Ecuador Tries to Blackmail the World to “save” its Forests

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | MAY 3, 2012

If you are tired of hearing so-called environmentalists parading their idea for a New World Order, be patient, because they’ve got another great idea. In preparation for the United Nations Environmental — I use the term loosely — Summit in Rio, politicians supported by green ONGs are already calling for the implementation of a Green Climate Fund (GCF) to help “save” the world’s forests. In a previous article, we informed how the UN Climate Fund is seeking diplomatic immunity, an unprecedented request if one takes into account that all what this organ is supposed to do, is to redistribute wealth. About two weeks ago, we asked where does the need for immunity stem from, and part of the answer is that although the GCF is a child of the UN, it is not covered by the immunity that protects other UN organizations, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC).

Why would the Green Climate Fund need immunity, though? I would like to hear your suggestions.

As explained before, the Green Climate Fund’s only purpose is, as UN members have confessed, a plan to redistribute the wealth of the planet, except that wealth does not seem to be going to the neediest people in the poorest countries. Additionally, politicians and unelected participants in previous UN meetings plan to obtain the funding for their Green Climate Fund from taxpayer money taken from middle and lower classes in developed countries, to give it to rich folks in underdeveloped nations. How will that contribute to saving the planet from the nonexistent condition they fear so much?

The GCF was created during the last Durban climate talks, in which 194 member states voted for the formation of an interim body that sought to establish the best way to spend around $6.7 million up until June 2013. Well, now there seems to be a great opportunity to get the GCF started. The South American country of Ecuador has officially embraced the Green Climate Fund as the only way to “save” its valuable Yasuní National Park. Ecuadorean ambassador to the United Nations Ivonne A-Baki, has requested that cash given to the GCF be used to pay for its plan to trade oil for forests. The plans says that Ecuador will maintain its forests intact, as long as the GCF pays the country for not using its natural resources, many of which are below protected areas and national parks such as the one cited Yasuní

The model to be established by the GCF is similar to the failed carbon credit scheme — for as little as it lasted –, where countries and corporations could pay fees that enabled them to pollute. This time, however, countries like Ecuador seek a financial incentive not to develop their natural riches, and instead choose to keep its population poor and underdeveloped. Don’t take me wrong, there is nothing negative about wanting to preserve nature in its original state. The problem comes when a country like Ecuador requests financial incentives as a condition to protect their forests. No country in the world needs financial aid in order to protect its environment if it actually intends to conserve. The planet does not need a global welfare system and no country requires money from middle class or poor folks in other nations to conserve.

Ecuador is one of several countries in Latin America with plenty of natural resources, many of which have been already opened for industrial use. The problem with Ecuador is the same that other nations in Latin America face: Government corruption. Although most of its population lives in deplorable conditions, and anyone may say that international financial aid may be a solution to the country’s poverty, it is important to say that Ecuador is a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the cartel that feels at liberty of manipulating oil prices to their liking. The nation of Ecuador is one of the largest exporters of oil  in Latin America’s, with a net amount of about 285,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) as of 2010. According to the United States Energy Information Administration, in 2011, Ecuador’s oil sector accounted for about 50 percent of Ecuador’s export earnings. Why can’t the Ecuadorians enjoy the benefits of their natural riches, then? Government collusion with corporations has forced the country to import refined petroleum products due to the lack of sufficient domestic refining capacity — not by chance — to meet local demand. Most of Ecuador’s oil is sent to China, in exchange for loans from the China Development Bank.

Why is Ecuador’s Ambassador to the UN using a threatening tone to request funds in order to preserve the Yasuní National Park? Well, the call came out of the office of the president Rafael Correa, who sad that he would not drill there as long as the international community subsidized the country’s welfare state – $3.6 billion — which is about half of the value of the oil reserves. In other words, politicians agree to hand over the country’s natural resources to the United Nations in exchange for only half of the value. Now that is a steal, isn’t it?

When politicians and large international organizations talk about preserving forests and natural resources, they usually employ spiritual and collectivist talking points, and in Ecuador’s case, it is not an exception. The country’s Ambassador to the UN appeals to people’s religiousness when she says that Yasuní is a sacred land and that is protected by God, as she shows a bracelet that reads “Together for the Yasuní”, her charm bracelet. “You stay there just one day, and you are rejuvenated like being in a spa for the month. It’s so pure, so clean.” Something like a spa is what many national parks or conservation areas end up turning into, once they are yielded to the United Nations. It is the UN through its supposed conservation policies, and in association with known globalist organizations such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy, the United Nations Environment Programme, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, among others, the one attempting to end with private property around the world; all in the name of conservation. In modern times it all stems from the UN Biodiversity Assessment, a document driven by the so-called “sustainable development” and the writings of Agenda 21.

Countries like Ecuador have stopped begging and have started demanding that industrialized nations and international unelected organizations do something in order to “help” them maintain natural reserves and national parks as a condition not to drill for oil and other resources. There is a sense of self-entitlement in some developing nations whose socialist and communist forms of government have alienated free market capitalism — not corporatism — and therefore have seen their dreams to become a first world nation disappear as fast as they have kicked out foreign enterprises, or eliminated local private entrepreneurship by using the power of the State to keep people under control and ever more dependent. Now, given their isolationist policies, they find it kosher to request bribes in exchange for driving the globalist agenda of fake environmentalism and conservation. The most commonly used term is “climate justice” which is associated to industrialized countries’ “obligation” to pay poor countries to remain underdeveloped and to finance the cost of what they call ecological damage that those developed nations have caused to the planet.

Those pushing the agenda of make-believe sustainable development will have a great opportunity to express their concerns during the June 2012 Rio+20 Summit, where nations like Ecuador will once again demand that middle-class and poor people in the developed nations sustain — through taxation — the bribery system that has existed at the highest levels of government all over the developing world. But the gravy train seems to be running out of fuel even as more bureaucrats and well-intentioned environmentalists climb on to carry out the real agenda that is little known by most of them. “At its root, some of what this Yasuní initiative is about is ‘Who owes who?’ and this idea of the North paying the South to keep oil in the ground, said Kevin Koenig of Amazon Watch. So, the whole conservation agenda is not even about conservation. On one hand, it is about a resentful group of third world wannabe leaders, who are happy to keep their people hungry and poor as long as someone pays them to do so. On the other hand, it is about a corporate global deindustrialization program aimed to make the rich even richer and the poor even poorer.

Just a month before the Rio+20 summit, it’s easier to see they’ve figured out a way to carry out their plan and both sides expect the same result: Swindle the people of the world into believing that humans are bad, that the world will end if property is not given to the United Nations as the largest land-owner on the planet. In turn, the UN will keep the third world poor and underdeveloped in the name of saving us all. In order to make it look cool and trendy, they’ll use celebrities, movie stars and famous politicians who will push the false agenda of conservation. However, such conservation will not be for future generations as they publicly claim, but for the global oligarchs that finance and control almost every single environmental agency and NGO that pushes for sustainable development. Do you like it the idea? Feel free to jump on.

United Nations Will Pursue a Global Green Government at Rio+20 Summit

By ALEX NEWMAN | THE NEW AMERICAN | APRIL 27, 2012

A recently released United Nations report outlines the global body’s plan to foist a centrally planned “green” world order on all of humanity, making every level of government subservient to its “sustainable development” agenda. The upcoming Rio+20 sustainability conference in Brazil — held two decades after the first “Earth Summit” adopted Agenda 21 — will be used to solidify the foundation of the emerging planetary control system.

Under the guise of a “green economy” — expected to cost trillions of dollars per year, according to the report — the UN intends to make use of coercive power at all levels of governance to implement the plan. From local and national governments to regional and global entities, programs affecting every area of human life will be used to advance the controversial “sustainable development” agenda.

According to the UN report, entitled “Working towards a Balanced and Inclusive Green Economy: A United Nations System-wide Perspective,” everything must change to make humanity more sustainable. Lifestyles, opinions, education, health, consumption, production, agriculture, diet, law, taxation, industry, governance, and more: Literally everything must be re-shaped to conform with new international standards.

“Specifically, in a transition to a green economy, public policies will need to be used strategically to reorient consumption, investments, and other economic activities,” the document explains, touting the reduction of carbon emissions and new educational programs to teach humanity why it must become sustainable. “Transitioning to a green economy requires a fundamental shift in the way we think and act.”

The perfect opportunity to solidify the scheme is coming up in June at the UN sustainability summit. And UN bosses are determined not to waste it. “Agreement among UN entities on core elements of strategy, policy, and programmatic services in support of governments’ green economy initiatives will send a powerful signal to governments, businesses, and civil society of the determination of the UN system to ‘Deliver as One’ on a green economy transformation for sustainable development,” the report notes.

Green, From the Top Down:

The plan, of course, will be imposed from the top down. Regional, national, state, and even local governments will all be coaxed into participation. “At the international, sub-regional, and regional levels, there is a need for policy coherence and financial and technological cooperation,” the UN report states. Various enforcement tools will be used to ensure compliance.

Global “justice” to enforce obedience must be powerful for the scheme to succeed. “The success of regulatory approaches hinges on the certainty of policies as well as the quality and credibility of regulatory institutions and their compliance mechanisms, including justice systems,” the report explains. “Effective compliance mechanisms should be put in place in order to achieve the desired outcomes.”

Read Full Article →

Syria: Rogue Elements Rampant

by Felicity Arbuthnot
Global Research
February 29, 2012

“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” (J.EdgarHoover, 1895-1972.)

Smelt any proverbial rats, lately? If not, you have not been paying attention, there are plenty about.

Consider for instance this: “Assad must halt his campaign of killing and crimes against his own people now” and “must step aside …” Hilary Clinton (Asia Times, 9th February 2012.)

“I strongly condemn the Syrian government’s unspeakable assault … and I offer my deepest sympathy to those who have lost loved ones. Assad must halt his campaign of killing and crimes against his own people now. He must step aside …” said President Barack Hussein Obama. (i)

Yet responsibility for US victims, in their hundreds of thousands, spanning Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, in Guantanamo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, are wholly unaccountable – and uncounted..

Responsibility for tyrannicide (including the horrific, state sponsored assassinations of Osama bin Laden and others, Libya’s Head of State, Colonel Quaddafi, have, seemingly entered a Presidential memory hole.)

“This (Syria’s) is a doomed regime as well as a murdering regime. There is no way it can get its credibility back either internationally or with its own people”, Britain’s little Foreign Secretary, William Hague, chimed in obediently, from the Washington script, on Sky News.

“Because the regime is so intransigent, because it is conducting ten months unmitigated violence and repression – more than 6,000 killed, with 12,000 or 14,000 in detention and subject to every kind of torture and abuse – it is driving some opponents to violent action themselves”, concluded Hague.

Hypocrisy reigns supreme. Walking distance from Hague’s office: “living in style and protection”, is Bashar Al Assad’s Uncle Rifaat, under whose Defence Brigades onslaught killed up to perhaps thirty thousand people in the city of Hama, which was also partially destroyed, Falluja style. The thirtieth anniversary of a truly terrible event is commemorated today, 25th February. (See Robert Fisk, Independent, 25th February 2012.)

Of Libya, in March 2011, Obama stated: “Going forward, we will continue to send a clear message: The violence must stop. Muammar Gaddafi has lost legitimacy to lead, and he must leave. Those who perpetrate violence against the Libyan people will be held accountable. And the aspirations of the Libyan people for freedom, democracy and dignity must be met.”(ii.)

An anomaly (apart from the script similarity): In Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, deaths resultant from US-UK and “allied” actions are: “impossible to verify”, by Washington and Whitehall.

Indeed, this month, the (UK) Parliamentary Select Committee on Defence, issued a Report, after an Inquiry in to operations in Libya, stating that: “Britain has no way of knowing how many civilians died in the Libyan conflict as a result of Nato bombing.” (iii)

Back in March 2011, however, the exact figure of Quaddafi’s victims was “known.” Coincidentally, it was also exactly 6,000, stated a “political analyst” – using remarkably State Department-similar phraseology.(iv)

As under Saddam Hussein in Iraq (with no diplomatic presence) in Libya and now little in Syria – with no point of contact bar, seemingly, a satellite dish fitter, in Coventry, England, alleged to be the “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights” – exact death and casualty figures are always miraculously available.

A new nemesis appears on the horizon – or “Arab street”- and precise numbers are trumpeted. Yet when Western forces, “Viceroys”, “Intelligence” services, “mentors” and myriad, general meddlers, mercenaries and marauders pitch up, murder and occupy, none are available.

Of course no proposed invasion (sorry, “humanitarian intervention”) regime change and accompanying mass slayings would be complete without forces of a wicked tyrant switching off electricity to babies incubators.

For anyone who has forgotten the details, the (1990-1991) Iraq model went like this: vast US government employed PR agency, Hill and Knowlton (“we create value by shaping conversations: we start them, we amplify them, we change them. We can connect seamlessly with all of your audiences…”)produced a fifteen year old girl called “Nayirah”, a “Kuwaiti with first hand knowledge of … her tortured land.”

“I volunteered (tears) at the Al Addan Hospital .. I saw the Iraqi soldiers ..with guns, they took fifteen babies out of incubators, left them on the cold floor and took the incubators.”

Strangely, no one asked why she didn’t pick them up and wrap and tend to them, or checked who she really was.

She was the daughter of Saud al Sabar, the Kuwaiti Ambassador to US. The incubators story of course, was a complete fabrication.

October 10th 1990, Amnesty presented evidence against Iraq with Hill and Knowlton at the Congressional Human Rights Caucus on Capitol Hill. Amnesty International trustingly endorsed the incubator story. Apparently never investigating who “Nayirah” was, and in a charged situation, whether propaganda might not be rampant.

“Amnesty US Executive Director, John Healey, compounded the incubator baby story in testimony to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on 8th.January 1991. The carpet-bombing of Iraq began nine days later.”(v)

Amnesty, enjoined by Human Rights Watch, are amongst the most enthusiastic champions of Syrian intervention and onward to Armageddon. Glen Ford writes all you ever need to know.(vi)

The first Syria incubator baby story surfaced last August. “Syrian government troops”, had cut the electricity. It was quickly exposed as beyond questionable.(vii)

Another one came up on 8th February (viii) with numbers varying from eighteen poor mites, to a subsequent eighty. With both tales, as the Iraq version, no distraught parents, extended family, were found, no funeral gatherings, then the stories, too, quietly vanished.

Coincidentally, the current Speaker of the eighty eight Member Arab Inter-Parliamentary union, which backs intervention in Syria, is Kuwaiti, Ali Al-Salem Al-Dekbas, calling for all Syria’s Ambassadors to be expelled, confrontation with Russia over her stance – and in remarkable US-speak, for swift intervention, to stop the Syrian government “killing (their own) people.” (Reuters, 4th February 2012.)

The new Executive Director of Amnesty International USA, is Suzanne Nossel, formerly Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Assistant for International Organization Affairs, at the State Department. She has also previously worked for Human Rights Watch.

She: “… has launched several campaigns against Iran, Libya and Syria.”(viii)

The allegation that Kuwait gave Amnesty $500,000 for backing the Iraq incubator baby story has never gone away. But the little island, famously once called:”An oil company posing as a state”, with population just 2,595,628 (July 2011) which includes 1,291,354 non-nationals, also has powerful American-proxy clout.

In 1999, an agreement was signed between the USA and Kuwait for a permanent US force to be stationed there, in twelve facilities (there are a further eight “spares”, seemingly not currently in use.)

The agreement for the bases, incidentally, was named: “Operation Desert Spring.”(x)

Here is a further coincidence. In March 2010, Libya was voted, near unanimously, on to the UN Human Rights Committee, after a glowing Report on human rights progress. After a ferocious campaign by Geneva based UN Watch(xi) not only were they expelled from it, but nineteen months later, their country lay in ruins, their leader lynched and most of his family dead.

Last November, Syria was elected to the Committee and the fifty eight Member Arab board added their votes to the country’s place on UNESCO panels.

UN Watch railed that: “Western democracies, unanimously elected Syria to a pair of Committees – one dealing directly with human rights issues – even as the Bashar al-Assad regime maintains its campaign of violence against its own citizens.“ Syria’s Committee places, as Libya before it, died a death.

Amnesty’s Ms Nossel, unsurprisingly, has spoken at a number of events with UN Watch Director, Hillel Neuer, a Montreal born attorney, whose career has included serving as a judicial law clerk for Justice Itzhak Zamir, at the Supreme Court of Israel.

In March last year, there seemed a glimmer of hope that the US and “allies”, would back away from repeating the tragic disaster that was unfolding in Libya – and had already struck Afghanistan and Iraq.

Secretary of State Clinton committed on CBS (27th March 2011) that the US would not intervene in the way it had in Libya.

Now, it seems, a miracle is needed, as it emerges Saudi Arabia and Quatar are among those subsidizing insurgents with vast sums – as French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe announced that the EU is about to further tie the government’s hands, by freezing the assets of the Syrian Central Bank, from 27th February. Syria is already under a crippling raft of sanctions.(xii) France was, of course, one of the leading and most enthusiastic cheerleaders for the destruction of Libya.

At the same “Friends of Syria” Conference in Tunis (24th February 2012) UK Foreign Minister William Hague declared that the UK recognized the insurgents and Hilary “We came, we saw, he died” Clinton called Russia and China:”despicable”, for their veto at the UN, which may well have blocked further “intervention.”

The US said it will consider military assistance to the insurgents – a representative of them said they were already receiving “western aid.”

With “friends” like these, Syria certainly needs no enemies.

The US has, of course, “despicably”, vetoed thirty five UN peace Resolutions relating to the Middle East(xiii) including on“Operation Cast Lead”, the 2008-2009 Israeli Christmas-New Year onslaught on Gaza, and Israel’s 2006 blitzkrieg of Lebanon.

A “new world map.”

Chillingly, no outrage, or cries of “despicable” has been given to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement, in Switzerland, the day before the Tunisia conference, that there: “would be no Lebanon in the new world map.”(xiv)

He stated, further, that an Israeli strike against Lebanon would be supported by the United States and Gulf States countries.

There surely is a wildlife park of elephants in the room. Given George W. Bush’s “Crusade”; the belief by extreme right Israeli circles in their control of the Middle East: “from the Nile to the Euphrates” and General Wesley Clark’s revelations of 2007, that the Pentagon planned:“(taking) out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran”, there is an obvious question, sparked by Prime Minister Netanyahu’s confidence over a Lebanon attack:

Are these AIPAC and Israel’s wars?

Notes

i. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/04/obama-condemns-unspeakable-assault-in-syria/?hpt=hp_t2

ii. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2057191,00.html

iii. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/295199/20120208/nato-libya-civilian-death-toll-mps.htm#ixzz1lzVEfpgS

iv. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/168203.html

v. http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=0520083989 (For timely reminder that propaganda sells wars, well worth revisiting. A crash course.)

vi. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29422

vii. http://electronicintifada.net/blog/ali-abunimah/how-cnn-helped-spread-hoax-about-syrian-babies-dying-incubators

viii. http://bikyamasr.com/56287/18-babies-killed-in-syrias-homs-as-power-cut/

ix. http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/01/us-state-departmentfake-ngo-conflict-of.html

x. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Kuwait

xi. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24151

xii. http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/factbox-sanctions-imposed-on-syria

xiii. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

xiv. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/228277.html

The World Bank’s 28 year-old Depopulation Plan

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
February 14, 2012

Plans to drastically reduce the world’s population aren’t new. Many organizations and members of the oligarchy have manifested their intention to promote and carry out plans to dramatically reduce — between 80% and 90% — the number of humans that inhabit the Earth. Last week, we presented proof of now the United Nations and well-known philanthropists divest and invest billions of dollars to support campaigns that threaten the lives of millions of people every year. According to the cited sources and documentation in our article UN Pushes for a Global Tax to Finance its Global Socialist System, the UN alone, and in many cases its alliances with rich corporatists or partner organizations spend their budgets implementing programs in third world nations to avoid human reproduction and the development of those nations. In many cases, the application of eugenics or population control programs are a condition to receiving financial aid.

But the UN is not the only corporate-controlled organization that pushes for population reduction. Together with the UN are the World Health Organization, the IMF, and the World Bank, among others. In the case of the World Bank, the record reveals that some of the most recent initiatives date to 1984, when a report was written and presented to the controllers of the Bank. Among other things, it suggests the immediate start of population reduction policies in order to maintain economic growth; mainly for the developed nations. The document titled “World Development Report 1984″, also includes analysis and commentary about issues such as the Recovery or Relapse in the World Economy, Population Change and Development, Population Data Supplement and World Development Indicators. Notice how three of the 4 most important topics have to do directly with population.

The 300-page report from 1984 was the seventh of its kind, meaning that the World Bank’s elite’s thoughts on how to reduce or manage the world’s population was at least that old. We know today that the actual plan to reduce the population to around 500 million people is much older than that, and that this plan has been channeled through several other organizations whose work is to create policies that support the move to get rid off billions of people. Along with these organizations, the elites have partnered with their own corporations to implement policies in fields such as education, resource management, war (civil and otherwise), peace, financial aid, development, commerce, trade and so on, to enforce those policies. In essence, the corporate oligarchy has always controlled all sides.

The report is very clear from the beginning as to how important depopulation is in their plans to control the masses. “What governments and their people do today to influence our demographic future, will set the terms for the development strategy well into the next century. Failure to act now to slow growth is likely to mean a lower quality of life for millions of people.” Note that the World Banks’ strategy is one for the long term. Depopulation policies are being applied and will continue to be applied progressively, not at once. That is exactly what the elites have been doing for decades. They have been using slow-kill weapons such as chemical products in the food supply and other products we consume on a daily basis, but whose effects are only seen years later (fluoride, GMO’s, pesticides, herbicides, BPA, vaccines and others).

The report continues trying to reinforce a fallacy: That poverty and hunger are a consequence of overpopulation. As we have reported in numerous occasions, poverty and hunger have little to do with overpopulation, but have everything to do with monopolistic practices, price speculation, war and political corruption. “The experience of the past decade shows that education, health, and other development measures that raise parents’ hopes for their children, along with widespread access to family planning services, create a powerful combination in reducing fertility.” This last two words describe the main goal of the World Bank. But let’s review the complete quote and re-format it to reflect what the Bank really means. Indoctrination through the current educational system, eugenics through the use of highly toxic medicines along with the promotion of abortion results in reduced fertility.

The humanity hating statements start on page 50 of the report. “Lower GDP growth makes it more difficult for countries to finance programs in education and family planning, for example –that reduce population growth.” This statement is very important, because education or indoctrination through the public education system in developed and not developed countries together with the so-called family planning practices are two of the most effective tools to carry out eugenics today. In many countries, children are taught to hate humanity and that the most important thing is the well-being of animals, insects and mother nature or GAIA. Some NGO’s have even published articles or produced PSA’s that promote the salvation of insects and animals above humans and that humans and animals are equal. Legislation being worked out in Congresses around the world intend to officially consider humans as equals to animals and to have the United Nations as official spokesperson of the voiceless animals. All of this, of course, to save the planet. But in reality the sought outcome is to equal humans to animals in order to rip our humanity from us. If people are like animals, then people are not people, but animals. With this, the elites can legally argue that it is time to end with all the inherent rights we have as people, because we are not longer people. No more right to life, no right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness, etc.

Neither does poverty or hunger have anything to do with overpopulation, nor there is an overpopulation problem, as the World Bank says in its report. The report goes on to ask whether governments should promote and apply campaigns to reduce fertility and therefore reduce their population. The answer, the text reads, requires an understanding of high fertility and population growth. ” It is the poor with little education and poor health and family planning services who have many children, yet it is also the poor who lose out as rapid population growth hampers development.” This statement is very revealing, as many of the policies for sterilization and population control implemented for the past 50 years are pointed to the poor in both wealthy and developing countries.

The World Bank’s then goes to say that one of the main reasons why poor people choose to have many children is because they want to secure help when they become old; someone to take care of them. The report also cites other reasons such as income, infant mortality, family encouragement of high fertility and limited information about contraceptives, which the report says “are safe”. Of course, this last claim is not true. But that is a discussion for another article.

What the report fails to say is that the real cause of high fertility in poor countries is the welfare-state. Although in many countries some of the reasons cited by the 1984 report may be applicable, the reason why most people have several children in poor and rich countries is because there are socialist programs in place that promote free care and services for those who cannot pay for it. The reason why those people cannot pay for care and health services is because they don’t have jobs to earn a living and depend on their governments to provide care for themselves and their children.

If there is a strong reason why poor people decide to have more than 2 children, which is near the optimum average of 2.1 per family, is because there is an incentive to keep having more. But this is just an unintended consequence of public policies. The real issue is that governments use welfare to keep people dependent, as supposed to help them be self-sufficient and independent. So the Bank not only lies about the real cause of high fertility, but it also supports government intervention to maintain the welfare-state.

Further down on the report, it says that collectivism should be the model to follow, because government control of population fertility has ”longer time horizons than its individual constituents, and the government can weigh better the interests of the future generations against of those of current citizens.” This couldn’t be further from the truth, as most countries where governments intervene heavily in all aspects of life are places where — due to people’s dependence of government — its citizens don’t get to enjoy their lives freely. The report blames the family as a unit, for the government’s lack of action. Governments must, says the report, invest more on the poor.” With this, the World Bank reinforces public perception that it does support socialist policies and the welfare-state as models to govern a dumbed-down, poor and dependent population. “Health and education costs of children are heavily subsidized by the public sector as are roads, communications and other public services that boost jobs and income.” This could not be further from the truth. No socialist program could ever spur economic growth and higher incomes better and more effectively than entrepreneurship in the private sector. What government-sponsored programs do, besides keeping people dependent, is to limit the people’s opportunities as it doesn’t offer incentives to detach themselves from the ever existent government nipple. Also, it is important to remember where government funds come from. In most countries, money is taken from the middle class to give it to the poor in exchange for nothing. The middle class effectively subsidizes poverty. Unfortunately, most of the income stolen from the middle class does not even make it to the poor. It stays inside the government corruptocrazy to finance the its out-of-control spending.

Although the report does not recognize it explicitly, it is visible in many of the claims made in it, that history shows how population growth and decline has always been (except under situations like war or major natural disasters) “automatically” controlled by human progress and how it never needed government intervention. It is not a coincidence that war is one of tools of choice the globalists use to keep the poor countries from developing. That is what is stated on the White House Memorandum 200 prepared by Mr. henry Kissinger.

How does the World Bank implement population control

On page 160, the report states clearly how governments and private institutions can coerce their populations into becoming infertile. “ensuring that people have only the children they want, might not be enough to bring private and socially desired fertility into balance. Economic and social policies are indispensable. Eliminating subsidies to large families, offering financial incentives for smaller families, imposing disincentives for larger families…” The report praises the quota system imposed to the chinese by its government and the fact that China “gives permission” to its citizens to have or not to have children.  ”The system quotas and the accompanying pressure to have an abortion when a woman becomes pregnant without permission, are an additional policy step over and above the system of incentives and disincentives.” In other words, governments should implement any and all measures available to prevent people from having children and cause them to become infertile, including poverty and starvation, bribery, violently killing babies right out of the mothers’ wombs and imposing penalties on people who do not attend to government population control policies.

In addition to imposing sterilization policies and methods as well as bribing people so they don’t have children, the World Bank’s report also suggests that offering low interest rate loans to communities and schools can be a good incentive to keep population growth down and to reduce fertility. “Incentives that offer schools, low interest loans, or a tubewell to communities where contraceptive use is high, also directly link lower fertility to increased welfare.

But all of these suggestions seem mild when it comes to enforcing sterilization policies. The 1984 report also adds that “Male and female sterilization and IUDs can be made more readily available through mobile facilities (such as sterilization vans in Thailand) or periodic “camps” (such as vasectomy and tubectomy-camps in India and IUD “safaris” in Indonesia).”

“Population policy has a long lead time; other development policies must adapt in the meantime. Inaction today forecloses options tomorrow, in overall development strategy and in future population policy. Worst of all, inaction today could mean that more drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom, will seem necessary tomorrow to slow population growth.”

The authors also promote the creation of concentration camps where people can be taken to be sterilized.

As we have informed before, the World Bank’s policies and suggestions to reduce population are in complete accordance with those of other organizations, philanthropists, NGO’s and well-known personalities who donate their monies to reduce the human population. Those include the UN, the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, World Health Organization and IMF. So the next time your country receives aid from a foreign foundation, an NGO, the World Bank or the IMF, remember: this aid comes at the cost of human lives.


UN Wants to Destroy Economy to Save the Environment

The Economic Collapse
February 3, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is absolutely crucial to understand.

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

Their goal is a radical transformation of the entire world.

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

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

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

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

Read Full Article…

Related Links:

Togel178

Pedetogel

Sabatoto

Togel279

Togel158

Colok178

Novaslot88

Lain-Lain

Partner Links