http://igst.blogspot.com/2007/12/europe-in-vice.html
The structure of the European Union is such that power will ebb inexorably away from national governments and flow to Brussels. European Union laws supersede national laws and can be enacted to some degree free of control by national legislatures. This bodes ill for Europe.
Any hope that there are strong constituencies within the European Union willing to safeguard democratic control of government cannot but be dashed when there is such evident contempt for voters in European political circles as evidenced by the manner in which they are attempting to implement the defunct E.U. Constitution.
First, the structure of the E.U. that facilitates centralization:
[L]aws in the EU are made by the Council of Ministers, i.e. the committee of 27 ministers for whichever subject is being voted on, EU integration means that governments receive wide-ranging law-making powers.
This is, of course, incompatible with the principle of the separation of powers. According to that principle, the executive power (the government) should be separate from, and accountable to, the legislature (the national parliament) and of course the judiciary. Dictatorship is precisely the form of government in which the executive is not so constrained, and this is also the case in the EU.
Because the EU represents a dramatic and constant transfer of legislative power from national legislatures to national executives (sitting in the Council of Ministers), it can also be dubbed “a permanent coup d’état”. . . . The fact that the Council of Ministers, the EU’s legislature, meets and votes in secret only makes the fundamentally anti-democratic character of the European construction even clearer.[1]
The structure of the European Union thus favors a dangerous transfer of power to a Council of Ministers meeting and voting in secret.
The conduct of the E.U.'s proponents, as opposed to its structure, shows similar contempt for democratic governance. Witness the underhanded way in which the previously rejected-by-voters E.U. constitution is being foisted back on the people of Britain and Europe by merely breaking apart the same constitution and attaching those parts to existing treaties. This is being done by a process of amendment, which amendments deliberately use impenetrable hypertechnical language and require the interested observer to plough back through the extant treaties to understand how a disembodied amending provision relates back.
Then there's always the aboveboard contempt for European voters. From Valery Giscard d'Estaing, former president of France:
The rejection of the constitution [by the voters in referendums] was a mistake which will have to be corrected [by more sagacious people].[2]
And:
"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly [...] All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.[3]
This drift toward a powerful and unconstrained executive in the European Union is deathly serious. It is the opposite approach taken by our founding document, which should be as useful a guide to Europeans as it is -- or might be -- to us.
Alas, European political leaders now flirt with centralization of power in a manner demonstrating that the preeminent political lesson of the twentieth century was not learned. They thus risk laying the foundation for an oppressive superstate. How far this process will go before Europe slides back into black fascism or red fascism is no small question.
Tragically, at the same time, these political leaders remain blind to – or cowed by -- the totalitarian menace growing in their midst, but which has its roots not in the twentieth but in the seventh century.
Europe is now effectively caught between the arms of a vice.
Notes
[1] "Why Europe’s National Politicians Sign Away National Sovereignty." By John Laughland, The Brussels Journal, 12/19/07 (emphasis added).
[2] "The Betrayal of Freedom in Europe: Back in the EUSSR." The Brussels Journal, 12/19/07.
[3] Id. (Emphasis added.)
posted by Col. B. Bunny at 12/19/2007
Showing posts with label mind control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mind control. Show all posts
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Monday, January 7, 2008
Shaping Our Fears With the Right Information
The Role of Information in the Development of Fear Beliefs: End of Award Report
By Andy Peter Field and Robin Banerjee
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) (July 2005) (Excerpts)
“Results showed that both positive and negative information changed fear beliefs…The Source of Information did not interact with the effect of the information, either explicitly in the FBQ scores or implicitly in the Affective Priming measure. This was in contrast to previous work which found that information was only effective at altering fear beliefs if it came from an adult rather than a peer (Field, Argyris & Knowles, 2001). Experiment 3, however, matched the faces and voices of the different informants much more closely and presenting them via the computer may also have reduced the felt difference between the informants…Fear beliefs did increase significantly after negative information compared to after no information and after positive information. Source of Information did not moderate or influence the effect of information in any way.
Affective Priming also showed differences between the negatively and positively portrayed situations, showing that the information had had an effect at an implicit level as well as at the explicit level…changes in fear beliefs did alter causal learning.
Specifically, negative information increased the rate at which a congruent causal
relationship was detected, and led to an overestimation of the frequency of negative outcomes when the causal relationship was incongruent with information and the actual frequency of negative outcomes was only 20%. For positive information, the results were broadly similar. Participants were quicker to detect the 80% frequency of positive outcomes after they had been given positive information about the situation and, when the outcomes were incongruent (that is, 80% negative and only 20% positive), participants consistently overpredicted the frequency of positive outcomes. This suggests that information can interact with causal learning experiences, and may in some cases have a protective effect.
Even after 40 trials of an 80% negative outcome, positive information led to an underestimate of the likelihood of a negative outcome…A key feature of clinical phobias and excessive fears is that they do not respond to verbal reassurances and show a resistance to extinction. That is, despite repeated experiences of the phobic object not leading to aversive outcomes, the fear persists.
...Further research should look at whether the type of fear learning that results from information is resistant to extinction or whether it can easily be reversed by contrary experience or information. The results of the causal learning experiments suggest that information can bias the processing of subsequent contrary evidence to minimise its evidential value. Elucidating the processes that lead to the persistence of fears and phobias in the face of contradictory evidence could have very useful therapeutic implications.”
By Andy Peter Field and Robin Banerjee
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) (July 2005) (Excerpts)
“Results showed that both positive and negative information changed fear beliefs…The Source of Information did not interact with the effect of the information, either explicitly in the FBQ scores or implicitly in the Affective Priming measure. This was in contrast to previous work which found that information was only effective at altering fear beliefs if it came from an adult rather than a peer (Field, Argyris & Knowles, 2001). Experiment 3, however, matched the faces and voices of the different informants much more closely and presenting them via the computer may also have reduced the felt difference between the informants…Fear beliefs did increase significantly after negative information compared to after no information and after positive information. Source of Information did not moderate or influence the effect of information in any way.
Affective Priming also showed differences between the negatively and positively portrayed situations, showing that the information had had an effect at an implicit level as well as at the explicit level…changes in fear beliefs did alter causal learning.
Specifically, negative information increased the rate at which a congruent causal
relationship was detected, and led to an overestimation of the frequency of negative outcomes when the causal relationship was incongruent with information and the actual frequency of negative outcomes was only 20%. For positive information, the results were broadly similar. Participants were quicker to detect the 80% frequency of positive outcomes after they had been given positive information about the situation and, when the outcomes were incongruent (that is, 80% negative and only 20% positive), participants consistently overpredicted the frequency of positive outcomes. This suggests that information can interact with causal learning experiences, and may in some cases have a protective effect.
Even after 40 trials of an 80% negative outcome, positive information led to an underestimate of the likelihood of a negative outcome…A key feature of clinical phobias and excessive fears is that they do not respond to verbal reassurances and show a resistance to extinction. That is, despite repeated experiences of the phobic object not leading to aversive outcomes, the fear persists.
...Further research should look at whether the type of fear learning that results from information is resistant to extinction or whether it can easily be reversed by contrary experience or information. The results of the causal learning experiments suggest that information can bias the processing of subsequent contrary evidence to minimise its evidential value. Elucidating the processes that lead to the persistence of fears and phobias in the face of contradictory evidence could have very useful therapeutic implications.”
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Brown's 'Get Fit' Towns: Kim Jong-il Would Be Proud
By James Woudhuysen
Professor of forecasting and innovation, De Montfort University
Spiked Online
Monday 5 November 2007
Gordon Brown’s UK government will now try to design urban areas that force us to exercise more – and that’s official. To tackle obesity with what he called a ‘large-scale’ approach ‘across the whole community’, Brown’s health secretary Alan Johnson has said that he wants to ‘make physical activity a normal part of everyday life’. (1) So before you go to work, school or your leisure destination, remember that your personal trainer, Alan, has instructed you to walk, run or pedal there.
Johnson’s ‘fit towns’, as they have been called, are enough to leave you breathless. Yet although his announcement was picked up by mass media as far afield as China and India (2), it was – like so much of Labour policy – not entirely new. As spiked pointed out nearly six months ago, when Brown announced his plans for five eco-towns, the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) had committed itself to urban growth based on public transport, cycling, walking and a reduced need to travel, ‘especially by car’ (3). Moreover the CLG’s July Eco-towns Prospectus registered a desire to ‘deliver physical and mental health benefits’, offer ‘choices for healthy living’, and go about ‘encouraging healthy behaviours’ (4). So what has Johnson added? You could say that he has formally medicalised urban design, annexing it as a Department of Health issue, and you’d be right. But the real novelty of Johnson’s innovation is his drive to get us stretching our limbs at Labour’s behest.
Barely two weeks ago, Johnson insisted that Britain’s potential obesity crisis is one that’s on the same scale as the crisis of climate change. That comparison was ridiculous enough (5). Now, he has said that both Labour’s eco-towns and other urban areas should be adapted to improve people’s health. Through their layout, facilities and construction, eco-towns could also be ‘healthy towns’. If successful, such an approach ‘could also apply to areas undergoing housing growth and renewal’ (6).
This is a regime for national fitness worthy of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. Not for nothing has Johnson claimed a past allegiance to Stalinism (7).
In an absolutely illiberal and inhumane manner, Johnson wants urban areas designed so that people’s behaviour cannot at all consist of their own freely decided ‘choices’. Instead, behaviour will be relentlessly controlled by the state. What the Russian psychologist Ivan Pavlov did to salivating dogs, or the stimulus-response experiments conducted by US psychologist BF Skinner did to hungry rats, Johnson wants to do to us. Johnson’s view of human freedom is degraded.
The confusions within Labour’s urban policy, and the logic of Johnson’s approach, make his proposal ludicrous and unworkable. But that should not blind us to his authoritarianism.
For some time now, Labour has crammed what few new houses it has built into the same fenced-in urban areas, so as to keep the masses in their place, protect Britain’s rural spaces and lower vehicle emissions as a means of saving the planet. And Labour’s brownfield brutalism does not stop there. So ludicrously convinced is Johnson that architectural space really does determine physical slimness, we might expect him to contradict his boss, Gordon Brown, sooner or later.
When Brown first floated the idea of eco-towns, he said that their homes, roads and bus routes should be constructed ‘in the most environmentally sustainable way’ (8). But if obesity is, as Johnson says, on a par with climate change, then dispensing with roads and public transport altogether would be the best way to reduce people’s waistlines. And why doesn’t Johnson decree that the whole of Britain become a TV-free zone, too? After all, TV supposedly encourages us to be couch potatoes, so giving the National Health Service more fatties to treat.
In the walk-to-work office blocks of Johnson’s vision, perhaps there should be no lifts. Lifts would only encourage sloth – especially among slackers who are over 60. And surely doorways should be specially narrow, so as to encourage dietary restraint?
In announcing his intellectual breakthrough, Johnson made much of the flab-fighting successes of cities in Australia, Finland and especially France. Yet in fact Obesogenic Environments: Evidence Review, a highly relevant and recent report commissioned by the Foresight programme of the UK Office of Science and Innovation, makes no mention of either Finland or France. The report records that in Perth, Western Australia, there is evidence that, ‘after adjustment for confounding factors’, being overweight is associated with living on a highway and living on streets with no pavements and with a perceived lack of paths within walking distance. Being obese in Perth is likewise associated with perceived lack of paths within walking distance, poor access to four or more recreational facilities, and with a lack of pavements or shops within walking distance. But that’s about it. Indeed with regard to obesity, the report concludes that, ‘influences of the environment are probably small and mechanisms remain unclear… At present, there is scant evidence on whether the environment might have different effects on people with contrasting levels of physical activity and body weight.’ (9)
Clearly Johnson can’t be bothered with such a careful analysis. His intent, rather, is simply to stigmatise those who cannot afford to eat well and subject them to a kind of sweaty urban treadmill. The government’s attempt to make us live zero-carbon, zero-carbohydrate lifestyles squeezes two ridiculous aims into a failed policy – housing. Recently, Labour has engineered a decline in the number of new homes built in Britain; but its ambitions to police us all through social engineering know no limits.
The construction of towns around the tyranny of health is a frightening new departure. Yet we have not heard the last of the Johnson doctrine. Britain’s 2012 Olympics doesn’t just advertise itself as a low-carbon affair, but insists that it will increase Britons’ ‘awareness’ of cycling and walking as healthy means of travel (10).
In Labour’s camp, no aspect of our public or private lives escapes the government guards – or Alan Johnson, the demented doctor.
Professor of forecasting and innovation, De Montfort University
Spiked Online
Monday 5 November 2007
Gordon Brown’s UK government will now try to design urban areas that force us to exercise more – and that’s official. To tackle obesity with what he called a ‘large-scale’ approach ‘across the whole community’, Brown’s health secretary Alan Johnson has said that he wants to ‘make physical activity a normal part of everyday life’. (1) So before you go to work, school or your leisure destination, remember that your personal trainer, Alan, has instructed you to walk, run or pedal there.
Johnson’s ‘fit towns’, as they have been called, are enough to leave you breathless. Yet although his announcement was picked up by mass media as far afield as China and India (2), it was – like so much of Labour policy – not entirely new. As spiked pointed out nearly six months ago, when Brown announced his plans for five eco-towns, the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) had committed itself to urban growth based on public transport, cycling, walking and a reduced need to travel, ‘especially by car’ (3). Moreover the CLG’s July Eco-towns Prospectus registered a desire to ‘deliver physical and mental health benefits’, offer ‘choices for healthy living’, and go about ‘encouraging healthy behaviours’ (4). So what has Johnson added? You could say that he has formally medicalised urban design, annexing it as a Department of Health issue, and you’d be right. But the real novelty of Johnson’s innovation is his drive to get us stretching our limbs at Labour’s behest.
Barely two weeks ago, Johnson insisted that Britain’s potential obesity crisis is one that’s on the same scale as the crisis of climate change. That comparison was ridiculous enough (5). Now, he has said that both Labour’s eco-towns and other urban areas should be adapted to improve people’s health. Through their layout, facilities and construction, eco-towns could also be ‘healthy towns’. If successful, such an approach ‘could also apply to areas undergoing housing growth and renewal’ (6).
This is a regime for national fitness worthy of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. Not for nothing has Johnson claimed a past allegiance to Stalinism (7).
In an absolutely illiberal and inhumane manner, Johnson wants urban areas designed so that people’s behaviour cannot at all consist of their own freely decided ‘choices’. Instead, behaviour will be relentlessly controlled by the state. What the Russian psychologist Ivan Pavlov did to salivating dogs, or the stimulus-response experiments conducted by US psychologist BF Skinner did to hungry rats, Johnson wants to do to us. Johnson’s view of human freedom is degraded.
The confusions within Labour’s urban policy, and the logic of Johnson’s approach, make his proposal ludicrous and unworkable. But that should not blind us to his authoritarianism.
For some time now, Labour has crammed what few new houses it has built into the same fenced-in urban areas, so as to keep the masses in their place, protect Britain’s rural spaces and lower vehicle emissions as a means of saving the planet. And Labour’s brownfield brutalism does not stop there. So ludicrously convinced is Johnson that architectural space really does determine physical slimness, we might expect him to contradict his boss, Gordon Brown, sooner or later.
When Brown first floated the idea of eco-towns, he said that their homes, roads and bus routes should be constructed ‘in the most environmentally sustainable way’ (8). But if obesity is, as Johnson says, on a par with climate change, then dispensing with roads and public transport altogether would be the best way to reduce people’s waistlines. And why doesn’t Johnson decree that the whole of Britain become a TV-free zone, too? After all, TV supposedly encourages us to be couch potatoes, so giving the National Health Service more fatties to treat.
In the walk-to-work office blocks of Johnson’s vision, perhaps there should be no lifts. Lifts would only encourage sloth – especially among slackers who are over 60. And surely doorways should be specially narrow, so as to encourage dietary restraint?
In announcing his intellectual breakthrough, Johnson made much of the flab-fighting successes of cities in Australia, Finland and especially France. Yet in fact Obesogenic Environments: Evidence Review, a highly relevant and recent report commissioned by the Foresight programme of the UK Office of Science and Innovation, makes no mention of either Finland or France. The report records that in Perth, Western Australia, there is evidence that, ‘after adjustment for confounding factors’, being overweight is associated with living on a highway and living on streets with no pavements and with a perceived lack of paths within walking distance. Being obese in Perth is likewise associated with perceived lack of paths within walking distance, poor access to four or more recreational facilities, and with a lack of pavements or shops within walking distance. But that’s about it. Indeed with regard to obesity, the report concludes that, ‘influences of the environment are probably small and mechanisms remain unclear… At present, there is scant evidence on whether the environment might have different effects on people with contrasting levels of physical activity and body weight.’ (9)
Clearly Johnson can’t be bothered with such a careful analysis. His intent, rather, is simply to stigmatise those who cannot afford to eat well and subject them to a kind of sweaty urban treadmill. The government’s attempt to make us live zero-carbon, zero-carbohydrate lifestyles squeezes two ridiculous aims into a failed policy – housing. Recently, Labour has engineered a decline in the number of new homes built in Britain; but its ambitions to police us all through social engineering know no limits.
The construction of towns around the tyranny of health is a frightening new departure. Yet we have not heard the last of the Johnson doctrine. Britain’s 2012 Olympics doesn’t just advertise itself as a low-carbon affair, but insists that it will increase Britons’ ‘awareness’ of cycling and walking as healthy means of travel (10).
In Labour’s camp, no aspect of our public or private lives escapes the government guards – or Alan Johnson, the demented doctor.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair Behind Loss Of UK Sovereignty to EU Continentals
Everyone must love the EU... says Tony Blair
Thisislondon.co.uk - The Entertainment Guide
From the Evening Standard
Last updated at 22:22pm on 02.12.06
A multi-million pound propaganda war to force the British people to love the European Union and Brussels bureaucrats is to be launched by Tony Blair as part of his legacy as Prime Minister, it has been revealed.
The operation to overcome strong opposition to the EU in Britain and soften them up in the event of fresh moves to forge closer links with Brussels was secretly agreed by Mr Blair and his Ministers at last week's Cabinet meeting.
Details of the plan, obtained by The Mail on Sunday, show how the Prime Minister is so frustrated at his failure to persuade voters that the EU is a good thing, he is to spend a fortune from public funds in a final attempt to brainwash them before he resigns next year.
They include banning Ministers and officials from referring to unpopular EU institutions like the European Commission, places such as Brussels and Strasbourg, the euro currency, terms like 'Eurocrat' and 'EU directive' and controversial policies such as the Common Agricultural Policy and the EU constitution.
Instead they have been ordered to try to promote the 'EU brand' by linking to popular European events and institutions such as the Eurovision song contest, the Cannes Film Festival and the UEFA soccer organisation that runs the Champions League tournament - even though none of them has anything to do with the EU.
Every Whitehall department is to appoint a spin doctor responsible for promoting the EU. And Downing Street will draw up an 'EU Grid' to make sure stories portraying Brussels in a good light are leaked to the media on a regular basis.
The leaked plans state that propaganda must be tailored to win over all groups by encouraging them to think that 'as a tourist, as a mother, as a birdwatcher, as an entrepreneur... the EU is relevant and can make a difference.'
More controversially, it suggests Ministers should not waste their energies trying to win over the elderly and people with few academic qualifications.
It says the 'young and educated' have much more appetite for learning about Europe than 'the old and uneducated'.
The plans were drawn up on Mr Blair's instructions by Whitehall's £180,000-a-year head of communications Howell James, a close friend of EU Commissioner Peter Mandelson.
Mr James had a relationship with Mr Mandelson's partner, Brazilian Reinaldo da Silva, before Mr Mandelson met him.
Mr Howell's links with Mr Mandelson are thought to have been a factor when he was appointed as Whitehall's first permanent secretary in charge of media relations two years ago.
At last week's Cabinet meeting where the EU propaganda campaign was approved, Ministers were told it was needed because of a growing expectation that Brussels would revive plans for an EU constitution, further reducing Britain's ability to govern itself.
The constitution was abandoned last year after it was rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands.
They will shortly receive a 'new core script and toolkit' suggesting that issues such as climate change, Blue Flag beaches, cheap flights and cheap mobile calls when abroad should be emphasised with the EU downplayed.
The paper presented to the Cabinet by Mr James complained of the continuing 'negativity and euro scepticism' among British voters, adding: "Indifference and apathy remains significant." Ministers must claim victories for Brussels, not Britain. "There is a risk of overplaying the UK's role and achievements at the expense of the EU,' it stated.
The new pro-EU message will be dumbed down, using a 'reframed and compelling narrative with accessible and "friendly" themes, wherever possible steering away from institutions, politics and legislation'. And pro-European politicians should be replaced by pro-European celebrities with a 'range of non political voices'.
In one of the most controversial sections on 'rebranding the EU', the Cabinet paper provides a chart showing the most unpopular aspects of the EU: the constitution, the commission, Brussels, Strasbourg, the Common Agricultural Policy, Eurocrats and the euro, described as issues towards which the public feels 'cold'.
They are contrasted with popular - or 'warm' - aspects of Europe, including UEFA, the Eurovision Song Contest, the Cannes Film Festival and Liverpool, Europe's "Capital of Culture' for 2008, though none have EU links. The best-known 'warm' EU topics were its Pet Travel Scheme and the EU-sponsored "Blue Flag' clean beaches.
Titled Reframing The Debate, the paper says Ministers must use 'themes with a "natural" European dimension to maximise impact and increase familiarity with Europe'.
The objective is to 'realign the EU brand via alliances with familiar, trusted organisations and brands'.
A new network of Whitehall spin doctors with orders to promote the EU has been created, with one senior "Press co-ordinator' in all 23 Government departments.
They will help No 10 draw up a 'rolling grid of upcoming EU issues' to ensure British voters are fed with a constant diet of pro-EU news.
Mr James told Ministers Press releases about the EU must be censored, removing references to the EU and its directives.
Instead they would refer to 'Europe' - which Mr James describes as 'a European sub brand' which people warm to.
Thisislondon.co.uk - The Entertainment Guide
From the Evening Standard
Last updated at 22:22pm on 02.12.06
A multi-million pound propaganda war to force the British people to love the European Union and Brussels bureaucrats is to be launched by Tony Blair as part of his legacy as Prime Minister, it has been revealed.
The operation to overcome strong opposition to the EU in Britain and soften them up in the event of fresh moves to forge closer links with Brussels was secretly agreed by Mr Blair and his Ministers at last week's Cabinet meeting.
Details of the plan, obtained by The Mail on Sunday, show how the Prime Minister is so frustrated at his failure to persuade voters that the EU is a good thing, he is to spend a fortune from public funds in a final attempt to brainwash them before he resigns next year.
They include banning Ministers and officials from referring to unpopular EU institutions like the European Commission, places such as Brussels and Strasbourg, the euro currency, terms like 'Eurocrat' and 'EU directive' and controversial policies such as the Common Agricultural Policy and the EU constitution.
Instead they have been ordered to try to promote the 'EU brand' by linking to popular European events and institutions such as the Eurovision song contest, the Cannes Film Festival and the UEFA soccer organisation that runs the Champions League tournament - even though none of them has anything to do with the EU.
Every Whitehall department is to appoint a spin doctor responsible for promoting the EU. And Downing Street will draw up an 'EU Grid' to make sure stories portraying Brussels in a good light are leaked to the media on a regular basis.
The leaked plans state that propaganda must be tailored to win over all groups by encouraging them to think that 'as a tourist, as a mother, as a birdwatcher, as an entrepreneur... the EU is relevant and can make a difference.'
More controversially, it suggests Ministers should not waste their energies trying to win over the elderly and people with few academic qualifications.
It says the 'young and educated' have much more appetite for learning about Europe than 'the old and uneducated'.
The plans were drawn up on Mr Blair's instructions by Whitehall's £180,000-a-year head of communications Howell James, a close friend of EU Commissioner Peter Mandelson.
Mr James had a relationship with Mr Mandelson's partner, Brazilian Reinaldo da Silva, before Mr Mandelson met him.
Mr Howell's links with Mr Mandelson are thought to have been a factor when he was appointed as Whitehall's first permanent secretary in charge of media relations two years ago.
At last week's Cabinet meeting where the EU propaganda campaign was approved, Ministers were told it was needed because of a growing expectation that Brussels would revive plans for an EU constitution, further reducing Britain's ability to govern itself.
The constitution was abandoned last year after it was rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands.
They will shortly receive a 'new core script and toolkit' suggesting that issues such as climate change, Blue Flag beaches, cheap flights and cheap mobile calls when abroad should be emphasised with the EU downplayed.
The paper presented to the Cabinet by Mr James complained of the continuing 'negativity and euro scepticism' among British voters, adding: "Indifference and apathy remains significant." Ministers must claim victories for Brussels, not Britain. "There is a risk of overplaying the UK's role and achievements at the expense of the EU,' it stated.
The new pro-EU message will be dumbed down, using a 'reframed and compelling narrative with accessible and "friendly" themes, wherever possible steering away from institutions, politics and legislation'. And pro-European politicians should be replaced by pro-European celebrities with a 'range of non political voices'.
In one of the most controversial sections on 'rebranding the EU', the Cabinet paper provides a chart showing the most unpopular aspects of the EU: the constitution, the commission, Brussels, Strasbourg, the Common Agricultural Policy, Eurocrats and the euro, described as issues towards which the public feels 'cold'.
They are contrasted with popular - or 'warm' - aspects of Europe, including UEFA, the Eurovision Song Contest, the Cannes Film Festival and Liverpool, Europe's "Capital of Culture' for 2008, though none have EU links. The best-known 'warm' EU topics were its Pet Travel Scheme and the EU-sponsored "Blue Flag' clean beaches.
Titled Reframing The Debate, the paper says Ministers must use 'themes with a "natural" European dimension to maximise impact and increase familiarity with Europe'.
The objective is to 'realign the EU brand via alliances with familiar, trusted organisations and brands'.
A new network of Whitehall spin doctors with orders to promote the EU has been created, with one senior "Press co-ordinator' in all 23 Government departments.
They will help No 10 draw up a 'rolling grid of upcoming EU issues' to ensure British voters are fed with a constant diet of pro-EU news.
Mr James told Ministers Press releases about the EU must be censored, removing references to the EU and its directives.
Instead they would refer to 'Europe' - which Mr James describes as 'a European sub brand' which people warm to.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
UNESCO Promotes Behavior Modification For Sustainable Future Through Universal Mandatory Education
Globalization and Education for Sustainable Development: Sustaining the Future
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(2006)
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001492/149295E.pdf
UNESCO and the international community in general, believes that we need to foster – through education – the values, behavior and lifestyles required for a sustainable future. Indeed, sustainable development is not so much a destination as a process of learning how to think in terms of “forever”. Sustainable development involves learning how to make decisions that consider the long term future of the economy, ecology and equity of all communities. Building the capacity for such future-oriented thinking is a key task of education.
Teaching and Learning for a Sustainable Future is rooted in a new vision of education, a vision that helps students better understand the world in which they live, addressing the complexity and interconnectedness of problems such as poverty, wasteful consumption, environmental degradation, urban decay, population growth, health, conflict and the violation of human rights that threaten our future.
This vision of education emphasizes a holistic, interdisciplinary approach to developing the knowledge and skills needed for a sustainable future as well as changes in values, behavior, and lifestyles. This vision requires us to reorient education systems, policies and practices in order to empower everyone, young and old, to make decisions and act in culturally appropriate and locally relevant ways to redress the problems that threaten our common future. Teaching and Learning for a Sustainable Future will enable teachers to plan learning experiences that empower their students to develop and evaluate alternative visions of a sustainable future and to work creatively with others to help bring their visions into effect.
...By requiring us, individually and collectively, to make difficult choices about how we live, sustainable development is an ethical and moral challenge as well as a scientific concept...Ultimately, the Decade’s goal is to integrate the values inherent in sustainable development into all aspects of learning strong>to encourage changes in attitudes and behavior that allow for a more sustainable and just society for all.
...Sustainable development means that we need to embrace the values, behaviors and
lifestyles required for a sustainable future. We need to transform mentalities and visions; and be able to transform those visions into reality.
...What path can humans follow in order to achieve prosperity and sustainability? Most people believe they need only adjust and adapt to local society. This represents a basic type of diversity, whose needs are addressed through basic education covering reading, writing, math, and a rudimentary understanding of science and social behavior. However, advanced education, starting at the high school level and continuing onward, develops each person’s unique, innate abilities in order to spur progress towards a sustainable society.
...UNESCO and the international community in general, believes that we need to foster – through education – the values, behavior and lifestyles required for a sustainable future. Indeed, sustainable development is not so much a destination as a process of learning how to think in terms of “forever”. Sustainable development involves learning how to make decisions that consider the long term future of the economy, ecology and equity of all communities.
...This vision of education emphasizes a holistic, interdisciplinary approach to developing the knowledge and skills needed for a sustainable future as well as changes in values, behavior, and lifestyles. This vision requires us to reorient education systems, policies and practices in order to empower everyone, young and old, to make decisions and act in culturally appropriate and locally relevant ways to redress the problems that threaten our common future.
...What is the state of best practice in e-learning today? Today’s best practice is being shaped by mobile, ambient technology. It is changing the dynamics of how we will live, work, and learn in the future. These new experiences will shape behaviors, practices, and social groupings for knowledge sharing.
...Doing first what matters most is another way of describing priority analysis, which leads to the question of who is going to hold the most influence at the end of this decade and beyond. It will likely be people in their late twenties and thirties who will be shaping how we view business and politics in the future.
...The vision of education for sustainable development is a world where everyone has the opportunity to benefit from quality education and learn the values, behavior and lifestyles required for a sustainable future and for positive societal transformation: every world citizen must learn to contribute to a sustainable future for all humankind.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(2006)
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001492/149295E.pdf
UNESCO and the international community in general, believes that we need to foster – through education – the values, behavior and lifestyles required for a sustainable future. Indeed, sustainable development is not so much a destination as a process of learning how to think in terms of “forever”. Sustainable development involves learning how to make decisions that consider the long term future of the economy, ecology and equity of all communities. Building the capacity for such future-oriented thinking is a key task of education.
Teaching and Learning for a Sustainable Future is rooted in a new vision of education, a vision that helps students better understand the world in which they live, addressing the complexity and interconnectedness of problems such as poverty, wasteful consumption, environmental degradation, urban decay, population growth, health, conflict and the violation of human rights that threaten our future.
This vision of education emphasizes a holistic, interdisciplinary approach to developing the knowledge and skills needed for a sustainable future as well as changes in values, behavior, and lifestyles. This vision requires us to reorient education systems, policies and practices in order to empower everyone, young and old, to make decisions and act in culturally appropriate and locally relevant ways to redress the problems that threaten our common future. Teaching and Learning for a Sustainable Future will enable teachers to plan learning experiences that empower their students to develop and evaluate alternative visions of a sustainable future and to work creatively with others to help bring their visions into effect.
...By requiring us, individually and collectively, to make difficult choices about how we live, sustainable development is an ethical and moral challenge as well as a scientific concept...Ultimately, the Decade’s goal is to integrate the values inherent in sustainable development into all aspects of learning strong>to encourage changes in attitudes and behavior that allow for a more sustainable and just society for all.
...Sustainable development means that we need to embrace the values, behaviors and
lifestyles required for a sustainable future. We need to transform mentalities and visions; and be able to transform those visions into reality.
...What path can humans follow in order to achieve prosperity and sustainability? Most people believe they need only adjust and adapt to local society. This represents a basic type of diversity, whose needs are addressed through basic education covering reading, writing, math, and a rudimentary understanding of science and social behavior. However, advanced education, starting at the high school level and continuing onward, develops each person’s unique, innate abilities in order to spur progress towards a sustainable society.
...UNESCO and the international community in general, believes that we need to foster – through education – the values, behavior and lifestyles required for a sustainable future. Indeed, sustainable development is not so much a destination as a process of learning how to think in terms of “forever”. Sustainable development involves learning how to make decisions that consider the long term future of the economy, ecology and equity of all communities.
...This vision of education emphasizes a holistic, interdisciplinary approach to developing the knowledge and skills needed for a sustainable future as well as changes in values, behavior, and lifestyles. This vision requires us to reorient education systems, policies and practices in order to empower everyone, young and old, to make decisions and act in culturally appropriate and locally relevant ways to redress the problems that threaten our common future.
...What is the state of best practice in e-learning today? Today’s best practice is being shaped by mobile, ambient technology. It is changing the dynamics of how we will live, work, and learn in the future. These new experiences will shape behaviors, practices, and social groupings for knowledge sharing.
...Doing first what matters most is another way of describing priority analysis, which leads to the question of who is going to hold the most influence at the end of this decade and beyond. It will likely be people in their late twenties and thirties who will be shaping how we view business and politics in the future.
...The vision of education for sustainable development is a world where everyone has the opportunity to benefit from quality education and learn the values, behavior and lifestyles required for a sustainable future and for positive societal transformation: every world citizen must learn to contribute to a sustainable future for all humankind.
Americans Targeted for Behavior Modification
By Paul Walter *
November 16, 2004
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/nov2004/16/ameicans.htm
"Fifty years is ample time in which to change a world and its people almost beyond recognition. All that is required for the task are a sound knowledge of social engineering, a clear sight of the intended goal - and power." -- Arthur C. Clarke, Childhood's End.
A recent measure in Santa Cruz, California was a prime example of how the people are being manipulated at the local level through what's called 'sustainable development' being done incrementally. Measure J was defeated by the people, but it is imperative that Americans fully understand that 'sustainable development' is the blueprint for destroying liberty and private property rights. Americans should make no mistake about the seriousness of this issue and how it will affect your life. Like a giant octopus spreading its tentacles, this type of measure and similar legislation is spreading across this country like a cancer.
[See, e.g.: The Image of the UN 'LOST' Leviathan, at: http://itssd.blogspot.com/2007/11/lost-leviathan.html ].
['Negative' Sustainable Development] can be defeated by an educated citizenry as was demonstrated by the voters in Santa Cruz on November 2, 2004.
Measure J in Santa Cruz exemplified the underpinnings of 'sustainable development' by using local laws deceptively presented, but which were in fact, mini steps in behavior modification. This statement is validated by Linda Wilshusen, who was Executive Director of the Transportation Commission from the seventies until a short time ago expressed her opinion in 1988 when she said, "This concept of 'traffic management' has very little to do with science and engineering and a lot to do with sociology, marketing and behavior modification, as well as land use, parking and fuel availability, demographics and the like."
Wilshusen wasn't the only person to let the cat out of the bag. On September 16, 2004 during a presentation on Measure J to their local Chamber of Commerce, Supervisor Ellen Pirie insisted that the HOV lane proposed was needed: “If we add this lane, then we have more possibilities, because then we have a way of getting people out of their cars.” This is behavior modification through the back door.
Sustainable development should be the subject of discussion all across America, but most people don't know what it means, how it's being implemented and that the federal government is a willing participant in destroying our Republic. While some may automatically knee-jerk over such a statement, America's continued participation in the UN and programs like UNESCO spell even further destruction of our sovereignty and standard of living. Whether it's a 'traffic control' measure or one pertaining to the environment, non-governmental organizations, the worker ants of the globalists, push ahead each day in pursuit of world wide communism disguised by various labels. All of this is being kissed and blessed by local city fathers and state governments.
In his excellent piece titled 'Social Engineering for Global Change,' Carl Teichrib further educates on the 'International Baccalaureate Organization:
"Originally, the IBO was established to provide a common educational basis for international students that would be acceptable to universities around the world. With this in mind, IBO curriculum has, for over 35 years, emphasized that its students broaden their understanding of various cultures, languages, and points of view.
"Understanding other's points of view, cultures and languages is, in itself, a noble task - it's something that I work at pursuing and instilling within my own children and in myself. But underlining IBO's philosophy is something deeper; according to George Walker, the Director General at IBO, "International education offers people a state of mind: international-mindedness. You've got to change people's thinking." Hence, "students develop an awareness of moral and ethical issues and a sense of social responsibility...fostered by examining local and global issues."
"This is not simply ambiguous language. In advancing the international-mindedness of IBO, the organization has endorsed the Earth Charter - an earth-centered declaration which venerates global political-ethical-moral and spiritual unification. Some, such as Mikhail Gorbachev, have gone so far as to compare the Earth Charter with "those 10 or 15 Commandments which we all know about...those famous testaments."
"Providing the Earth Charter initiative with advanced support, the International Baccalaureate Organization has agreed to become an Earth Charter partnership entity, along with such groups as the Association of World Citizens, Friends of the Earth, Global People's Assembly, Rain Forest Action Network, the U.S. branch of the United Nations Association, and the World Parliament of Religion.
"Furthermore, IBO Deputy Director General, Ian Hill, sits on the Earth Charter Initiative Education Advisory Committee. Going further, IBO is currently looking at ways to incorporate the Earth Charter into the following curriculum areas; Theory of Knowledge, Environmental Systems, Environmental Science, Technology and Social Change, Peace and Conflict Studies, Experimental Science, Philosophy, Geography, History, Math, and the Arts.
"None of this would be very remarkable if the IBO were a small entity stuffed somewhere in a forgotten corner of the world - but it's not. Presently, almost 1,300 schools around the globe are authorized to offer IBO programs. And in the U.S. and Canada, just under 650 schools are tied in to the IBO, with 473 in the U.S. Adding to this, the IBO is linked into a number of United Nations' functions beyond the U.N. inspired Earth Charter and UNESCO - where it holds a special consultative status. The IBO has been involved in prep work for the U.N.'s World Summit on Sustainable Development, it's involved in a number of U.N. International Schools, and the organization works with a variety of United Nations Model programs. In other words, it's an organization with considerable "social change" inroads at the international level.
"Funding for the body also reflects this global-local-global approach. During the month of October, 2003, in a monetary show of support, the U.S. Department of Education awarded the IBO a grant of $1.17 million. According to the IBO press release, these U.S. taxpayer funds were to be specifically channeled into setting up IBO programs "in six middle and high school partnerships in disadvantaged areas in Massachusetts, New York and Arizona."
Fighting back means fighting smart. I urge you to educate yourself , your family, friends, neighbors and work colleagues on this issue. As time is precious for Americans working hard each day to bring home the bacon and familial obligations, NWVs has a fine six-hour video presentation on sustainable development that will help you and everyone you know understand this issue from the inside out. This excellent series should be shown at meetings for all groups and organizations. This is an American issue that affects you, your family, our liberty and freedoms.
Order: Liberty or Sustainable Development
© 2004 Paul Walter - All Rights Reserved
Paul Walter was born in socialist Yugoslavia in 1945. He and his family emigrated to America in 1959. He served 3 years in the U.S. Armed Forces and became a U.S. citizen in 1963.
November 16, 2004
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/nov2004/16/ameicans.htm
"Fifty years is ample time in which to change a world and its people almost beyond recognition. All that is required for the task are a sound knowledge of social engineering, a clear sight of the intended goal - and power." -- Arthur C. Clarke, Childhood's End.
A recent measure in Santa Cruz, California was a prime example of how the people are being manipulated at the local level through what's called 'sustainable development' being done incrementally. Measure J was defeated by the people, but it is imperative that Americans fully understand that 'sustainable development' is the blueprint for destroying liberty and private property rights. Americans should make no mistake about the seriousness of this issue and how it will affect your life. Like a giant octopus spreading its tentacles, this type of measure and similar legislation is spreading across this country like a cancer.
[See, e.g.: The Image of the UN 'LOST' Leviathan, at: http://itssd.blogspot.com/2007/11/lost-leviathan.html ].
['Negative' Sustainable Development] can be defeated by an educated citizenry as was demonstrated by the voters in Santa Cruz on November 2, 2004.
Measure J in Santa Cruz exemplified the underpinnings of 'sustainable development' by using local laws deceptively presented, but which were in fact, mini steps in behavior modification. This statement is validated by Linda Wilshusen, who was Executive Director of the Transportation Commission from the seventies until a short time ago expressed her opinion in 1988 when she said, "This concept of 'traffic management' has very little to do with science and engineering and a lot to do with sociology, marketing and behavior modification, as well as land use, parking and fuel availability, demographics and the like."
Wilshusen wasn't the only person to let the cat out of the bag. On September 16, 2004 during a presentation on Measure J to their local Chamber of Commerce, Supervisor Ellen Pirie insisted that the HOV lane proposed was needed: “If we add this lane, then we have more possibilities, because then we have a way of getting people out of their cars.” This is behavior modification through the back door.
Sustainable development should be the subject of discussion all across America, but most people don't know what it means, how it's being implemented and that the federal government is a willing participant in destroying our Republic. While some may automatically knee-jerk over such a statement, America's continued participation in the UN and programs like UNESCO spell even further destruction of our sovereignty and standard of living. Whether it's a 'traffic control' measure or one pertaining to the environment, non-governmental organizations, the worker ants of the globalists, push ahead each day in pursuit of world wide communism disguised by various labels. All of this is being kissed and blessed by local city fathers and state governments.
In his excellent piece titled 'Social Engineering for Global Change,' Carl Teichrib further educates on the 'International Baccalaureate Organization:
"Originally, the IBO was established to provide a common educational basis for international students that would be acceptable to universities around the world. With this in mind, IBO curriculum has, for over 35 years, emphasized that its students broaden their understanding of various cultures, languages, and points of view.
"Understanding other's points of view, cultures and languages is, in itself, a noble task - it's something that I work at pursuing and instilling within my own children and in myself. But underlining IBO's philosophy is something deeper; according to George Walker, the Director General at IBO, "International education offers people a state of mind: international-mindedness. You've got to change people's thinking." Hence, "students develop an awareness of moral and ethical issues and a sense of social responsibility...fostered by examining local and global issues."
"This is not simply ambiguous language. In advancing the international-mindedness of IBO, the organization has endorsed the Earth Charter - an earth-centered declaration which venerates global political-ethical-moral and spiritual unification. Some, such as Mikhail Gorbachev, have gone so far as to compare the Earth Charter with "those 10 or 15 Commandments which we all know about...those famous testaments."
"Providing the Earth Charter initiative with advanced support, the International Baccalaureate Organization has agreed to become an Earth Charter partnership entity, along with such groups as the Association of World Citizens, Friends of the Earth, Global People's Assembly, Rain Forest Action Network, the U.S. branch of the United Nations Association, and the World Parliament of Religion.
"Furthermore, IBO Deputy Director General, Ian Hill, sits on the Earth Charter Initiative Education Advisory Committee. Going further, IBO is currently looking at ways to incorporate the Earth Charter into the following curriculum areas; Theory of Knowledge, Environmental Systems, Environmental Science, Technology and Social Change, Peace and Conflict Studies, Experimental Science, Philosophy, Geography, History, Math, and the Arts.
"None of this would be very remarkable if the IBO were a small entity stuffed somewhere in a forgotten corner of the world - but it's not. Presently, almost 1,300 schools around the globe are authorized to offer IBO programs. And in the U.S. and Canada, just under 650 schools are tied in to the IBO, with 473 in the U.S. Adding to this, the IBO is linked into a number of United Nations' functions beyond the U.N. inspired Earth Charter and UNESCO - where it holds a special consultative status. The IBO has been involved in prep work for the U.N.'s World Summit on Sustainable Development, it's involved in a number of U.N. International Schools, and the organization works with a variety of United Nations Model programs. In other words, it's an organization with considerable "social change" inroads at the international level.
"Funding for the body also reflects this global-local-global approach. During the month of October, 2003, in a monetary show of support, the U.S. Department of Education awarded the IBO a grant of $1.17 million. According to the IBO press release, these U.S. taxpayer funds were to be specifically channeled into setting up IBO programs "in six middle and high school partnerships in disadvantaged areas in Massachusetts, New York and Arizona."
Fighting back means fighting smart. I urge you to educate yourself , your family, friends, neighbors and work colleagues on this issue. As time is precious for Americans working hard each day to bring home the bacon and familial obligations, NWVs has a fine six-hour video presentation on sustainable development that will help you and everyone you know understand this issue from the inside out. This excellent series should be shown at meetings for all groups and organizations. This is an American issue that affects you, your family, our liberty and freedoms.
Order: Liberty or Sustainable Development
© 2004 Paul Walter - All Rights Reserved
Paul Walter was born in socialist Yugoslavia in 1945. He and his family emigrated to America in 1959. He served 3 years in the U.S. Armed Forces and became a U.S. citizen in 1963.
'SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT': THE EVIL FACING AMERICA
By Tom DeWeeseAugust 6, 2004
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom13.htm
On July 23, 2004, Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, addressed the fifth annual Freedom 21 Conference in Reno, Nevada. The following is the first of two parts of his address on the agenda, the threat, and the defeat of "Sustainable Development."
All of us just want to live in an America where our rights and pursuit of happiness is protected. And so we fight. And now we've found ourselves here today in a room with hundreds of others in the same boat.
I have one thing to tell you. You are not going to win. Because the other side has cut us up into little pieces. They've divided us and conquered us.
They've succeeded because you think your fight is against gun control. Because you think your fight is against bad schools. Because you think your fight is against the Endangered Species Act and roadless programs, and wetlands regulations, and water rights and Heritage Areas. Because you think your fight is against Democrats and not Republicans. Because you think it's a fight between evil liberals and good guy conservatives.
You're wrong. Your fight is against a well-planned, well orchestrated agenda for the complete transformation of America. And unless you learn that fact now, today... and unless you fully educate yourselves to every aspect of that agenda and fight it on the proper terms… then you cannot win!
I'm here to tell you that every one of these issues you are facing is interrelated. There is an agenda being implemented before your very eyes. It's called Sustainable Development.
And I will tell you now, if you want to keep your guns, your property, your children and your God… if you love liberty… Then Sustainable Development is your enemy!
So what is Sustainable Development? Imagine an America in which a specific "ruling principle" is created to decide proper societal conduct for every citizen.
That principle would be used to consider everything you eat, what you wear, the kind of homes you live in, the method of transportation used to get to work, the way you dispose of waste, perhaps the number of children you may have, even your education and employment decisions.
Sustainable Development is that "ruling principle" for the implementation of what former Vice President Al Gore said we must all suffer through in order to purify our nation from the horrors of the Twentieth Century's industrial revolution.
In his book, "Earth in the Balance," Gore called it a "wrenching transformation of society." Those are pretty powerful words that should concern anyone who values liberty. It's a warning that the rules are changing. That a new power elite is taking control.
Perhaps you are beginning to notice such changes as you go about your daily routine, but haven't understood where those changes, and the ideas behind them, are coming from. But Sustainable Development is a very difficult concept to grasp. It's written in an almost foreign language - designed to mislead and refrain from alarming you.
Let me put it in the simplest language I possibly can. The Atkins Diet is not sustainable. Now, why do I say that? Because on page 350 of the UN's Global Biodiversity Assessment Report it says that the grazing of livestock, including cows, sheep, goats and horses is not sustainable. One reason for that concept is because Sustainablists contend that the animals pollute and damage the banks of streams.
Getting us to stop eating beef is a major effort needed to fully implement the Sustainable Agenda. Since they are cowards who fear your reaction to an outright banning of eating meat, they have to try to trick you into thinking that not eating meat is your idea. So they use scare tactics. For years they have told you that eating meat raises your cholesterol. Fat is bad for you. Meat causes heart attacks. With PeTA's help they were succeeding in turning us all into little sissies eating salads.
Then along comes Dr. Atkins who shows us that a low carb beef diet will help you lose weight in a healthy way. Suddenly the nation has gone Atkins crazy. Beef sales are sky rocketing. The Sustainablists are in a tail spin. They've lost control of your eating habits.
Now watch what they are doing to get you back on track. Suddenly reports are being published in leading women's magazines about Atkins being dangerous to your health. Lawsuits have begun to pop up against the diet.
Do you see how it works? That's how the Sustainable Development agenda is implemented. Behavior modification based on fear. Freedom of choice is not part of Sustainable Development. And so I repeat, - the Atkins Diet is not sustainable.
Now, perhaps you'll understand why there are Sustainable Development papers, guidelines and regulations to impose the ruling principle:
On our public education system - to prepare our children to live in a sustainable world.
On our economy - to create partnerships between business and government, making sure business becomes a tool to help implement the policies.
On the environment - leading to controls on private property and business.
On health care - the new drive against obesity is leading directly toward controls on what we eat.
On farming - Sustainable Development policies affect farmers' ability to produce more crops by regulating or banning precious chemicals, biotechnology and genetic engineering in the name of environmental protection.
On our social and cultural environment - where political correctness is controlling policy hiring practices, immigration policy, multiculturalism, marriage laws, etc.
On our mobility - with emphasis on carpools and public transportation and away from the freedom of personal transportation.
And on public safety - where the rule of law and the court system is being challenged by new regulations that affect the right to privacy and unreasonable search and seizures.
It's important to understand that these leading issues we face today are not just random concerns that find their way into the forefront of political debate. They are all interconnected to the policies of Sustainable Development.
And you must understand that Sustainable Development is the official policy of the government of the United States of America - and every state, city and small burg in the nation. [THIS IS NOT TRUE - ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE ARE TWO PARADIGMS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT - ONE POSITIVE, BASED ON ECONOMIC FREEDOM, INDIVIDUALISM, TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION & GOV'T DECENTRALIZATION; THE OTHER NEGATIVE, BASED ON LUDDISM, COMMUNITARIANISM AND TOP-DOWN CENTRAL PLANNING.]
It is completely bi-partisan. It is being equally implemented by Republicans and Democrats. No matter the outcome of any election - the Sustainable Development agenda moves forward unabated. [THIS IS NOT TRUE - MALTHUSIAN 'NEGATIVE' SUSTAINABLE IS BEING PROMOTED PRIMARILY BY ONE POLITICAL PARTY IN THE U.S.] **
What we are telling you here today, my friends, is that Sustainable Development isn't just some land use policy. It is a complete transformation of American society; away from the rule of law; away from the ideals of property ownership, free enterprise, free travel and even free association.
Sustainable Development. It's a life plan. Planned by someone else. Not you. And Sustainable Development is not a myth, or a theory or a conspiracy - as I've heard some in our own movement call it.
Since the 1970's literally hundreds of issue papers, charters, guidelines and treaties have been presented at scores of international meetings, each becoming a building block in the creation of what would eventually become Sustainable Development.
Finally in 1992 the UN's Earth Summit in Brazil brought all of these ideas together in two major documents called "Agenda 21" and the "Biodiversity Treaty." Here the ideas were officially presented to world leaders that all government on every level, needed to be transformed into top-down control over housing, food production, energy, water, private property education, population control, gun control, transportation, social welfare, medical care, and literally every aspect of our lives.
To get the full picture, add to these the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, both of which create UN-mandates on abortion, child rearing and government interference on families.
In 1993 President Clinton created the President's Council on Sustainable Development. From that Council came a flood of policy papers and recommendations to enforce it as government policy.
And the Clinton Administration didn't need Congress to get into the act. All Cabinet officials had to do was change some wording of existing programs and reroute already-approved funding to begin to implement the agenda - without Congress and without debate. Former Commerce Secretary Ron Brown told a meeting of the President's Council that he could implement 67% of the Sustainable Development agenda in his agency with no new legislation. Other agencies like Interior, EPA, HUD and more did the same thing. To help it all along, Clinton issued a blizzard of Executive Orders.
The American Heritage Rivers Initiative was born that way. So were roadless policies designed to stop logging in national forests. National parks have become core biosphere reserves designed to shut out any human activity. And the buffer zones around them are designed to shut off existing human activity, allowing the core to continually grow like a cancer tumor.
Any possible excuse to control human development or activities began to sprout up - from rails-to trails bikeways - to wet lands regulations - to historic preservation projects. Endangered species, real or made up, have been used to close down industry and steal private lands. Valuable natural resources have been locked away in national parks and preserves.
In this way an international agenda to transform the world into global governance under Sustainable Development policy took hold and became official policy of the United States of America.
© 2004 Tom DeWeese - All Rights Reserved
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom13.htm
On July 23, 2004, Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, addressed the fifth annual Freedom 21 Conference in Reno, Nevada. The following is the first of two parts of his address on the agenda, the threat, and the defeat of "Sustainable Development."
All of us just want to live in an America where our rights and pursuit of happiness is protected. And so we fight. And now we've found ourselves here today in a room with hundreds of others in the same boat.
I have one thing to tell you. You are not going to win. Because the other side has cut us up into little pieces. They've divided us and conquered us.
They've succeeded because you think your fight is against gun control. Because you think your fight is against bad schools. Because you think your fight is against the Endangered Species Act and roadless programs, and wetlands regulations, and water rights and Heritage Areas. Because you think your fight is against Democrats and not Republicans. Because you think it's a fight between evil liberals and good guy conservatives.
You're wrong. Your fight is against a well-planned, well orchestrated agenda for the complete transformation of America. And unless you learn that fact now, today... and unless you fully educate yourselves to every aspect of that agenda and fight it on the proper terms… then you cannot win!
I'm here to tell you that every one of these issues you are facing is interrelated. There is an agenda being implemented before your very eyes. It's called Sustainable Development.
And I will tell you now, if you want to keep your guns, your property, your children and your God… if you love liberty… Then Sustainable Development is your enemy!
So what is Sustainable Development? Imagine an America in which a specific "ruling principle" is created to decide proper societal conduct for every citizen.
That principle would be used to consider everything you eat, what you wear, the kind of homes you live in, the method of transportation used to get to work, the way you dispose of waste, perhaps the number of children you may have, even your education and employment decisions.
Sustainable Development is that "ruling principle" for the implementation of what former Vice President Al Gore said we must all suffer through in order to purify our nation from the horrors of the Twentieth Century's industrial revolution.
In his book, "Earth in the Balance," Gore called it a "wrenching transformation of society." Those are pretty powerful words that should concern anyone who values liberty. It's a warning that the rules are changing. That a new power elite is taking control.
Perhaps you are beginning to notice such changes as you go about your daily routine, but haven't understood where those changes, and the ideas behind them, are coming from. But Sustainable Development is a very difficult concept to grasp. It's written in an almost foreign language - designed to mislead and refrain from alarming you.
Let me put it in the simplest language I possibly can. The Atkins Diet is not sustainable. Now, why do I say that? Because on page 350 of the UN's Global Biodiversity Assessment Report it says that the grazing of livestock, including cows, sheep, goats and horses is not sustainable. One reason for that concept is because Sustainablists contend that the animals pollute and damage the banks of streams.
Getting us to stop eating beef is a major effort needed to fully implement the Sustainable Agenda. Since they are cowards who fear your reaction to an outright banning of eating meat, they have to try to trick you into thinking that not eating meat is your idea. So they use scare tactics. For years they have told you that eating meat raises your cholesterol. Fat is bad for you. Meat causes heart attacks. With PeTA's help they were succeeding in turning us all into little sissies eating salads.
Then along comes Dr. Atkins who shows us that a low carb beef diet will help you lose weight in a healthy way. Suddenly the nation has gone Atkins crazy. Beef sales are sky rocketing. The Sustainablists are in a tail spin. They've lost control of your eating habits.
Now watch what they are doing to get you back on track. Suddenly reports are being published in leading women's magazines about Atkins being dangerous to your health. Lawsuits have begun to pop up against the diet.
Do you see how it works? That's how the Sustainable Development agenda is implemented. Behavior modification based on fear. Freedom of choice is not part of Sustainable Development. And so I repeat, - the Atkins Diet is not sustainable.
Now, perhaps you'll understand why there are Sustainable Development papers, guidelines and regulations to impose the ruling principle:
On our public education system - to prepare our children to live in a sustainable world.
On our economy - to create partnerships between business and government, making sure business becomes a tool to help implement the policies.
On the environment - leading to controls on private property and business.
On health care - the new drive against obesity is leading directly toward controls on what we eat.
On farming - Sustainable Development policies affect farmers' ability to produce more crops by regulating or banning precious chemicals, biotechnology and genetic engineering in the name of environmental protection.
On our social and cultural environment - where political correctness is controlling policy hiring practices, immigration policy, multiculturalism, marriage laws, etc.
On our mobility - with emphasis on carpools and public transportation and away from the freedom of personal transportation.
And on public safety - where the rule of law and the court system is being challenged by new regulations that affect the right to privacy and unreasonable search and seizures.
It's important to understand that these leading issues we face today are not just random concerns that find their way into the forefront of political debate. They are all interconnected to the policies of Sustainable Development.
And you must understand that Sustainable Development is the official policy of the government of the United States of America - and every state, city and small burg in the nation. [THIS IS NOT TRUE - ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE ARE TWO PARADIGMS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT - ONE POSITIVE, BASED ON ECONOMIC FREEDOM, INDIVIDUALISM, TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION & GOV'T DECENTRALIZATION; THE OTHER NEGATIVE, BASED ON LUDDISM, COMMUNITARIANISM AND TOP-DOWN CENTRAL PLANNING.]
It is completely bi-partisan. It is being equally implemented by Republicans and Democrats. No matter the outcome of any election - the Sustainable Development agenda moves forward unabated. [THIS IS NOT TRUE - MALTHUSIAN 'NEGATIVE' SUSTAINABLE IS BEING PROMOTED PRIMARILY BY ONE POLITICAL PARTY IN THE U.S.] **
What we are telling you here today, my friends, is that Sustainable Development isn't just some land use policy. It is a complete transformation of American society; away from the rule of law; away from the ideals of property ownership, free enterprise, free travel and even free association.
Sustainable Development. It's a life plan. Planned by someone else. Not you. And Sustainable Development is not a myth, or a theory or a conspiracy - as I've heard some in our own movement call it.
Since the 1970's literally hundreds of issue papers, charters, guidelines and treaties have been presented at scores of international meetings, each becoming a building block in the creation of what would eventually become Sustainable Development.
Finally in 1992 the UN's Earth Summit in Brazil brought all of these ideas together in two major documents called "Agenda 21" and the "Biodiversity Treaty." Here the ideas were officially presented to world leaders that all government on every level, needed to be transformed into top-down control over housing, food production, energy, water, private property education, population control, gun control, transportation, social welfare, medical care, and literally every aspect of our lives.
To get the full picture, add to these the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, both of which create UN-mandates on abortion, child rearing and government interference on families.
In 1993 President Clinton created the President's Council on Sustainable Development. From that Council came a flood of policy papers and recommendations to enforce it as government policy.
And the Clinton Administration didn't need Congress to get into the act. All Cabinet officials had to do was change some wording of existing programs and reroute already-approved funding to begin to implement the agenda - without Congress and without debate. Former Commerce Secretary Ron Brown told a meeting of the President's Council that he could implement 67% of the Sustainable Development agenda in his agency with no new legislation. Other agencies like Interior, EPA, HUD and more did the same thing. To help it all along, Clinton issued a blizzard of Executive Orders.
The American Heritage Rivers Initiative was born that way. So were roadless policies designed to stop logging in national forests. National parks have become core biosphere reserves designed to shut out any human activity. And the buffer zones around them are designed to shut off existing human activity, allowing the core to continually grow like a cancer tumor.
Any possible excuse to control human development or activities began to sprout up - from rails-to trails bikeways - to wet lands regulations - to historic preservation projects. Endangered species, real or made up, have been used to close down industry and steal private lands. Valuable natural resources have been locked away in national parks and preserves.
In this way an international agenda to transform the world into global governance under Sustainable Development policy took hold and became official policy of the United States of America.
© 2004 Tom DeWeese - All Rights Reserved
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
