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

September 24, 2012 2 Comments

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

Former Costa Rican president, Jose María Figueres Olsen.

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

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

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

Who is this man and what are his ideas?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Takeover

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Implementation Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marketing and Propaganda

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

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

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

The Figueres Connection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under English, Latin America, Special Reports, World Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“Legalize Prostitution” says United Nations Commission

July 24, 2012 1 Comment

If you had any doubt that the UN is on a race to destroy society and the family as the base of social unity, here is another example of such an agenda.

By AMANDA SWYSGOOD | CNS NEWS | JULY 24, 2012

A report issued by the United Nations-backed Global Commission on HIV and the Law; recommends that nations around the world get rid of “punitive” laws against prostitution – or what it calls “consensual sex work” — and decriminalize the voluntary use of illegal injection drugs in order to combat the HIV epidemic.

The commission, which is made up of 15 former heads of state, legal scholars and HIV/AIDS activists, was convened in 2010 by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and is jointly backed by the United Nations Development Programme and UNAIDS – the Joint U.N. Programme on AIDS/HIV.

The commission recommends repealing all laws that prohibit “adult consensual sex work,” as well as clearly distinguishing in law and practice between sexual trafficking and prostitution.

The report–“HIV and the Law: Risks, Rights & Health”–cites a recommendation by the International Labour Organization, which recommends that “sex work” should be recognized as an occupation in order to be regulated “in a way that protects workers and customers.”

Specifically, the commission wants to:

– “Decriminalise private and consensual adult sexual behaviours, including same-sex sexual acts and voluntary sex work.”

– “Reform approaches towards drug use. Rather than punishing people who use drugs but do no harm to others, governments must offer them access to elective HIV and health services, including harm reduction programmes and voluntary, evidence-based treatment for drug dependence.”

– “Work with the guardians of customary and religious law to promote traditions and religious practice that promote rights and acceptance of diversity and that protect privacy.”

The commission calls laws against prostitution “bad laws,” and said criminalizing injecting drug use and prostitution stands in the way of “effective HIV responses.”

“Laws that criminalize and dehumanize populations at the highest risk of HIV–including men who have sex with men, sex workers, transgender people and injecting drug users–drive people underground, away from essential health services and heighten their risk of HIV,” the commission said in a July 9 press release announcing the report.

The commission says 116 countries and territories have punitive laws against sex work and 80 countries or territories have some legal protections for sex workers.

According to the report: “Some governments deploy anti-human trafficking laws so broadly that they conflate voluntary and consensual exchanges of sex for money with the exploitative, coerced, often violent trafficking of people (primarily women and girls) for the purposes of sex.”

The report quotes Secretary-General Ban, who stated his support in 2009 for removing all laws which criminalize “sex workers” – or prostitutes.

“I urge all countries to remove punitive laws, policies and practices that hamper the AIDS response,” Ban said. “Successful AIDS responses do not punish people: they protect them. We must ensure that AIDS responses are based on evidence, not ideology, and reach those most in need and most affected.”

Other recommendations include: abolishing national drug registries and mandatory HIV testing, and shutting down all compulsory drug detention centers and replacing them with voluntary services for treating drug abuse.

The commission specifically recommended that the United States should also repeal its federal ban on funding of needle and syringe exchange services that inhibit access to HIV services for people who inject drugs.

Dr. Janice Crouse, the director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute at Concerned Women for America in Washington, D.C., says the proposal to redefine and decriminalize prostitution worldwide is not new.

“(L)iberals have always used the term ‘sex work’ instead of prostitution,” Crouse told CNSNews.com.

“They like to legitimize the whole industry that way so that it can be regulated and so that it can be considered a ‘legitimate option’ for women and give it more respectability. But, the sad fact is in every instance where prostitution has been legalized, illegal prostitution has flourished,” she said.

“The pimps all want prostitution legalized; they like that. The sex traffickers want it legalized because they gain far more traction with their own illegal activities anytime that is the case – it’s happened in Germany, it happened in Amsterdam, it’s been shown over and over again.”

Linking the elimination of laws against “sex work” with AIDS is a cop out, according to Crouse, because it ignores the role of behavior change and personal responsibility.

“It’s fascinating to me the way they (the report’s authors) dance around to avoid addressing the issue of behavior and to avoid the issue of consequences of promiscuity,” Crouse said.

“This is an example; they don’t want anything that would suggest to anybody that they ought to curb their sexual behavior. They don’t want anything to curb anybody’s enjoyment of sexual activity without consequences and all of this is an attempt to mainstream behaviors and then deal with the consequences — and that plan does not work.”

The U.N.-backed commission interviewed prostitutes, activists and public health advocates in 140 countries across the world to come to its conclusions.

The study received funding from the governments of Canada, Norway, Australia, the U.S. (through USAID) and from billionaire Geroge Soros through his Open Society Foundations.

Filed under Africa, Asia, English, Latin America, North America, Politics, World Tagged with , , , , ,

The United Nations Plan to Disarm You and Arm itself

July 20, 2012 1 Comment

This is the Treaty that no citizen of any country should allow public servants to introduce, adopt or vote in favor of; neither in part nor in full.

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JULY 20, 2012

Everyone knows the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or at least has heard about some of the most important rights that it contains. There are, however, two articles I’d like to concentrate on as a preamble to the main topic of this article. Those articles are number 28 and number 29. So let’s cite them here in full and try to understand their implications.

Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads as follows:

“Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.“

Please understand that the United Nations was created back in 1945, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was officially adopted on December 10, 1948 in Paris France. That is just three years after the creation of the United Nations itself. Now, please call me a conspiracy theorist if you want, but does not article 28 resemble a lot the type of speech the politicians of the world and the main stream media have been filling airtime with for the past three to five years? What article 28 basically says is that we are all entitled to a World Order. If this term is new to you, please do your own research and get yourself familiar with it. An international social order is what Bankers, Politicians and main stream media outlets have been claiming for more strongly in the past 24 months.

Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is closely related to the next article; number 29. In essence, article 28 says that we are entitled to having an international social order in which the content set on the declaration is fully realized. So, let’s tie it to the following article in order to understand the magnitude of their meaning before we move on.

Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads as follows:

“Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

The complete article 29 has serious implications, but it is especially the last sentence, together with article 28, what should make anyone who the most minimum sense of self-preservation fall off their chair. What the last sentence of article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights means is that all of the rights supposedly given to any person under that declaration are void, should such rights are exercised in a manner that opposes the principles that govern the United Nations. So, on one side we have an organization that specifically intends to create a world order, and on the other it affirms their intention to limit or eliminate a human’s rights if it considers that those rights infringe its own existence.

If this connection between articles 28 and 29 are not serious enough to get you moving, let me add another caveat. The United Nations as an organization possesses the legal standing of a person. Although it sounds paradoxical, it is exactly as it is written. The UN is an organization conceived by monopoly men that is legally understood as being a person.

Please keep the information presented up to this point when reading further.

A few years ago, rumors about how the United Nations was considering some kind of non-binding agreement or treaty that would ask member nations to adopt tighter arms controls saw the day of light. At that point, it all seemed unclear and mere speculation. Then, the supposed idea for the creation of a non-binding agreement got a name. Today, it is publicly being identified as the Arms Trade Treaty. Although its name suggests that this may be a kind of plan to limit, control or prohibit the sale of arms as a way to avoid so-called illegal arms trade, — of the kind of Fast&Furious — it is not so.

As the title of this article describes it, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), is the beginning of the United Nations’ plan to carry out a globe wide disarmament of every nation on the planet, and with it the effective disarmament of each and every single person who lives in those nations. As expected, the warnings regarding the repercussions that such a treaty would have on the right to keep and bear arms, which exists in many countries, began immediately. Most of those warnings are sounding in countries like the United States, where 130 Congressmen wrote to Barack Obama voicing their concerns:

“We write to express our concerns regarding the negotiation of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), the text of which is expected to be finalized at a conference to be held in New York during the month of July…. The U.S. must not accept an ATT that infringes on our constitutional rights, particularly the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms that is protected by the Second Amendment.”

In addition to Congress, the National Riffle Association (NRA) also sounded the alarms on June 29, warning about the threat that the ATT poses to the rights of the citizens, which it believes, would be violated if the United States were to adopt or accept such a treaty:

“… the Senate has final say on treaties, and stating their unequivocal opposition to any treaty that would affect civilian ownership of firearms, challenge the authority of Congress to regulate firearms within the United States, or call for an international gun registry.”

Although most of the text of the treaty now being discussed in New York has been kept off the public eyes, some very revealing portions were made available which help us understand what this treaty intends to achieve. Take a look at the following sentence: “United Nations agencies have come across many situations in which various types of conventional weapons have been … misused by lawful owners”. That is why the UN is now proposing that a new Arms Trade Treaty be created to “regulate in ways that would … minimize the risk of misuse of legally owned weapons.” So the ATT is meant to regulate those people who right now own fire arms because the UN thinks that some owners have, or may in the future misuse the existing laws that govern over the purchase, sale and possession of fire arms in each country.

As explained by Larry Greenly in his article Oppose Signing and Ratification of the UN Arms Treaty, the United Nations considers gun ownership a failure and is proposing an arms treaty in order to curtail such a ‘failure’. Mr. Greenly correctly states that “the U.N. regards gun ownership — even under national constitutional protection and for lawful activities — as a cultural failure that it needs to redress and that it has no patience at all with the idea that self-defense is an inherent right.”

Remember that idea that the treaty was not going to be binding? Well, the tides have changed and now the UN is talking about a completely binding resolution for all of the signing member states. What reason does the UN and its supporting institutions provide to agree on and enact an arms treaty? “It has been estimated that approximately three quarters of a million people are killed each year in armed violence. Millions more lives are blighted through injury, displacement and destroyed livelihoods,” said UN Foreign Office Minister, Alistair Burt. At this point it is important to bring up the fact that during the 20th century, governments murdered between 260,000,000 and 350,000,000 people. Doesn’t it make more sense then to create a treaty that did away with violent forms of government if all we want is to protect people from dangerous, irresponsible use of arms?

Despite Congress and the NRA showing their concern about the ATT, there are still people, especially in the blogosphere and forums who say that, even if approved, the treaty wouldn’t have any impact, because this kind of agreements cannot overwrite the Constitution. That is exactly what everyone thought before the National Defense Authorization Act was approved, before the Patriot Act was passed, before Barack Obama said he would govern by issuing executive orders if he had to, before he and Leon Panetta said that the Pentagon did not need permission from Congress to carry out wars abroad, if the UN authorized them. If that type of discourse is not clear enough to understand that the UN and the corporations that founded it are in charge, then these bloggers and forum participants are missing a screw.

The Arms Trade Treaty is also underestimated because some of its details resemble or originate from ideas contained in the 1961 Freedom from War document signed by John Kennedy. Let’s see what that document says. Among its objectives and goals, the text says that nation-states adhere to common standards of justice and international conduct. This is reinforced by the principles established in the document, which say that “As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations must be progressively strengthened”. The disarmament of all nations is scheduled in three stages. In stage 2, the plan is the “establishment of a permanent international peace force within the United Nations.” In other words, the Freedom from War treaty is a United Nations strengthening, nation-state weakening tool, which would be further empowered by the new Arms Trade Treaty, which would give a global reach to the powers already vested upon the UN.

An interesting point to make about the Freedom from War document and the new United Nations Arms Trade Treaty is that in both cases the language used to describe the goals, stages, requirements and so on are so vague, that it simply invites any interpretation that the people that get the power desire to adopt. That right there is the most dangerous part of the whole issue. Vagueness invites abuse and abuse brings about repression.

When it comes to learning our lessons, especially the ones related to tyranny, there isn’t a better way to do so than by looking back to history. In this case, we will look at the history of the United Nations preparation for the period of time we are entering into right now, and that period is the one where the UN will make a strong push to disarm all nations and its citizens. One reference for the analysis of recent history takes us to the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research. Another reference is a document called Removing Military Weapons from Civilian Hands.

When describing the use of small weapons by citizens or civilians, the above cited document says that “such weapons make it increasingly difficult for society to rebuild itself following a period of conflict… … This reality makes it more difficult for the State to regain the monopoly of force“. The United Nations believes that the government monopoly of force should be the standard state of affairs. As explained and sourced earlier, we all know by studying history, what a government monopoly of force resulted in last century. So, why would the UN be advocating for a step back in the direction of the mass murder of hundreds of millions of people?

The reason why the UN promotes a monopoly of force in the hands of the States is because while this organization is working hard on disarming individuals, it is also working even harder to become the sole policing power of the planet. It will be in complete power of the most dangerous weapons that exist today, if nations decide to go along the propaganda put out by the UN to “live free from war” which would turn the UN in the unique administrator of all weapons, small and large. What advantages would exist if people were completely disarmed?

For starters, “it would make it hard for anyone to lobby for the maintenance of the people’s right to keep and bear arms,” says the document, because the UN’s initiative would be seen as an effort offer people safety from guns. This view of what the right to keep and bear arms means comes from the idea that people owning guns is about them being able to go hunting whenever they please. Well, in reality the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is not about hunting, but about the right of the people to defend themselves from the oppression of the government and those who carry out its deeds.

The right to keep and bear arms is a legitimate right, because it was constitutionally adopted and it is written on the document that countries use as the base to conduct business in many parts of the world. That brings us to ask, where does the UN get its legitimacy? For that we need to go back to the founding of the United Nations. Who is the founder of this organization? The key proponent of the UN was Alger Hiss, an American lawyer and communist spy for the Stalin regime, as testified in Congress under oath by Whittaker Chambers, a former Communist Party member. Other founders of the UN include the Rockefeller family, and some other 30 or 40 members of the Council on Foreign Relations members, among others. Rockefeller himself donated the land on which the UN building sits today. Many people will say, ‘well, but all those countries agreed to create the UN and signed the document that legitimized its creation’. I wouldn’t characterize their actions in legitimizing the UN to more than participating in the signing of the text that Hiss, the Rockefellers and the other globalists had written. In other words, the UN has no legitimacy to be the international body that it is today, since the founders of such a body were not the nations of the world, but Mr. Hiss, the Rockefellers and the other members of the CFR.

Having addressed the issue of legitimacy, let’s continue analysing recent history of the UN attempts to disarm us all. A 2011 document written by Sarah Parker and titled “Improving the Effectiveness of the Programme of Action on Small Arms“, hosted on the website of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, gives us another insight into what the United Nations has in stake. The main goal of this document is to shed more light on the UN initiative to limit and later eliminate the possession of small arms by civilians. In order to achieve their goal, the globalists behind the UN want to implement policies of marking and tracing firearms, as well as creating a digital registration database of all arms in the hands of civilians. The UN also wants to “dispose and destroy” all arms that it collects from individuals and governments, establish “moratorium on the manufacture of small firearms”, which is what Obama has announced he will do in his second term as president of the United States and what New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has begun to do.

Under the guidelines of the above mentioned Programme of Action, the UN is calling for more regulation of firearms ownership. “Greater controls for firearms owners is required”. The document also describes how the UN lacks the financial support to create an electronic record of who owns what, and how the nations should chip in to create a fund that would enable the UN to be able to trace all firearms. What the UN is proposing then, is that each country creates a national gun registration database, whose oversight can be transferred to the UN so that it does not cost a penny to the globalists behind the organization.

There is a need to “train law enforcement providers in weapons collection and destruction:. Remember what happened to New Orleans residents after hurricane Katrina? In case you are not aware, the US National Guard took to the streets of New Orleans to illegally confiscate firearms from its legal owners. Members of the Guard kicked down doors, beat homeowners and confiscated all kinds of firearms to “keep people safe” from them. “Training is needed in modern methods of destruction,” continues to describe the document.

Under the section labeled as Public Awareness, the Programme of Action says that it is necessary to enhance the UN’s campaign to get rid of all firearms and that this campaign needs to have an extensive social reach. It also says that such campaigns should include ways to pacify the people who are against surrendering their guns for fear of becoming helpless should any governmental abuse take place, which the document calls false perceptions. Really? After 350,000,000 deaths the UN sees mistrust of governments use of force as a false perception?

Of course, the failure of the UN to end with such perception requires to carry out illegal arms trade — such as Fast & Furious — in order to manufacture the need to have an Arms Trade Treaty. And as if the existence of illegal arms trade wasn’t enough of a fake excuse to bring about the regulation of the individual right to keep and bear arms to defend oneself from oppressive governments and your standard criminal, the UN also cites the fact that the creation of a binding agreement would globally legitimize their attempt to limit ownership of firearms.

To sum up, an illegitimate organization created by globalists and bankers in 1945 has found a way to request the complete disarmament of every country in the world and every citizen in those countries under the excuse that a more peaceful world can be achieved in that organization alone becomes the sole owner of all weaponry that exists on the surface of the planet, in space and under the ground. That same organization, in its Universal declaration of Human Rights states that we all have rights which can be exercised, unless the UN decides the exercise of those rights infringes its existence. Under the UN plans, there needs to be only one POLICE that secures peace and prevents conflict by imposing force over anyone who dares challenge its reign over all nations and individuals. This organization by all known as the United Nations has also lovingly provided us with the right to live under a centralized social world order which it itself will command.

How is that for a peek into the future of our lives under the reign of the banker, globalist run United Nations and its Arms Trade Treaty?

Filed under Africa, Asia, English, Latin America, North America, Politics, Special Reports, World Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

The United Nations and its Agenda 21 are Unsustainable

July 16, 2012

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JULY 16, 2012

If the whole story about how the United Nations wants to control the world, impose limits over human development and transform current standards of living into a thing of the past seems far fetched or too complicated to understand, I don’t blame you. It is complicated. One of the reasons for that is the UN and its controllers managed to create policies they’ve been able to implement under the auspices of saving the planet and keeping resources available for future generations.

In reality, though, the United Nations and its Agenda 21 program are not sustainable at all. In fact, they are exactly the opposite. Both the organization and its policies are an attempt to end human freedom as enjoyed by millions and millions of people throughout history. Agenda 21 intends to change our lives in every single way you can imagine, and it has been doing so more vehemently since it was approved and adopted during UN meetings in 1992. Thanks to Agenda 21 and policies derived from it, children have been deliberately dumbed down, the family unit has been almost completely destroyed and the planet’s resources have been concentrated in the fewest amount of hands ever.

The policies stemmed from Agenda 21 are in our schools, workplace, places of worship, community groups and other social gatherings. They were introduced and seamlessly imposed on all of us under the disguise of being environmentally conscious and now, the UN intends to perpetuate their reach by mentally and physically kidnapping a complete generation of children who will be, according to the UN’s plans, the willful perpetrators of such anti-human endeavor.

In the following video, you will find a compilation of explanation about some of the most important aspects that the United Nations seeks to impose its will on through Agenda 21. Please watch it carefully and consider to research even further than the points touched upon on the video. If you have not read the text of Agenda 21, please do so. It is a short and bitter insight of the kind of world you and your children will live in if humanity does not act NOW.

The Agenda 21 document is composed by 40 chapters that explain specific goals the UN wants to implement on a global basis. If fully adopted, it will permanently alter the way of living of billions of people around the planet. People will have to change the way they make decisions and the ways they eat, learn, communicate, manage private property, consume resources such as electricity and water. A society managed under Agenda 21 policies will be a highly monitored one where individuals will be spied on without their consent — much like today — 24 /7. The initiative will also place most national parts, conservation areas and their boundaries off limits to any human activity.

The deep meaning of what Agenda 21 intends to achieve is contained in a statement from the United Nations number 1 climate alarmist, Maurice Strong, who in a 1992 conference told attendees that “consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and workplace air conditioning, and suburban housing, are not sustainable”. He added that a drastic change was necessary and that such change would involve the creation of an international platform composed by a multilateral system that included the United Nations.

Strong’s words mirror what is taking place today all over the planet, where the middle class is being attacked for their successes as business owners, job creators and consumers. People are no longer able to have their own vegetable garden, drive their favorite car, consume raw milk or cheese, and children are not allowed to sell lemonade to chip in for a school project. The UN continues to try to do away with private property, individual liberty, privacy rights and so on, while demanding that taxpayers finance the creation of a global governance scheme to be controlled by its minions.

The UN has proposed carbon taxes, currency taxes, demanded more money for its supposed aid programs which it says are genuine global challenges and has also planned for the creation of an authoritative body to enforce global tax collection. The United Nations introduced its Sustainable Development propaganda program more than two decades ago under the premise that it intended to bring about “social justice”, under which the governments — that are the UN’s local auditor — must control every aspect  of an individual’s life. This proposal violates virtually every part of every single  Constitution.

Under the scheme the UN is implanting through Agenda 21, it becomes clear that what is really unsustainable are the UN and its Agenda 21.

Filed under Africa, Asia, English, Latin America, North America, Politics, World Tagged with , , , , , , ,

UN Sterilization Campaigns In Developing Countries Accelerating

July 10, 2012

By JURRIAAN MAESSEN | EXPLOSIVEREPORTS | JULY 10, 2012

“The real trick is, in terms of trying to level off at someplace lower than that 9 billion, is to get the birthrates in the developing countries to drop as fast as we can. And that will determine the level at which humans will level off on earth.”

From a MIT lecture by professor Penny Chisholm.

For over half a century demographers at the United Nations have attempted to “convince” people from both developing and developed nations to limit their households to one child. In the decades after WW2 no means were spared in order to get this message across. Radio, television, newspapers were cleverly used to reach people in the remotest areas. By the mid-seventies, all available instruments of propaganda were strategically set in motion, with taxpayer’s money to spare and lots of “human resources” to scale back (as social engineers prefer to call us). The justification that could be given to the Western middle class was wonderfully simple: under the guise of developing the undeveloped, the UN sold its Third World population agenda. Simultaneously the developing nations were propagandized into surrendering their people’s birthright to procreate and multiply- two things our species is prone to do. All those resisting the onslaught of information were characterized as a scourge on the environment. Because the eugenicists have an enemy that is not easily defeated, namely human instinct and dignity, it was crucial to discredit human nature first, making it suspect, while replacing human nature with an artificially created “shadow nature” which readily rejects notions such as life and liberty, embracing covert eugenics and tyranny instead. Although the UN in the west has learned to speak of “sustainable development” when speaking of population control, their language in developing countries has been more crude, more closely resembling the original eugenic tongue on how best to keep their populations in check.

Despite all these efforts the overall human population has increased. The UN began to grow restless and less impressed with its own propaganda efforts. In the West populations may have decreased, in the developing world they increased all the more. More drastic measures began to be proposed for the Third World with the aim of speeding up the population agenda. From the beginning of this century onwards all kinds of horror-stories began dripping in, describing among other things state-sponsored sterilization policies in the Third World.

Uzbekistan

In 2010, the British Independent featured an AP article detailing suspicions that health officials in the Republic of Uzbekistan are widely involved in involuntary sterilization-practices.

The AP-reporter spoke with a 24-year old housewife named Saodat Rakhimbayeva, an extremely brave woman who tells a heart-wrenching tale of state-sponsored eugenics in her home country of Uzbekistan. After giving birth to a premature boy, she had to witness her son dying just three days later.

“Then”, states the article, “came a further devastating blow: She learned that the surgeon had removed part of her uterus during the operation, making her sterile.”

“According to rights groups, victims and health officials, Rakhimbayeva is one of hundreds of Uzbek women who have been surgically sterilized without their knowledge or consent in a program designed to prevent overpopulation from fueling unrest.(…). The order comes from the very top,” said Khaitboy Yakubov, head of the Najot human rights group in Uzbekistan.”

This statement by Yakubov has more significance that he himself probably realizes. By “the very top” he likely refers to the central Uzbek government. As it turns out, the order came from even higher up.

An official communiqué from the embassy of Uzbekistan in New Delhi gives us more insight in a remarkable initiative by the Uzbek state and the different partners with which it collaborates:

“The complex of measures for the “Mother’s and Child’s Screening”, directed to prevent the childbirth with the hereditary diseases, accompanying with intellectual backwardness as well as inspection of pregnant women is carried out in the Republic with the purpose of revealing anomalies of development of a child-bearing. (…). Within the framework of the State Programs the cooperation is continuing with the WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, USAID, JICA, KfW Bank, World Bank, Asian Development Bank (…).”

The United Nations Population Fund concurs. It admits helping Uzbek authorities screen its citizens:

“In Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan, UNFPA worked to strengthen national capacities to collect, analyze and disseminate gender disaggregated data on population, development and reproductive health and to integrate population variables and gender concerns into development and environmental planning.”

Now what this really mean? A Japanese International Corporation Agency, profiling Uzbekistan’s disability policies, states the following in regards to the Uzbek national screening program (page 11):

“By 2001, 124.000 of new-borns had been examined, 2.800 children in at-risk groups had been identified; and 160 had been registered in health clinics. For genetic reasons, 1.381 pregnancies were terminated.”

Furthermore, an Uzbek government-website acknowledges receiving generous funding for its eugenic programs and restates the UN-funded mission:

“Up-to-date medical technologies help detect possible defects in the development of a fetus at an early stage of pregnancy. To preclude birth of children with genetic disease accompanied by mental abnormalities and to detect fetus abnormality (…).”

Another Uzbek government website gave a description of the ultimate goal of the “Mother and Child screening” program as follows:

“(…) reducing the birth of disabled children.”

In the same publication, the above-mentioned “screening” of possible “intellectual backwardness” serves to “prevent childbirth with hereditary diseases”.

Interestingly the link to that webpage is now dead. However they can not erase away the fact that these practises constitute eugenics in its purest form. And transnational organizations like the UN, World Bank and the German KfW Bank are directly and fanatically involved in the funding of these “screening”-programs conducted by Uzbek health authorities.

The UN itself admits in its own publications to its “long-standing partnership and track-record working in Uzbekistan.”:

“The UN’s mandate in supporting the implementation and monitoring of the MDGs (UN Millennium Development Goals) at the country level is a substantial comparative advantage in assisting the Government (of Uzbekistan) to enhance living standards, and achieve higher levels of human development. As a credible and trusted partner of the Government, we provide policy advice, technical assistance and programmatic support, drawing on best global practices.”

An important item of the UN’s “programmatic support” is their ideas on population-screening and control, making sure that Uzbek women:

“… have access, as and when they require, to what we call reproductive health.- family planning, contraception, and medical care during pregnancy, at delivery and afterwards.”

In a publication by USAID, the largest US aid institution paid for by US tax dollars, reference was made to the contributions of the United Nations Population Fund:

“UNFPA provided IUD’s, injectables and pills. Health facilities hold at least 3 different methods, though their quantities are not sufficient.”

In regards to USAID’s own contributions, which include training local Uzbek health officials, the document lists a training-course:

“The two week-training included theory and extensive practise. Each participant passing the course received a set of instruments for minilaporotomy. During training courses 39 clients were sterilized. 88 clients have been sterilized by trained providers to date.”

Another USAID-document from 1993 recommends some actions to be taken in regards to Central European nations, such as Uzbekistan (page 10):

“New contraceptive technologies should be offered, with training in their application and in the counseling of clients on the choices available to them. Policy change will be required in some countries to permit sterilization to be included among available options for both women and men. To assure the commitment of health sector leadership, study tours in the united States would be useful, as would inclusion of the heads of medical training institutions in the redesign of medical and nursing curricula to integrate family planning into health care.”

Remember the reports from the Uzbek woman reporting involuntary sterilization practices by Uzbek doctors. It seems it is being done with US taxpayer dollars, and with additional donations from the World Bank, German development bank, the United Nations Population Fund- and let’s not leave out another important contributor, the World Health Organization. The WHO reports on their own website:

“Uzbekistan and WHO: A close relationship exists between WHO and the Ministry of Health (MOH).”

Listed under “Opportunities”, the WHO mentions that:

“Uzbekistan now receives substantial funding for health programmes with contributions from many key partners.”

India

According to a report out of India earlier this year, several victims of forced sterilization by state officials have come forward, providing bone-chilling evidence of widespread sterilization practices in Madhya Pradesh, a huge province in India’s heartland. An item carried by India Today, under the header “conned into sterilization” features no less than 8 victims of Indian government officials, who routinely round up citizens and sterilize them just to meet the state’s family planning targets. As it turns out, it’s not just the state’s targets they are meeting. Every time some chicken-necked eugenicist grabs a surgical knife, it is the desires of the UN and World Health Organization he’s satisfying.

The victims interviewed include a 98-year old man and an 80-year old man, both of whom were forced to undergo vasectomy. Government officials threatened the men with withholding their social benefits if they refused.

“While these men got to live the life they wanted till a ripe old age, 24-year old Jamuna Kori of Sidhi district was not so lucky. One day, he was just picked up from a road by two men, sterilised and left on the highway again.”

The article, written by correspondent Rahul Singh, also features a woman who was drugged into submission:

“They gave me something to drink and I fell unconscious. When I woke up I realized they had operated on me. I want an inquiry”.

The video also shows several mentally challenged individuals, who were not even threatened but just directly operated upon.

The clip also features a 25 year old man who took his 2 year old son for an anti-rabies vaccine after the boy was bitten by a dog. The doctors told the man they would only treat his son if the father would undergo sterilization. The Telegraph carried an article recently about this case, in which the young father said:

“My son’s life was more important. I was told private hospitals charge 900 Rupees (£11) for each injection,” he told The Indian Express.”

“In 2010”, states a 2011 article out of New Delhi, “Madhya Pradesh achieved a record sterilization target of 645,000, luring villagers with freebies such as mobile phones, two-wheelers and gold coins to undergo sterilization.”

But now, in 2012, it seems the eugenicists in the UN are loosing patience as now they just order people picked up from the road to have them drugged and sterilized.

In an ad put out by the UNFPA (the United Nations Population Fund) for the job of family planning consultant (7 vacancies) the candidates are being informed about the reasons for more hands:

“Given that the presence of the private sector is marginal, there is major client load on the public health system. Hence, if sterilization services in Madhya Pradesh have to pick up, public health system has to gear itself and other options of public–private partnership, wherever feasible, will have to be explored.”

Another piece of evidence that the sterilisation-efforts contributed to the state is actually being coordinated by the UNFPA:

“It is proposed to have a dedicated technical person in the office of divisional joint director, as divisional family planning consultant, supported by UNFPA. The consultant would be physically located in the office of divisional joint director health services and will work under direct administrative and technical control of joint director health services.”

In fact, these practices are being conducted worldwide- always with the help of the same old modus operandi: the World Bank and their UN partners constrict sovereign nations to the point of them accepting trading-“privileges”. In order to safeguard a seat around the transnational table, these nations- often struggling with widespread poverty- accept every and any condition by the lender of last resort (IMF, World Bank). These conditions are far from secret. They are actually right out in the open. This latest Indian horror story is further evidence of the fact that not the Indian state is the initiator of these forced sterilization policies, as the article by Rahul Singh argues. It is the UNFPA rather, the enforcement arm of the eugenicists, which both sets the standards, provides the technology, recruits the medical personnel, and- on a global level- enforces these sterilization policies through binding treaties and other supranational strangleholds.

In the context of the 2011 UN’s World Population Day several developing nations were quick to pledge allegiance to the eugenic deity. In the east-Indian state of Bihar, officials put out the announcement that:

“The Bihar government will soon formulate a new population control policy. The policy will be framed in collaboration with the United Nations Population Fund (UNPF).”

Another Indian state, Karnataka, had President Gladys Almeida “observe World Population Day” at which event she told local government employees:

“There is a need to create an awareness on the need for population control.”

Another individual present said:

“as the population increases, nature takes its own method to control it.”

Another compliant nation, Pakistan, had their Federal Minister for Population Welfare Firdous Aashiq Awan announce that:

“The government is taking serious measures to control population growth in the country.”

The government in Islmabad even recruits religious leaders (a trick stolen from the UN) in order to sell population control to the masses:

“(…) religious leaders are being empowered. For the first time, ‘Imam Masjid’ is being made a partner in population Welfare programmes. He would act as a social mobilizer, she (Awan) added.”

These pledges of allegiance to the UN and their set goals of reducing human numbers are not exclusively made by developing countries. Developed countries have accustomed themselves with the same line of reasoning. The only difference is that, as of yet, the language has been more “friendly”, masking the true purpose of the scientific dictatorship implemented.

China

Via news outlet the Global Times, the Chinese State in 2010 lamented the “issue of unauthorized births” in light of the UN’s stated goal of “efficient population control.”

The UN’s World population Day, July 11, was originally set up in 1989 by the Governing Council of the United Nations Development Programma to “raise awareness of global population issues.”

“The theme of this year’s (2010) 21st World Population Day”, mentions the article, “is “Everyone Counts”, and the activities in China will focus on the 2010 population census and emphasize the right to life.”

“In China”, the article goes on to say, “the issue of unauthorized births is at the forefront of its efforts to control the growth of its population as it undermines the country’s family planning policy, or “one-child policy”, which was implemented in 1980.”

“According to Chinese statistics, the national population reached 1.3 billion at the end of 2008, with 6.7 million born that year. Unauthorized births accounted for a large percentage of those births.”

“Since the family planning policy was implemented, local governments strictly controlled the births of each family, and allowed each couple to have one child, but with a more flexible policy in China’s ethnic minority areas. However, not all couples obeyed the rules (…).”

Besides the horrible “obeyed the rules”, the bone chilling term “unauthorized births” is used several times in the article to describe families exceeding their allowance of babies they decide to put on this earth. As we know, having more than one baby provokes direct interference from the Chinese State, which can tax, fine, threaten and even terminate the new life considered by the all-powerful state to be a burden on the environment. The article also mentions the existence of a “household contract responsibility system”- created nationwide to make sure the population control policies would be strictly carried out. Such a slave-state is exactly what the UN envisions for their desired world government. Although the UN itself tempers the tongue when it comes to their stated goal of reducing the world’s population, the Chinese authorities know exactly what goals the UN expects them to pursue:

“It (the UN) also aims to stress the importance of efficient population control by means of collecting and analyzing the latest data so as to make an impact on decision-making and improve people’s lives.”

A statement written for World Population Day by the Secretary-General of the UN reads as follows:

“On this World Population Day, I call on decision-makers everywhere to make each and every person count. Only by considering the needs of all women and men,girls and boys,can we achieve the Millennium Development Goals and advance the shared values of the United Nations.”

These shared values were described in detail by UN’s Agenda 21:

“(…) a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced: a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”

The stifling silence that envelops this subject in developed nations, will only make it easier for the UN to go ahead with their population policies in developing ones. And to anyone in the West who thinks strict population policies in the Third World are sad but necessary, I would like to point out that under a global government, or “global governance” as the UN prefers to say, developed and developing nations alike are subject to its decrees. So every time we wave these facts away like an irritating fly, be assured it will come back to haunt us.

Filed under Africa, Asia, English, Latin America, North America, Politics, Special Reports, World Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →

Related Links:

Togel178

Pedetogel

Sabatoto

Togel279

Togel158

Colok178

Novaslot88

Lain-Lain

Partner Links