Cliven Bundy Ranch

[slimmouse]

The overiding impression I get from reading ( more intensely ) the entire thread, is that almost alll participants understand the desperate, desperate need for change, whatever our indiividiual beliefs may be.

One thing I can assure all of you of, whether I heard it first on Icke , or Alex Jones, or wherethefuckever, is that agenda 21 , just like the turtloise* is incredibly real.

And when it comes to agenda 21, I dont believe it has the soul of humanity, or the Earth, or the turtloises* as any kind of remotely pressing priority.

As im writing this, Im reminded of "Drax Corporation" from the Bond movie, " Moonraker".


* is turtloise a new word?

[DrEvil]

Of course Agenda 21 is real. It's a set of guidelines for sustainable development. Here's the whole thing if you care to read it (pdf): http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/co ... enda21.pdf

Would you mind pointing out the parts you have issues with?

[slimmouse]

Of course Agenda 21 is real. It's a set of guidelines for sustainable development. Here's the whole thing if you care to read it (pdf): http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/co ... enda21.pdf

Would you mind pointing out the parts you have issues with?

Ive just read the very first paragraph of the preamble, where the paragraph ends with "better living standards for all"

What do you think that means?

Are "standards for al"l better now than they were in 1992, or are they woirse?

And if you believe they are better for some, could you name them?

[Rory]

What do you imagine it would take, petrochemical energy wise, to gaurentee 1992 living standards for all? How much oil is left and how long have we got at these current living standards?

Even if the most paranoid ravings of the insidious and far reaching power of Agenda 21 were true, what is the worst that can happen - worse that is certain to happen anyway if we don't severely ramp down western industrial consumption?

Agenda 21 is fear porn for Icke/Jones/Rense-heads - there isn't a damn thing they can conjure up to scare us than is worse than the sheer mundanity of watching our inertia preventing us from steering away from a cliffs edge of EROEI decline.

[DrEvil]

Of course Agenda 21 is real. It's a set of guidelines for sustainable development. Here's the whole thing if you care to read it (pdf): http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/co ... enda21.pdf

Would you mind pointing out the parts you have issues with?

Ive just read the very first paragraph of the preamble, where the paragraph ends with "better living standards for all"

What do you think that means?

Are "standards for al"l better now than they were in 1992, or are they woirse?

And if you believe they are better for some, could you name them?

- Uh.. I think it means "better living standards for all". What do you think it means?

- Yes, standard of living is higher for more people now than in 1992. A "few" Chinese, for instance.

As usual, you could easily have looked these things up yourself. You're welcome.

[Hunter]

Agenda 21 may in fact be a real good thing but there are questions and concerns and I dont see any reason why it is a problem to look in to them further. Why are the Chinese govt involved, can you imagine if we let the Soviet Union do such things during the cold war, I thought the commies were the enemy. I am not saying I agree with that or whatever, I am just wondering why we are working with what on the surface appears to be a sworn enemy of the country? Also the conflict of interest with the Reid family personally profiting from it all through his son's involvement. IF that is all true and I dont know that it is, it does raise some reasonable questions.

If it really is there to benefit the people and make our lives better great, but how often does that happen, in reality? Usually it ends up benefiting the wealthy and not you and I, somehow or another.

I really dont know enough about it and when Jones starts huffing and puffing about things like this I usually dismiss it, that may or may not be a mistake but I have not found his ravings to be very reliable over the years but there is commonly SOME TRUTH in the things he goes on about, he just sensationalizes it more than he needs to. Things are usually bad enough that they dont really need embellishment.

[slimmouse]

Of course Agenda 21 is real. It's a set of guidelines for sustainable development. Here's the whole thing if you care to read it (pdf): http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/co ... enda21.pdf

Would you mind pointing out the parts you have issues with?

Ive just read the very first paragraph of the preamble, where the paragraph ends with "better living standards for all"

What do you think that means?

Are "standards for al"l better now than they were in 1992, or are they woirse?

And if you believe they are better for some, could you name them?

- Uh.. I think it means "better living standards for all". What do you think it means?

- Yes, standard of living is higher for more people now than in 1992. A "few" Chinese, for instance.

As usual, you could easily have looked these things up yourself. You're welcome.

You see, We have an immediate difference of opinion, based upon the opening paragraph. Imagine going through the entire BS document.

"Sustainable development". Sustainable for who? Who decided all of this?

Id love some evidence of this "better standards for all". All I see are evermore imbalanced wealth distribution graphs ( not that wealth alone neccesarily defines standard of living), accompanied by medicine that doesnt cure, an education system that barely teaches, a constant state of warfare, an increasingly hostile police state equipped with sky high piles of laws, cash and brutality., and the first major "banking crisis" ( read ongoing debt slavery to the wealthy few),

Youre right about a few chinese of course. The rest of them just need nets outside their workplaces in an effort to prevent them from
jumping to their deaths. The only reason the fucking nets are there is of course for the corporations to show their "human side". If they had their own way, theyd just save their money.

If you actually look at the maps for the Agenda 21 population planning, we should have everything the elite want.

And that clearly is not better living standards for all. Id deffne it better as creating better conditions for slavery for all.

That first fluffy bare faced lie is the usual crappola. Reminds me of a speech by just about any of the leading western politicians, which is why I never even needed to bother getting past the first paragraph to take issue. Just remove the flowery rhetoric and look at what is actually happening.

Should I bother to read more?

[Iamwhomiam]

"Sustainable development". Sustainable for who? Who decided all of this?

Should I bother to read more?

Speaks volumes and explains more about so much more.

[justdrew]

the political process that produces a fine document like agenda 21, doesn't have any requirement that it actually follow the recommendations of their experts, far from it, appointing the experts is the end goal to prove they've "addressed the issues" - the ironic fact may be, that we're being destroyed by "democracy" (such as it is) no one has the power to pursue a broadly unpopular agenda. No matter how urgent or necessary. What would it take to get a hundred 7 year olds to elect another 7 year old, who promises to make them stop eating cake? They all want more cake. The impossibility of it is irrelevant. human nature. No child wanting to be elected is going to strongly pursue a no-cake agenda. He may make noises to appease those children "concerned" about excess cake (who eat their own fair share of cake too).

[slimmouse]

"Sustainable development". Sustainable for who? Who decided all of this?

Should I bother to read more?

Speaks volumes and explains more about so much more.

Thanks for the considered reply. No answers, but considered I suppose.

Id just like to know how moving people of vast swathes of land into "urban settlement areas" is going to result in better living standards for all?

Its liike outlawing growing vegetables, leaving food in the hands of monsanto and co. Or non dredging of rivers by EU directives during the somerset downs floods. Thats not my own personal idea of better living standards for all.

Its horseshit, and its producing a slave population, working for the corporations, who , incidentally will just go ahead and do as they please regardless.

[slimmouse]

Economic policies of individual countries and international economic relations both have great
relevance to sustainable development. The reactivation and acceleration of development requires both a dynamic and a supportive international economic environment and determined policies at thenational level. It will be frustrated in the absence of either of these requirements. A supportive external economic environment is crucial. The development process will not gather momentum if the global
economy lacks dynamism and stability and is beset with uncertainties. Neither will it gather momentum if the developing countries are weighted down by external indebtedness, if development finance is inadequate, if barriers restrict access to markets and i
f commodity prices and the terms of trade of developing countries remain depressed. The record of the 1980s was essentially negative on each of these counts and needs to be reversed. The policies and measures needed to create an international environment that is strongly supportive of national development efforts are thus vital.International cooperation in this area should be designed to complement and support -not to diminish or subsume

How is this coming along do you think? Any countries over beset with indebtedness? I would say the US certainly is, but none of it appears to be getting in the way of agenda 21 right now

I guess at least we can thank the TPP for freeing those restrictive trade practises and barriers?

[Sounder]

I had a bit of a laugh when Dr. Evil mentioned that Agenda 21 is 'voluntary'. In the 2050 document the 'vision' is to have 9 billion people mostly living in cities, all happy and employed.


Will there be walls around these cities? How much or who must one be to buy a pass to get out into the wilderness?

Now, let me see if I have this straight, please do correct me if I am wrong.

200 hundred of the worlds largest corporations have (effectively) formed a union with a body that advocates for world government. Several of these corps. produce severely toxic products and waste. Monsanto produces glyphosate, which is presented as being 'safe' for humans because humans do not have the shikimic acid pathway that enables the chemical to explode the insect or bacteria from the inside out. Oddly enough, no responsible scientist can be heard above the din of bullshit mantras, even if he were to scream at the top of his lungs; people cannot digest food properly if the bacterias of the gut have had their shikimic acid pathway disrupted.

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/progr ... heet.shtml

In the past the merger of corps and government has had one name and that name is fascism.

Please correct me if I'm wrong; does it have a different name now?

Sustainable? My gut says different.

http://explosivereports.com/2013/01/24/ ... ont-group/

Monsanto Formally Joins Global Agenda 21 Front Group

MONSANTO-1

Jurriaan Maessen
ExplosiveReports.Com
January 24, 2013

The global front group of the Agenda 21 program which was formalized during the UN’s 1992 Earth Summit is proud to welcome Monsanto as its newest “member”, joining the likes of such “sustainable” businesses as Coca Cola, Dutch Royal Shell and other global leviathans.

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) has put out a press release, announcing that Monsanto has joined the effort for “global sustainable development”. The Council consists of several global mega-corporations such as Dutch Royal Shell and Coca Cola, to mention just a few.

The press-release notes that by joining the Council “Monsanto is taking an important step along a continuum towards developing a more sustainable agriculture system – one that improves our daily lives, respects our global environment and recognizes the importance of the world’s small-holder farmers”.

President of the WBCSD, Peter Bakker, stated that “a future vision” is required to move “to protect soils, enhance ecosystems and optimize land use in ways that are environmentally sound.”

“(…) we must move towards a future vision for agriculture where absolutes become as out of place as a one-size-fits-all approach to farming.”

Jerry Steiner, Executive Vice President, Sustainability and Corporate Affairs at Monsanto said:

“We are excited to join the WBCSD and connect with a global coalition of more than 200 companies that advocate for progress on sustainable development.”

The global coalition Steiner speaks about consists of just about all global mega-corporations. Here’s an overview of the membership-list as posted on the WBCSD’s website:

Companies_web banner_011012

The Council on their website admits that it strives to execute Agenda 21 as part of a “One World Vision”. Furthermore, the WBCSD describes that it “has its roots in the proactive stance adopted by a group of visionary business leaders during and after the Rio Summit.”

“The Rio Summit in 1992 was a defining event for sustainable development. It added development to the environmental agenda, produced the Rio Declaration, the Climate Change and Biological Diversity Conventions and set in motion Agenda 21. Importantly, it positioned business as a key actor.”

Adding global GM food producer Monsanto to its roundtable equals victory for Agenda 21, as global food production is a prime concern as formulated during the 1992 Earth Summit.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Agenda 21 was drafted by the bureaucrats and interns, one of a billion "big idea" papers left in the wake of neoliberal globalization, a hollow statement of noble aspirations stated as strongly as decorum will permit, a copywriting exercise to mine for future speeches, forgotten even by its own architects at this point.

The multinational global corporate state has no goals beyond maintaining and cementing their current power and no principles beyond what is expedient to accomplish those twin goals.

The whole lineage outlined above -- Rio Summit, Kyoto Protocols, Earth Day Horseshit -- these are all symbolic gestures intended to placate activists and simulate action, but there is nothing there. If we're going to view even throwaway concessions as malign & sophisticated conspiracies, we might as well by typing essays about the contours and content of our own shadows.

I am open to the possibility we're already there, myself emphatically included.

Here's an Easter Sunday toast to Leo Wanta, though: may he yet save us all.

[DrEvil]

... me and slim bickering...

You see, We have an immediate difference of opinion, based upon the opening paragraph. Imagine going through the entire BS document.

"Sustainable development". Sustainable for who? Who decided all of this?

Sustainable for humans and the biosphere. It was decided by Rio 92, signed by 180 heads of state, including George Bush senior.

Id love some evidence of this "better standards for all". All I see are evermore imbalanced wealth distribution graphs ( not that wealth alone neccesarily defines standard of living), accompanied by medicine that doesnt cure, an education system that barely teaches, a constant state of warfare, an increasingly hostile police state equipped with sky high piles of laws, cash and brutality., and the first major "banking crisis" ( read ongoing debt slavery to the wealthy few),

You seem to have "The World" confused with "The US". Of course it's not a perfectly smooth upwards trend. There's bumps along the road, but most indicators are pointing up. More people out of extreme poverty, more access to clean water, lower child mortality rates, fewer people dying from AIDS, more kids enrolled in school, fewer wars, etc.

Youre right about a few chinese of course. The rest of them just need nets outside their workplaces in an effort to prevent them from
jumping to their deaths. The only reason the fucking nets are there is of course for the corporations to show their "human side". If they had their own way, theyd just save their money.

I was being sarcastic when I said "a few". I meant a couple of hundred million (roughly 2/3 of the US population). And sure, Foxconn (which is Taiwanese btw) aren't exactly known for their enlightened labor practices, but I fail to see what that has to do with Agenda 21. Anyway - they're in the process of replacing all their labor with robots, so they will all soon be without a workplace to jump out off.

If you actually look at the maps for the Agenda 21 population planning, we should have everything the elite want.

And that clearly is not better living standards for all. Id deffne it better as creating better conditions for slavery for all.

That first fluffy bare faced lie is the usual crappola. Reminds me of a speech by just about any of the leading western politicians, which is why I never even needed to bother getting past the first paragraph to take issue. Just remove the flowery rhetoric and look at what is actually happening.

Should I bother to read more?

Yes, what is actually happening? Agenda 21 has been in full force in hundreds of US cities for over 2 decades already. When exactly is it supposed to turn into the boogeyman?

[slimmouse]

Agenda 21 was drafted by the bureaucrats and interns, one of a billion "big idea" papers left in the wake of neoliberal globalization, a hollow statement of noble aspirations stated as strongly as decorum will permit, a copywriting exercise to mine for future speeches, forgotten even by its own architects at this point.

The multinational global corporate state has no goals beyond maintaining and cementing their current power and no principles beyond what is expedient to accomplish those twin goals.

The whole lineage outlined above -- Rio Summit, Kyoto Protocols, Earth Day Horseshit -- these are all symbolic gestures intended to placate activists and simulate action, but there is nothing there. If we're going to view even throwaway concessions as malign & sophisticated conspiracies, we might as well by typing essays about the contours and content of our own shadows.

I am open to the possibility we're already there, myself emphatically included.

Here's an Easter Sunday toast to Leo Wanta, though: may he yet save us all.

I think my argument is this.

Dont talk to me about sustainable development and better living standards for all, like Obama spoke to me about closing Guantanamo, and ending the wars. or Cameron speaks to me about referendums on Europe, or Kerry, Nuland and Co. speaking about "World Peace" and Democracy.

AFAIC its all what it always turns out to be.

A deep pile of horseshite designed to bury us. But since it comes straght from the mouths of poiiticians and their paper wirters and speech writers, who are all owned by the same tiny few. ( just for anyone not paying attention to how the world works) it appears to confuse people.

You see, coming straight from the mouths of apparently important people, at least this horseshite is still warm, reassuring and fuzzy..

By their deeds shall you know them.

The Bunden ranch will probably fall, possibly in Waco fashion and people will just say.....oh well.