at Strong’s private ranch in southern Colorado. This ranch has been visited by such CFR notables as David Rockefeller, Secretary-of-State Henry Kissinger, founder of the World Bank Robert McNamara, and the presidents of such organizations as IBM, Pan Am, and Harvard.
During Wood’s stay at the ranch, the tycoon talked freely about environmentalism and politics. To express his own world view, he said he was planning to write a novel about a group of world leaders who decided to save the planet. As the plot unfolded, it became obvious that it was based on real people and real events. Wood continues the story:
Each year, he explains as background to the telling of the novel’s plot, the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attend meetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead. With this as a setting, he then says: “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? … The group’s conclusion is `no.’ the rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? …
“This group of world leaders,” he continues, “form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse. It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists. They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodity and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock exchanges and computers and gold supplies, a panic. Then, they prevent the world’s stock markets from closing. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostages. The markets can’t close. The rich countries…” And Strong makes a slight motion with his fingers as if he were flicking a cigarette butt out the window.
I sit there spellbound. This is not any storyteller talking, this is Maurice Strong. He knows these world leaders. He is, in fact, co-chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum. He sits at the fulcrum of power. He is in a position to do it.“I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this,” he says. (27)
Maurice Strong’s fanciful plot probably shouldn’t be taken too seriously, at least in terms of a literal reading of future events. It is unlikely they will unfold in exactly that manner – although it is not impossible. For one thing, it would not be necessary to hold the leaders of the industrialized nations at gun point. They would be the ones engineering this plot. Leaders from Third-World countries do not have the means to cause a global crisis. That would have to come from the money centers in New York, London, or Tokyo. Furthermore, the masterminds behind this thrust for global government have always resided in the industrialized nations. They have come from the ranks of the CFR in America and from other branches of the International Roundtable in England, France, Belgium, Canada, Japan, and elsewhere. They are the ideological descendants of Cecil Rhodes and they are fulfilling his dream.
It is not important whether or not Maurice Strong’s plot for global economic collapse is to be taken literally. What is important is that men like him are thinking along those lines. As Wood pointed out, they are in a position to do it. Or something like it. If it is not this scenario, they will consider another one with similar consequences. If history has proven anything, it is that men with financial and political power are quite capable of heinous plots against their fellow men. They have launched wars, caused depressions, and created famines to suit their personal agendas. We have little reason to believe that the world leaders of today are more saintly than their predecessors.
Furthermore, we must not be fooled by pretended concern for Mother Earth. The call-to-arms for saving the planet is a gigantic ruse. There is just enough truth to environmental pollution to make the show “credible,” as The Report from Iron Mountain phrased it, but the end-of-earth scenarios which drive the movement forward are bogus. The real objective in all of this is world government, the ultimate doomsday mechanism from which there can be no escape. Destruction of the economic strength of the industrialized nations is merely a necessary prerequisite for ensnaring them into the global web. The thrust of the current ecology movement is directed totally to that end.***********
by G. Edward Griffin.
It may be obtained at www.realityzone.com.
1 Leonard Lewin, ed., Report from Iron Mountain on the possibility and the Desirability of Peace (New York: Dell Publishing, 1976), pp.13-14.
2 Ibid. pp. 39, 81.
3 Ibid. p. 9. 3
4 Ibid., pp. 41-42,68, 70.
5 “British Soccer’s Day of Shame,” U.S. News & World Report, June 10, 1985, p. 11.
6 Lewin, Report, p. 44. 6
7 Ibid., p. 66. 7
8 Ibid., pp. 66-67, 70-71. When the Report was written, terrorism had not yet been considered as a substitute for war. Since then, it has become the most useful of them all.
9 “News of War and Peace You’re Not Ready For,” by Herschel McLandress, Book World, in The Washington Post, Nov. 26, 1967, p. 5.
10 “The Times Diary,” London Times, Feb. 5, 1968, p.8.
11 “Galbraith Says He Was Misquoted, “ London Times, Feb. 6, 1968, p. 3.
12 “Touche, Professor,” London Times, Feb. 12, 1968, p, 8. 9
13 “Report from Iron Mountain,” New Your Times, March 19, 1968, p. 8. 10
14 Garrett de Bell, ed., The Environmental Handbook (New York: Ballantine / Friends of the Earth, 1970), p. 138.
15 Ibid., p. 145.
16 A Europe Now Free from A Confining Cold War Vision,” by George Kennan, (Washington Post syndication, Sacramento Bee, Nov. 14, 1989, p. B7.
17 The New York Times has been one of the principal means by which CFR policies are inserted into the mainstream of public opinion. The paper was purchased in 1896 by Alfred Ochs, with financial backing from CFR pioneer J.P. Morgan, Rothchild agent August Belmont, and Jacob Schiff, a partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Co. It is now owned by CFR member Arthur Sulzberger, who is also the publisher, and it is staffed by numerous CFR editors and columnists. See Shadows of Power by James Perloff (Appleton, Wisconsin: Western Islands, 1988), p. 181.
18 Lester R. Brown, “The New World Order,” in Lester R. Brown et al., State of the World 1991; A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Toward A Sustainable Society (New York: W.W. Norton, 1991), p. 3.
19 Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution, A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome, (New York: Pantheon Books, 1991). P. 115.
20 See Martin, Rose, Fabian Freeway; High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A. (Boston: Western Islands, 1966), pp. 171, 325, 463-69.
21 Bertrand Arthur William Russell, The Impact of Science on Society (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1953), pp. 103-104, 111.
22 Interviewed by Bahgat Eluadi and Adel Rifaat, Courrier de l’Unesco, Nov. 1991, p. 13.
23 Michail Gorbachev, “The River of Time and the Necessity of Action,” 46th John Findley Greed Foundation Lecture, Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri, May 6, 1992, transcript from Westminster College Department of Press Relations, p. 6.
24 Ibid., p. 9. 14
25 “Ecology Remedy Costly,” (AP), Sacramento Bee, March 12, 1992, p. A8. Also Maurice Strong, Introduction to Jim MacNeil, Pieter Winsemius, and Taizo Yakushiji, Beyond Interdependence, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. ix.
26 “Road to Ruin,” Arizona Republic, March 26, 1992.
27 “The Wizard of Baca Grande.” By Daniel Wood, West magazine, May 1990, p. 35.