Nothing more clearly demonstrates the pagan religious orientation of the left than the recent effort by Democrats to begin turning our entire economy Greenward as their input into the recent COVID-19 stimulus package. According to Jeff Brady of NPR, “Clean energy and climate advocates say the huge stimulus bill Congress is negotiating should address not only the economy, but also climate change.” To Democrats, the Corona Virus pandemic is not about helping the American people—it is about fundamentally transforming the American economy.
For example, eight Democratic U.S. senators also called upon fellow lawmakers, according to NPR news, to tie financial help for airlines and cruise lines to new environmental requirements that would reduce their carbon footprints.” According to Michael Greenstone, who served as the Chief Economist for President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, “We can both stimulate the economy … and we can lay the foundation for a lower-carbon future.”
The Green Agenda, sponsored by all socialists and Democrats, is not about science. It is more nearly akin to a paganistic religious belief which jettisons real science in favor of doctrine. Like the Canaanite paganism of the Old Testament which involved itself in nature-worship and sacrificing in “sacred groves”, the New Green Deal advocates root themselves in a false ideology.
In what was called the “Eco-shot heard ‘round the world,” Berkeley historian Lynn White, before the American Association for the Advancement of Science over 30 years ago, frankly admitted that the source of our environmental “crisis” was the “victory of Christianity over paganism.” Plainly siding with ancient Canaanite paganism, he went on to say that “Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of detachment to the feelings of natural objects …Christianity bears a huge burden of guilt.” He went on to predict that “more science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecological crisis until we find a new religion.”
Note carefully the Environmental Activists were sounding apocalyptic alarms over 30 years ago. They haven’t changed. Noteworthy it is as well that it is all about religion.
The same thing is true according to Green Grandfather Al Gore. His infamous book Earth in the Balance made a frontal attack on the Genesis account of creation by re-writing the entire first few chapters of Moses’ account. The end result was a complete VALUE SHIFT from a human-centered world view to what the Clinton Administration called A Biocentric Worldview. This tells us that humans are seen as merely another species inhabiting a democratic “ecosystem.” No more value a human being than a bug.
Steven C. Rockefeller of Middlebury College, a theology professor and environmentalist, explains: “In a biocentric approach, the rights of nature are defended first and foremost on the grounds of the intrinsic value of animals, plants, rivers, mountains, and eco-systems rather than simply the basis for their utilitarian value or benefit to humans.”
This biocentric approach was formally adopted by the Clinton Administration. Alton Chase, in his book In a Dark Wood: The Fight Over Forests and the Rising Tyranny of Ecology, describes the new faith of the elite, as it sprang to life in the Clinton Administration. “The Administration, under the rubric of ‘reinventing government’ … adopted biocentrism as the guiding philosophy of all federal land management.”
Recent COP25 Conference
In December of last year the United Nations sponsored a COP25 conference in Madrid, Spain. Attendee Alex Newman writes that the “cult-like nature of climatism was on full display.” An alternative conference occurred in Madrid which was totally ignored by the Main Stream Media. It was called “Climate Reality Conference” hosted by a coalition of environmental groups that reject climate alarmism, including The Heartland Institute, the CO2 Coalition, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), and the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE).
The Climate Reality Conference featured numerous scientific experts which totally debunked the UN Global Alarmists. But what is particularly interesting is that a number of these world-class scientists likened the Green Agenda to so much religious propaganda.
William Happer, for instance, an international renowned Princeton physicist, put it plainly. “I hope sooner or later enough people recognize the phoniness of this bizarre environmental cult and bring it to an end.” MIT Meteorologist Richard Lindzen has frequently referred to the Global Warming crowd as a “cult” because they refuse to change their beliefs in response to evidence and proof. (See Alex Newman, “Dangerous Climate ‘Cult’ Ignores Science,” in The New American, 2-17-20).
Lindzen even stated it this way in a 2015 radio interview: “Think about it: You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation!” Dr. Ivstan Marko, a chemistry professor at the Catholic University of Louvain and head of the European Chemical Society, told The New American magazine that “the climate cult had perverted Christianity to develop its dangerous theology. Instead of repenting of sins, climate cultists want you to believe that you must repent of your ‘carbon footprint.’”
“It’s a new religion going on,” Marko explained. Many other top scientists and political leaders are also calling the Green Agenda pushed by Democrats and soft-shelled Republicans a religion. Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott as well as Eco-activist Stuart Scott have so likened it.
The entire Green debate illustrates the throes of a religious conflict occurring in America. Unless enough American Christians, oriented and educated sufficiently in the Holy Scriptures to combat the growing forms of ancient Canaanite religious beliefs, engage in the cultural wars, America has seen its better days.
Under the guise of keeping America “competitive” in the looming high-tech future, the globalist Council on Foreign Relations is urging policymakers at all levels to dramatically expand the size and scope of government. The bloated welfare states in Sweden and Denmark are cited as examples of the “advantages” of massive government programs to take care for people. Without the sort of fundamental transformation of America envisioned by the CFR, the nation will supposedly be left behind in the emerging new paradigm, the organization claimed. Critics, though, blasted that idea.
In its new report, dubbed “The Work Ahead: Machines, Skills, and U.S. Leadership in the Twenty-First Century,” the CFR Task Force offered a broad array of policy recommendations for federal, state, and local officials. These range from ever more immigration and a greater role for government in various facets of the economy, to a dramatic expansion of the welfare state modeled on Big Government schemes from Northern Europe. The CFR’s demands regarding education, which are a key component of the report, will be covered in an upcoming article.
Some of the leaders involved in creating the CFR report told The New American that without implementing the sought-after changes, America would be left behind as the world moves toward a globalized future of fast-moving technological progress. But experts and legislators invited to participate in the scheme who spoke to The New American sounded the alarm about the CFR’s vision. Among other concerns, they warned that the controversial CFR report and outreach efforts selling it to policymakers reveal a hidden plan to push a dangerous agenda and bring state and local officials into the establishment’s globalist orbit.
One reason why the CFR’s pronouncements are so important is because of the key role they play setting policy. Indeed, looking at its membership and influence, many analysts consider the CFR to be a key Deep State hub in America. The late U.S. Admiral Chester Ward, a CFR member for almost 20 years before defecting and blowing the whistle, explained that this enormous power is used for neferious purposes. In fact, Ward said, the main objective of the organization is to undermine U.S. sovereignty and facilitate the merger of the United States into what he described as an “all-powerful one-world government.”
The way it advances its objectives was explained by Admiral Ward, too. “Once the ruling members of CFR have decided that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition,” he said. “The most articulate theoreticians and ideologists prepare related articles, aided by the research, to sell the new policy and to make it appear inevitable and irresistible.”
“By following the evolution of this propaganda in the most prestigious scholarly journal in the world, [CFR mouthpiece] Foreign Affairs, anyone can determine years in advance what the future defense and foreign policies of the United States will be,” the respected admiral warned after ditching his membership at the CFR. “If a certain proposition is repeated often enough in that journal, then the U.S. Administration in power — be it Republican or Democratic — begins to act as if that proposition or assumption were an established fact.”
While that may not be true in the Trump era, when voters and their president have openly rejected globalism, it certainly has been true for decades, if not generations, regardless of the party formally in power. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted publicly that the CFR told her what she should be doing and how she should be thinking about the future. Former Vice President Joe Biden, meanwhile, joked that he worked for CFR boss Richard Haass. Even many top “Republicans” are involved.
Of course, the latest CFR agenda starts with a kernel of truth. As anybody with common sense can see, the economy is changing and will be undergoing further changes in the years ahead. As a result of technological developments, the future of work will look very different in 30 or 40 years than it does today. Many Americans will lose their jobs. All that is true. Of course, it would be difficult to sell enormous policy changes if the entire premise behind them was nothing but fiction, obviously.
But the agenda being pushed is another matter. Under the pretext of responding to the obvious changes coming in the years ahead, the CFR — a leading Deep State institution in America that has dominated foreign policy for generations — is pushing what critics warned was a dangerous scheme to expand the power of government. The plan also advances globalism at every level of society, a key goal of the CFR dating back to its founding. In short, it is a massive and dangerous power grab that should be resisted, critics told The New American.
Globalist notions of “free trade” and mass migration are at the heart of the agenda. “Openness to trade and immigration are vital for maintaining U.S. technological leadership,” the CFR report says. Indeed, there are over 60 references to “trade” and more than 60 mentions of immigration, especially the alleged need to expand the already-massive immigration numbers coming to America.
As readers of this magazine know well, though, when the CFR advocates “trade,” it is generally referring not to genuine free trade, but to sovereignty-shredding “free trade” agreements that strip nations and peoples of the right to govern themselves. Mass migration, meanwhile, also helps smash national identities, culture, and eventually, the nation-state itself, as Europe is learning the hard way right now.
On the government’s role in the economy and the welfare state, the CFR report also seeks major changes. “U.S. efforts to help displaced workers are inadequate,” the report says, ignoring the U.S. Constitution’s limits on federal power and insinuating that it is the federal government’s role to train and help workers. “Unemployment insurance is too rigid and covers too few workers, and retraining programs are not based on the best global models,” the report continued, without giving many details on what these “global models” demand of America.
The report also includes seven specific recommendations for policymakers at all levels. These mostly revolve around the supposed need for much larger and more intrusive government across the board. Among other recommendations, the CFR claims:
• Government should be involved in “creating better jobs and career paths for Americans,” as if the real problem facing America was a lack of central planning, government-created “jobs,” and government-directed careers.
• Another recommendation calls for more immigration, including “highly skilled” migrants who would help drive down wages for America’s embattled middle class even as the CFR warns that countless people will lose jobs due to automation.
• Also supposedly needed is more government funding for “research,” as if the state, rather than the private sector, knows better what ought to be researched and what projects would be worthwhile to fund.
• Putting college and university “education” within “reach” of all Americans is important, too, the report said, implicitly advocating even more tax funding for bloated “educational” institutions that are churning out ignorant socialists with worthless “degrees” literally by the millions.
• America should also adopt the “best features” of what the CFR report describes as the European “flexicurity” models. As examples of the supposed “advantages” of these models, the Task Force pointed to the bloated welfare states of Sweden and Denmark, where tax rates (including VAT, income taxes, energy taxes, and more) can consume three-fourths of individuals’ earnings, and where individual freedom is severely limited.
• Finally, the report calls for the U.S. government to “create portable systems of employment benefits tied to individual employees rather than to jobs themselves.” This government-created system should be “universal,” as the report puts it — or in other words, mandatory for everyone.
There are many other recommendations woven throughout the 162-page report. Some make sense, such as scaling back the enormous growth in state licensing schemes that inhibit consumer choice and do nothing to protect the health and safety of consumers. But the overwhelming majority call for larger and more intrusive government: Creating a “National Commission on the U.S. Workforce,” offering more tax-funded subsidies for “affordable” housing, spending more money on government-controlled “public transportation” systems, and more.
As part of the initiative, CFR Vice President for National Programs and Outreach Irina Faskianos organized a conference call for state and local officials to promote the policy recommendations. On that call, CFR term member Chike Aguh, a member of the CFR Task Force behind the report and a former teacher who now works at the McChrystal Group, condensed the subject matter into four “buckets,” as he described it. Phrased as questions, he put it this way: “What is the work of the future? How do we make sure that we have the workers who have the skills to do that work? How do we make sure that those workers can find that work, and vice-versa? And lastly, how do we make sure that there’s a safety net to support them the entire way?”
Among other topics, Aguh argued that new systems were needed to help people who need work to find work that needs to be done. Using an example of a casino that could not find enough workers, he claimed there was “a lack of matching between people who could do the work and the work that needed to be done.” “And the question is,” he continued, “how do we solve that?” In a free-market system, those problems generally work themselves out. If there are not enough workers to fill job openings, then the employers may need to pay higher wages, or offer more benefits, or advertise better. But in the CFR’s view, it seems more bureaucracy and government programs are the answer.
Another topic on the call was establishing a “social safety net” that will “support the worker through this whole process.” According to Aguh, the existing welfare state is not enough. Complaining that the current regime was established in the 1950s and has not changed much since then, Aguh argued that the government should play a much more active role in providing economic “security” for people. For instance, he said some people might stay in their job simply because of the benefits it provides, whereas if the government created programs for health and welfare, that worker could move to another job more easily.
In a phone interview with The New American, Aguh noted that there were major changes when the economy went from primarily an agricultural system to a more industrial system. “As we look at this new economy, the Fourth Industrial Revolution, we argue that we need a change,” he explained, adding that the system would have to change to keep pace with the changes happening in the economy such as automation, job losses, and so on. But in the end, there is “no silver bullet,” he said. “There’s a myriad of things that have to happen.”
Separately, CFR Task Force Project Director Ted Alden acknowledged to The New American in a phone interview that the report seeks to tackle an enormous range of issues. “The danger of this is that it becomes a report about everything,” he said, chuckling. Then he provided an overview of some of the many areas where the CFR group believes policymakers should make changes.
Asked about “global models” for unemployment insurance, Alden said there were two big pieces. One is to make the system more “effective.” “Europeans do better than we do here; Denmark and Sweden do this better than we do,” he said. “That doesn’t mean we necessarily need to follow them — they have different systems — but they do a lot right. For example, their unemployment systems. The U.S. is an enormous laggard in re-training and in spending.”
In America, the unemployment system was designed for cyclical downturns as people were laid off in bad times. “We argue for a move toward more of an affordable benefits program, recognizing the emergence of the gig economy,” he said, citing issues such as California’s recent scheme to force Uber and other similar companies to treat all their drivers as actual employees. “We have to have a social-benefit system that makes this kind of model work.”
While saying that did not necessarily mean a government takeover of health insurance, retirement, and other benefits people often obtain from their jobs, Alden and the Task Force report made clear that the federal government has a significant role to play. “What we’re talking about is allowing people to move more easily between jobs and retain benefits,” said Alden, who described his role as “working to try to fashion a consensus from the smart and visionary people” involved in the Task Force. “We need greater flexibility. The gap in economic security between full-time workers and part-time workers is enormous.” The Task Force did not get down to the “very granular level,” but there are many different models worth looking at, he said.
On immigration, Alden said he did not want to speak for the group on how to design an immigration system. “What I can say with confidence about the position of the group is we were trying to deal with a conundrum,” he said. “How does U.S. remain most competitive and innovative economy in the world? Our prosperity depends on us maintaining a technological lead. We don’t want to see government throwing wrenches that slow down technological progress. But if you look at evidence on high-skilled immigration to U.S., it’s a tremendous benefit to the U.S. economy and innovation.”
When pressed about the views of critics, Alden said the “notion of immigrants as competition for American workers” was actually “short sighted.” But of course, it is an established fact that an increased supply of labor will have the immediate effect of driving down wages, compounding the looming job losses and relocation that purport to justify the entire CFR Task Force’s agenda.
In the end, Alden portrayed the CFR’s efforts as a benevolent plan to help America succeed in a complex and globalized world. “Americans feel very uncertain right now,” he said. “They don’t know their place. If we don’t help Americans succeed, the future of the country is going to be very much in question. The U.S. is pulling back in global leadership, but we believe U.S. leadership has been an important force in the world. So there is a very important duality: How do we remain competitive and innovate, while making sure the benefits spread out to all of America, so they can embrace the future rather than be scared of it?”
Lawmakers who spoke with The New American, though, had a different take on it all. Senator Regina Bayer, an Idaho Republican who was invited to join the CFR’s conference call for state officials, warned of a nefarious agenda hidden just below the surface. “My take on this conference call and task force is the CFR is attempting to establish a new, direct form of communication; new ways to disseminate information,” she explained. “They need to establish themselves as dedicated and honorable so that their information will be accepted as good and truthful.”
Part of the agenda, Senator Bayer continued, was to establish a sort of “open door” communication between the CFR and state and local officials, as the “federal and international approaches are not as successful as they would like to see.” She cited the implementation of the totalitarian United Nations Agenda 2030 as an example. “It is working better now as it is being implemented at the local and state levels rather than just a power push from the top,” she explained. Part of the strategy seems to be to “wow” state and local politicians into feeling important because a well-known organization like the CFR is interested in connecting with them. Interestingly, before Trump’s election, a CFR member was calling for abolishing U.S. state governments entirely.
But the underlying goals are clear. “Both the conference call and the Independent Task Force report are full of global-government ideologies,” she explained. “Most of it reads like Keynesian mumble-jumble. The true remedy would be a return to Austrian economics.” Keynesian economists typically believe government ought to intervene in the economy to deal with all manner of real and imagined “market failures.” Austrian-school economists, by contrast, generally believe the free market without unnecessary government intervention is the best system in terms of creating and distributing wealth.
Especially among Republicans and grassroots conservatives, thanks largely to the efforts of Americanist organizations such as The John Birch Society and Eagle Forum, even establishment types have long recognized that a public association with the CFR can be politically toxic among voters. That is why, for instance, former Vice President Dick Cheney, who served as a director of CFR, boasted in a speech at the CFR of concealing his ties to the globalist organization while campaigning for reelection in Wyoming. But the CFR appears to be working to create ties with lawmakers and policymakers on both sides of the aisle nonetheless.
The CFR is a powerful organization with a well-documented track-record of promoting globalism, undeclared war, unconstitutional Big Government policies, and more. This report will perpetuate that history. So far, the Task Force and “The Work Ahead” report have received very little attention by the establishment press, much of which is openly in bed with the CFR — including many outlets that are corporate members of the group. However, a push to advance the CFR Task Force’s agenda is almost certainly coming, after the groundwork has been properly laid.
As Admiral Ward explained, when the CFR’s leadership decides to pursue a policy, the incredibly powerful propaganda and lobbying apparatus at its disposal represents a force to be reckoned with. That day is likely coming on this agenda, too. For right now, globalism is on defense. But over the long term, only an educated and informed electorate will be able to defend freedom and resist these growing assaults.
In 2006, I was surprised to find myself sitting at a formal dinner in the middle of a 200-year-old debating society at Cambridge University in England. In a few minutes I, and five others were about to engage in a debate over the usefulness of the United Nations. But here, for a few minutes longer, at the long dinner table with the crisp, white tablecloth, I was sitting next to one of my fellow debaters, Salis Shetty, the head of the UN’s Millennium Project.
I had ignored him through most of the dinner, but with just a few minutes left before the debate I finally turned to him and said, “You realize you don’t have a prayer, don’t you?”
He looked at me and asked, “About what?”
I replied, “Ending poverty by 2015 through the use of redistribution of wealth.” (That was one of the eight listed goals of the UN’s Millennium Project, accepted by world leaders in 2000.)
He said, “Yes, I know.”
I began to talk with him about the need to help the poor escape from poverty on their own rather than being condemned to life-long bread lines. I talked about the need to establish private property rights as a means to build wealth. I mentioned that there was estimated to be almost $10 trillion in “dead capital”(property in the world that no one is allowed to own or invest in). That’s enough capital to help a lot of poor people break out of their dire situation.
Mr. Shetty looked at me as I made these observations and said, “Hernando de Soto.”
“Yes!” That’s exactly whom I was quoting. De Soto is an economist from Peru who has made it his life’s work to help end poverty in the world by promoting private property ownership.
To my amazement Mr. Shetty looked at me and said, “I have associates who are looking on this (de Soto’s ideas) favorably.” Just as he said those words, the call came for us to head to the debating hall for our event. Of course we were on opposite sides.
As soon as the debate was over (I was outnumbered five to one, as usual) I made a beeline to Mr. Shetty and said, “You and I started a conversation and I want to finish it.” A few weeks later I traveled to New York City to meet with him in his UN office. During that meeting, he told me that, in his city in India, the local government was beginning to go over property records and officially register ownership, something that had never been done before. The result was that the economy of the community was starting to improve.
That is exactly the point that Hernando de Soto is making as he travels the world meeting with national leaders. The core reason for poverty is bad government. In most of the world, people may “own” their homes, perhaps via an underground economy, but they have no official records through the government to prove it. Without that official proof or registration, they have no means to use the property for equity loans and investment, so it is essentially dead capital, as de Soto has labeled it.
In his book, “The Mystery of Capital, Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else,” de Soto explains the major difference between the American system and most other nations of the world. Here, every single piece of privately held property — homes, even large equipment, is registered. In fact, the County Registrar’s office is one of the most important tools of freedom because it’s where every American can prove ownership of their property. Because of that system, average Americans can use their property as a tool to obtain loans. At least 60% of American companies have been started thorough equity loans on private property. And those privately held companies went on to employ about 60% of the American workforce. That is how private property ownership made the United States the richest nation in the world, almost over night. Lack of such a system is the reason much of the rest of the world fell into extreme poverty. In those cases the people have no way out of poverty and are forced to rely on government handouts.
De Soto’s book was called “The blueprint for a new industrial revolution,” by the Times of London. Today de Soto travels the world, meeting with world leaders who seek his guidance on how they can end poverty in their nations. Yet, when he tells them the secret is private ownership of property, many balk, telling him with a troubled smile, that the people in their nations “just aren’t ready for such a policy – they don’t understand the concept of private property ownership.” So the promise of a great new financial revolution that could spread wealth and freedom to every corner of the world never gets off the ground.
A few years ago I had the great privilege of a private meeting with Hernando de Soto. He told me a story of one such meeting he had with a national leader. He’s been in enough meetings with world leaders that he can now almost anticipate what they are going to say. In this particular meeting, he said he knew the leader was going to tell him that his people just weren’t ready for private property ownership. So, before the meeting, de Soto sent a team into the neighborhood around the presidential palace and knocked on doors to ask the people if they owned their homes. Every single one of them said yes, they owned their home. So de Soto’s team members asked each to produce any kind of evidence they might have to show that ownership. They did. It might have been a bill of sale, a receipt or even a copy of a will. In any case, they had something to prove their ownership in a country where property ownership was not supported by the government.
De Soto took copies of these items with him to the meeting, and before the discussion could begin about how the people of his country didn’t understand private property ownership, Hernando de Soto spread his evidence on the table and said to the leader, “your people understand property ownership, now let’s discuss how they can legally own it and build capital from it.”
There are three main reasons the world has not experienced de Soto’s new financial revolution. First is bad government led by dictators who refuse to give up their power over the people by supplying them the means for ending poverty. Poverty is very helpful to dictators because poor people are powerless to rise up against them. Poverty is also convenient to rouse the rabble against political opponents and spread fear.
Those who are barely hanging on from meal to meal are easy to scare with threats from any proposal that dares to differ from the redistribution schemes, even if, in the long run, that would be the best means for them to find a way out of poverty. The Left has used this fear effectively to build hate and resistance against those who promote free enterprise.
The second reason the world is sinking into ever greater poverty is the Environmental movement- the new-style dictatorship that actually prefers people to remain poor, living in mud huts with no infrastructure, running water or electricity. That, they claim, is sustainable.
Believe it or not, there is a worldwide Sustainable Development policy to prohibit funding of development projects in Third World countries if the projects don’t fit the environmental agenda. It’s called the Equator Principles. According to their own documents, the Equator Principles were established in association with the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation in 2003. They have been adopted by at least 73 financial institutions around the world, covering over 70% of international projects such as dams, mines, and pipelines. At least three leading American financial institutions are associates of the Equator Principles, including Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup.
In short, such policy actually leads to what can only be called Environmental Racism. A few white, rich people who live in luxury in their first-world nations have made a determination that some who now live in mud huts with no indoor power and no clean running water, must stay that way because these elites have determined it is more ‘sustainable” for the planet.
Stopping development for the poor has become a major drive by Sustainablists. At the Earth Summit in 1992, Chairman Maurice Strong famously said “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrial nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Zero economic growth is the announced goal to assure their well-ordered sustainable society stays dormant, thereby assuring their control. Of course, the result will only be more poor people – all in the name of saving the environment.
But fear not, these same power mongers aren’t satisfied to condemn just those already living in poverty. Apparently they are so determined to control every human action on the planet that they are equally happy to condemn the rest of us to such a future – for the planet, of course. Author Ted Trainer has written a book entitled “Transition to a Sustainable and Just World,” which is really nothing more than a blueprint for establishing Marxist principles into your local community. In the book Trainer writes, “The alternative has to be the simpler way, a society based on non-affluent lifestyles within mostly small and highly self-sufficient local economies under the local participatory control and not driven by market forces or the profit motive, and with no economic growth. There must be an enormous cultural change away from competitive individualistic acquisitiveness.” The call for zero economic growth was also heard at the UN’s Rio+20 Summit in 2012. Trainer’s motto for us all is that “you must live on less!” That is their definition of Sustainable Development. Of course they only mean this future for you and me, not the powerful elite.
Such ideas of destroying human civilization are, in fact, rampant throughout the Green movement. Paul Ehrlich, professor of Population Studies at Stanford University demanded that “a massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” Apparently, the advocates of such a desire to make us all poor have missed a very important fact. Only in wealthy nations do people have enough money and time to worry about protecting the environment. The poor worry only about one thing – survival. It is also in the poorest areas where population numbers explode. In rich, secure nations populations are actually going down. So it would seem logical that if one wants to protect the environment and reduce populations then Capitalism would be the economic system of choice. But of course, none of this is really about helping the poor or the ecology. It’s about power.
The third reason for depressed economies and a growing number of poor is what I call the “Compassion Cartel.” Government, private charities and foundations have made poverty big business. It’s the excuse for nearly every governmental spending program. Help the poor! Tax the rich! How dare they get wealthy while others suffer? And the preferred way to eliminate poverty is redistribution of wealth. It’s easy to convince someone to donate to a cause when emotions and guilt are employed. Reason and rational thought take a backseat.
Back to my debate in Cambridge: After the debate was over, the hosts sponsored a reception. As I entered the door, I was confronted by one of the students, who asked with puzzlement – “sir, you really don’t believe in redistribution of wealth?”
I answered, “No, it’s theft.”
And she said, “But if you have more than you need, shouldn’t you share it with someone who needs it?”
I said, “Why should I?”
She looked like I had slapped her. Here she was, one of the bright young students at one of the great schools in the world, and she had never heard an argument against redistribution of wealth or for a free market. As I spoke to her, giving detail after detail about how a free market and property can eliminate poverty, more than 50 other students began to gather around.
I explained that if I take money from each of them today to feed someone more unfortunate, then tomorrow they will need another meal –and again the next day, and the next. You have gained nothing in the battle to help them, other than to delay their agony another day. At best you have offered a band aid. At worse, such policy doesn’t prevent poverty. Something else is causing that poverty and you haven’t addressed it. So, tomorrow there will be more poor, and more the next. And each time you will be forced to provide more and more aid from your now dwindling funds, until one day you too may find yourself forced to be in the receiving line. When I finished my explanation there was a moment of silence and then the young student said, “What an interesting point of view. How can I learn more?”
I wanted to scream “Economics 101!”
Today, anyone who points out such economic facts in a failed welfare system is called heartless and probably racist. What kind of evil person calls helping the poor theft? Well, take a good look at the world we live in. According to Mr. Shetty’s Millennium Project, there are currently 1.2 billion people living in poverty. Fifty thousand deaths a day occur worldwide as a result of poverty. Every year more than 10 million children die of hunger and preventable diseases. More than half the world’s population lives on less that $2 per day and 800 million people go to bed hungry every night.
To combat all of this we have the Compassion Cartel. We have thousands of charitable organizations and faith-based programs designed to feed the children, along with education programs designed to create awareness of poverty and starvation. Their ads run on television nightly pulling at our heartstrings to “do something.” Most of these charities have built huge private organizations, with highly paid administrators working out of impressive buildings with large staffs. That doesn’t include the huge government programs operating at an even larger scale on your tax dollars. As I said, poverty is big business.
Every politician preaches the gospel of helping the poor and as a result, more than half of every American’s pay check disappears into government coffers even before it hits our own pockets. Billions of dollars of aid pour into federal and international programs to distribute to countries around the world to help feed the poor. Poverty reductions have been set. Goals have been announced, Deadlines for ending poverty have been determined and every national and international leader has signed documents to pledge that poverty must be eradicated. In 2015 it was called Agenda 2030. In 2019 it’s called the Green New Deal.
What is the result of this worldwide focus on poverty? Well, we have more poor! It’s a growth industry. Why? Because not one of these programs offers a single plan to allow the poor to help themselves. Instead, the Compassion Cartel has sentenced every single poor person in the world to a future of life-long breadlines, allowing them to be victims of demagogues, con artists and harsh, hopeless, futureless lives. There is no consideration for their goals and dreams and no real understanding of the hopelessness of their lives. And the middle class of once wealthy nations like the United States is quickly dissolving under the burden of the redistribution schemes. Result – more poor in our once proud nation.
If the self-proclaimed compassion industry had true concern for the poor, it would begin an international drive to empower the poor by allowing them to build their own wealth – thereby getting themselves off of the breadlines.
Hernando de Soto has offered that way. He has called for the establishment of private property rights that would allow people around the world to build personal wealth and the ability to invest in new enterprises that would, in return, employ more, help build infrastructure to allow still more to have electricity, heat, cooling and clean water in their homes, improving health and the quality of their lives. Step by step these improvements would lead to creating more wealth worldwide, reducing the burden on the rest of us, and in turn, help all of us build even more wealth, strengthening quality of life. Help the poor help themselves and it will also help you. That is a winning compassion for all.
But to take such a step would require a rejection of socialism and an embracing of capitalism. And that, says the Compassion Cartel, can never be allowed, because that would lead to empowering individuals to control their own lives. Instead, in the name of compassion, sustainable oppression in a well-ordered society is so much more efficient.
The UN FAO selection process was hardly legitimate, sources in Rome and Washington told The New American and other publications. Indeed, a diplomatic source quoted by the French newspaper Le Monde said that Beijing had given African candidate Médi Moungui a multi-million dollar bribe in exchange for withdrawing from the race. Multiple UN FAO ambassadors sustained “intense Chinese pressure.” Various media outlets around the world even reported that Beijing had threatened at least several national governments, including those in Brazil and Uruguay, with a ban on agricultural exports to China if they failed to support Qu. Communist regimes such as the mass-murdering dictatorship enslaving Cuba openly backed Qu.
While the election is based on a secret ballot, it is known that Qu secured 108 votes in the first round of voting. The next closest candidate was Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle, a euro-socialist from France with the full backing of the European Union superstate who secured 71 votes. Coming in third place was Davit Kirvalidze from the nation of Georgia, who, despite backing by the Trump administration and some of its allies, barely got a dozen votes. The decision was made by the UN FAO’s 194 member governments and dictatorships, all of which get one vote. The agency has more than 11,000 employees and is one of the largest in the UN system.
Qu and his masters in the Communist Party of China could barely contain their glee. “I’m very grateful to my motherland,” the communist operative declared after winning the secretive selection process. “Without 40 years of successful reforms and open-door policy I would not have been where I am,” he said in his first speech, proudly sporting a lapel pin promoting the totalitarian UN Agenda 2030 that Beijing said it played a “crucial role” in developing. “Now the election is over and I will be committed to the original aspiration, mandate and mission of the organization.”
Among the various policies Qu has touted was a massive surge in what he called “Vitamin M,” or “money.” In a speech, he called for boosting the organization’s funding — already at almost $3 billion per year — by 10 percent annually for every year of his term. And in April, while campaigning for the post, Qu called for “changes” in the “production and consumption” of agricultural goods around the world under the guise of environmentalism. This comes directly out of the Agenda 2030 scheme, described by UN leaders as the “master plan for humanity” and a “global declaration of interdependence.”
Back in Beijing, Qu’s overlords were overjoyed, too. Qu’s victory was a “show of high appreciation of China’s support for multilateralism and advancing global development,” according to Communist Chinese “foreign ministry” spokesman Geng Shuang. Geng vowed that the dictatorship, which starved millions of people to death in the not-too-distant past, would “continue to work with other countries to promote the development of the global food and agriculture industries.” That should be highly troubling to advocates of freedom and private land ownership.
The new director-general, who served as “vice minister for agriculture and rural affairs,” will replace Brazilian communist Jose Graziano, whose term has been marked by seemingly never-ending scandal. Among other outrages, Graziano has worked to shut down honest reporting and criticism of his tenure. In one especially outrageous case, the Brazilian radical even sought to destroy the Italian Insider newspaper while having its editor jailed under arcane local laws. Graziano was outraged that the Rome-based publication was exposing various scandals and misdeeds among FAO leadership, and so, in totalitarian fashion, sought to crush his perceived enemies using the power of government.
Graziano is also a longtime ally of disgraced former Brazilian President Luis Inacio “Lula” da Silva, a Marxist revolutionary sitting in jail for corruption. The outgoing FAO boss has also used corruption and nepotism to try to advance the communist takeover of Latin America while trying to protect communist criminals from prosecution by granting them diplomatic immunity. Under Graziano, FAO even awarded honors to the imploding socialist dictatorship in Venezuela for its efforts to “fight hunger” — even as much of the population literally survived by eating garbage, pets, and zoo animals. Unsurprisingly, Graziano was fully behind Qu.
As The New American has been documenting for many years, the Communist Chinese dictatorship, with the full support of subversive Western globalists, has been busy accumulating more and more influence within the emerging “global governance” system. Indeed, there are more Chinese nationals in charge of UN bureaucracies than any other nation or government. Until recently, even the self-styled global “police” agency Interpol was under Communist Chinese control.
Other UN agencies under China’s control include the UN International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which is pushing global taxes on air travel. Also run by a Communist Chinese agent is the UN Industrial Development Organization, a disgraced entity helping to build up hostile Third World regimes such as the murderous dictatorships in North Korea and Cuba with Western money and technology. Another key UN entity run by a Communist Chinese agent is the UN International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which is seeking global censorship and controls of the Internet. Also under Communist Chinese control is the powerful UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA). Beijing has agents serving as deputy leaders of multiple UN organizations as well.
Communist Chinese agents are also embedded all throughout the IMF, the World Bank, and beyond. Numerous UN agreements and conferences have featured Chinese Communists as leading players, including the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, which was chaired by a Chi-Com agent. The Party-controlled autocracy even opened a “School of Global Governance” at the Beijing Foreign Studies University to train legions of Communist Chinese agents to penetrate the institutions of the so-called New World Order, as Western and Chinese globalists refer to the emerging global regime.
Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokeswoman Joanne Ou warned that Beijing was “systematically deploying its officers to occupy high-ranking management positions in many important organizations, purporting to alter their policies and operations to serve its own national interests,” local media reported. Behind the scenes and increasingly out in the open, senior officials from Western governments are starting to wake up to the increasing threat of Communist Chinese influence operations.
Qu’s widely touted role as Beijing’s “vice minister for agriculture” should itself have been a giant red flag for governments around the world. Among the atrocities being perpetrated against the Chinese people under the guise of “agricultural reform,” for instance, is the wholesale uprooting of families and communities from their land. These rural people are currently being herded — often at gunpoint — into emerging new mega-cities being constructed by Beijing in accordance with UN “sustainability” schemes such as Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and more.
Qu will take up his post on August 1, with his first term ending in 2023. His salary alone will be more than double President Donald Trump’s pay. With the UN’s agricultural department firmly under Beijing’s grasp, the regime is now working to install Andy Tsang Wai-hung as head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. The U.S. taxpayer funds about one third of the FAO’s bloated budget. And there is already talk in the White House about defunding or withdrawing from the FAO. But that is not enough. It is time for the United States and other civilized and free nations to abandon the corrupt UN and its Communist Chinese-controlled tentacles before the threat grows even more severe.
Global Communism and the Paris Climate Accord- “Socialists Become Unhinged…”
by Bill Lockwood
President Donald Trump announced on June 1 that the United States would withdraw from the 2015 Paris Peace Accord. Thankfully, we have a president that understands freedom and liberty as well as the global communist plot to put America into the yoke of slavery. He also understands well the scheming of former president, Marxist Barack Obama. Wealth transfer is what Obama was all about, and the Paris agreement was Obama’s signature achievement to this end on a global scale.
Socialists Become Unhinged
Predictably, the socialists who have been running and ruining our nation until the election of Donald Trump, are today “like wild waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame.” Obama boldly lied to the American people this week. As reported by Politico: “The nations that remain in the Paris agreement will be the nations that reap the benefits and jobs and industries created.”
Obama went on to say that “America should be at the front of the pack. But even in the absence of American leadership; even as this administration joins a small handful of nations that reject the future; I’m confident that our states, cities, and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way, and help protect for future generations the one planet that we’ve got.”
Bill de Blasio, the unabashed socialist, intoned the disastrous consequences that will come America’s way: “Abandoning the Paris accords will be horribly destructive to the Earth and horribly destructive for New York City.” Apparently, there are numerous residents in that city who believe such nonsense.
Like ObamaCare, the proposed UN Paris agreement has nothing to do with what it purports to solve. ObamaCare is designed to transfer the freedom market of American into a government run health-care system. The UN Paris Accord is designed, not to reduce climate change (global warming, greenhouse gases, carbon emissions), but to empower a global government. The unfounded “anthropogenic global warming” (APG) is only the horse it rides on. The real issue is socialistic wealth transfer on a global scale.
For example, the global-communist Club of Rome confessed in its 1991 report entitled The First Global Revolution: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention …the real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
Following this totalitarian agenda, The Paris Peace Accord has already created a globalist “Carbon Pricing Panel” in preparation for world government. The dictators that run the UN have engineered a by which governments, especially America, will make “pledges” to reduce emissions, allow central planning from the UN and drastically reduce fossil fuels. And, of course, like every liberal scheme, the Accords include not only “pledges” from free nations, but reparations from the United States to Third World Nations for daring to have a thriving economy.
The Third World Regimes, largely managed by communistic dictators that disallow freedom and innovation, are to receive up to $100 Billion per year in AGW “reparations” from United States taxpayers. This is part of the Paris Peace Accord that Obama was so eager to lock into place. The United Nations wants America not only to reduce its “carbon emissions” but be so apologetic for maintaining an economy that has fed the world over the past 100 years that taxpayers will fork over that much money to Third World countries as a token of our embarrassment.
It is significant that in contrast to new heavy-handed regulations plus the financial burdens to be placed on the American taxpayer, the Third World is simply to maintain the status quo.
Communist China has been opening a new coal-fired plant on an average of once every seven to ten days and emits nearly twice the amount of CO2 as the United States (Alex Newman, “UN Climate Summit: ‘Shackling the Planet to Save’ It”, The New American). Yet, it is required by the UN Paris Accord to reduce CO2 only “after” it hits its “peak” emissions decades from now.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi added his voice just a few days ago: “Justice demands that, with what little carbon we can still safely burn, developing countries are allowed to grow.”
Added to the above “reparation” payment schedule, Obama unconstitutionally committed the United States to reducing its carbon emissions on a dramatic scale over the next several decades. Translated into job loss in the west, the Heritage Institute estimated that this cuts American jobs by 300,000 to one million by the year 2030. As Obama knows well, the “benefits” to be reaped and “jobs and industries created” of which he spoke are those in Third World countries.
Fred Singer, prominent scientist at the Heartland summit, a University of Virginia environmental science Professor Emeritus, and founder of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, observed, “This is about money and power. Science plays a small role, and mostly it’s being misused….It’s a matter of really trying to control things.” Such is communism.
Are you ready for the globalist world? – “…Technocracy as the sole global economic system while destroying capitalism and free enterprise. ”
Now the powers that be want to get rid of fake news. I think it is because the fake news has accomplished its task: to get the general public to believe in sustainable development, global warming, and global government while also believing that global warming is real and will destroy our world within several decades. I kid you not. You have all seen those videos of people asking students, and even adults, questions like, do you think incest is okay? Or showing a picture of Biden and asking can you name him. They obviously don’t know what incest is, but don’t want to look stupid, so they agree. And they can’t identify the Vice President, but they all can identify a Kardashian. Are they dumbed down enough yet to be able to read real news and not ‘get’ it?
This comes to you straight from the World Economic Forum, The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better!
It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city. Everything you considered a product, has now become a service. We have access to transportation, accommodation, food and all the things we need in our daily lives. One by one all these things became free, so it ended up not making sense for us to own much.
First communication became digitized and free to everyone. Then, when clean energy became free, things started to move quickly. Transportation dropped dramatically in price. It made no sense for us to own cars anymore, because we could call a driverless vehicle or a flying car for longer journeys within minutes. We started transporting ourselves in a much more organized and coordinated way when public transport became easier, quicker and more convenient than the car.
“My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. Those we lost on the way. Those who decided that it became too much, all this technology. Those who felt obsolete and useless when robots and AI took over big parts of our jobs. Those who got upset with the political system and turned against it. They live different kind of lives outside of the city. Some have formed little self-supplying communities. Others just stayed in the empty and abandoned houses in small 19th century villages.” –World Economic Forum
Yep, many have been brainwashed to believe in Smart Cities/stack-em and pack-em housing. In college I took a course on ecology and one of the things we studied was overcrowding – of rats and people. The consequences of overcrowding on both make them crazy. One has to assume that the powers that be know this, so are we to surmise that they want us to go crazy? Another tool in their kit to help reduce world population by 90%?
How will the globalists be certain that the future goes the ‘correct’ way, their way? But legislating everything. The Fourth Industrial Revolution is here. What laws do we need to make sure we all benefit from it?
Why does governance matter for the Fourth Industrial Revolution?
“Because if we don’t govern it, it doesn’t happen. There’s a common assumption that economic progress happens regardless of what the governance environment looks like. The thinking goes: the Fourth Industrial Revolution will happen anyway. And if we can figure out how to govern it, it’ll happen better. Governance is seen as the icing on the cake. I think that’s the wrong perspective.
“The Fourth Industrial Revolution is upon us, but if we don’t govern it properly then its full economic and social potential will not be realised. So how do we create legal infrastructure for something that is so new and complex, asks Gillian K Hadfield, professor of law and economics at the University of Southern California and author of Rules for a Flat World: Why Humans Invented Law and How to Reinvent It for a Complex Global Economy.” –World Economic Forum
Because the voters of America didn’t vote as the powers that be had expected, they will now have to find other ways to achieve their goals of instituting a devastating carbon tax. I think they should back off now that California has decided to control cow farts; that should take care of everything.
World Mayors Gather To Plot Against Trump On Climate Change
“Mayors from scores of the world’s biggest cities gathered in Mexico Wednesday to plot their strategy for fighting climate change in the face of skepticism from U.S. President-elect Donald Trump. “As leaders of busy, polluted cities home to millions of people, they want countries to push on with adopting the so-called Paris Agreement to limit harmful emissions – an accord that Trump has cast doubt on.
“In the aftermath of this election there’s never been a more important time for those city leaders to stay on course – the whole world is counting on them,” said Clover Moore, mayor of Sydney, Australia. “Hidalgo has vowed to push “for the world’s biggest and most influential cities to mobilize to make sure the Paris Agreement is fulfilled.”–Technocracy News & Trends
And, because new useless eaters are born everyday, indoctrination must be on-going in order to keep the children dumbed-down.
Universal Design for Learning or Microcosm for Destruction? “Those from groups like Teach for America and Relay Graduate School of Education are at this moment learning how to plug kids in. They will be facilitators making sure the computer is working and that students sit in their chairs straight. It all makes sense now. It’s the universal design for privatization, and it’s created by corporate America to replace democratic public schools.”–Nancy Bailey’s Education Website
It’s all about power. It always has been. From the beginning American Constitutional ideals were cherished precisely because they unchained the God-given freedom that European power-brokers and monarchial governments had disallowed. The current shredding of the Constitution via Climate Change hysteria promoted by President Obama at the United Nations Climate Summit (COP21) in Paris and the resulting crystallization of World Government brings us back to the power of kings and queens. It never has been about climate or greenhouse gases, but control.
Genius of the Constitution James Madison, the father of the Constitution, boiled down the entire genius of the Constitution in Federalist #45. “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state government are numerous and indefinite. The former [powers of the federal government] will be exercised principally on external objects as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with the last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.”
Federal government power was to remain restrained by defining its authority and listing its several powers. This grant by the people defined exactly the role it was to play. Article 1, Section 8 sets forward approximately 20, that is only TWENTY, powers delegated by the people to the federal government. Madison continues regarding the numerous and indefinite powers granted to state governments. “The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and prosperity of the state.”
State government power, as oppose to the federal government oversight, was to care for the concerns of individuals and families and communities. Why? For the simple fact that one might be able to affect a change at local levels much more simply than at a federal level. This is the essence of freedom. Are there concerns about education? About energy? About banking? About the marketplace? About jobs and salary? These are to be local concerns. Handled at a state and county level. James Wilson, a Constitutional delegate from Pennsylvania, member of the Continental Congress, signer of the Declaration of Independence, and one who ranked as the “foremost in legal and political knowledge …acquainted with man, … and all the political institutions of the world in detail” observed this regarding FREE GOVERNMENTS:
“When you examine all its parts, they will invariably be found to preserve that essential mark of free governments …” — What is that MARK of ALL FREE GOVERNMENTS? Having examined all governments of the world, what did Wilson say was that insignia of freedom? “ … a chain of connection with the people.” A chain of connection with the people is the key to retaining freedom. Conversely, allowing power and control to gravitate to the federal level results in the loss of freedom—let alone empowering an international body of unelected bureaucrats which will manage the economies amongst nations–all in the name of “saving the planet from pollution and greenhouse gases,” as proposed by Obama at COP21. This is a certain recipe for rampant tyranny.
President Obama’s supporters love to cheer him on by reminding us that he is a “Constitutional lawyer.” Nonsense. He has only studied “case law” and that as a means by which he can overturn Constitutional freedoms. He only knows enough to get our nation into trouble. The blueprint for World Government ruled by unelected socialist, Marxist, and Muslim elites is now in its final stages and the Paris Summit is all about that.
Maurice Strong As this article is being composed, news comes of the death of Maurice Strong, the globalist who is most responsible for empowering the “deadly agreement” called UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21, having served as the UN Secretary General during 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. One hundred sovereign nations signed it.
It reads like a dream-come-true to all the Stalins, Mao’s, and Hitler’s of the world. Note particularly the portions which herein have been bolded. Can any clearer statement of grasping for power be composed? “Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by every person on Earth…It calls for specific changes in the activities of all people…Effective execution of AGENDA 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced—a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.” (Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save our Planet)
In an article written by Antonio Scorza this week is included this personal reflection from Maurice Strong. It mirrors the “Strategy to Save the Planet.” A map for an all-powerful one-world-government.Strong opined, “The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental co-operation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of global environmental security.” Most pundits are getting it wrong. Obama is not more interested in the Environment than the personal safety of Americans. He burns more jet fuel than any of us. His agenda is POWER.