Whistleblower Scientist Exposing Secrets of Agenda 21 Part1&2


Published on Nov 16, 2011 by 

Leuren Moret is an independent scientist and international expert on radiation and public health issues.

She produced evidence of the effects of nucleur radiation, chemtrails, haarp etc.. and how the depopulation program of Agenda 21 is currently progressing.


Nonprofits & Activism

This video uses copyrighted material in a manner that does not require approval of the copyright holder. It is a fair use under copyright law.Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educationalor personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.


17 Comments on “Whistleblower Scientist Exposing Secrets of Agenda 21 Part1&2”

  1. Ed Darrell says:

    Can you tell me where in the Agenda 21 program there is any discussion of depopulation? Here are all the documents: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

  2. davidellis51 says:

    The following is a transcript of a blog written by the infowars team I hope this answers your question about depopulation, Thank you:

    Jurriaan Maessen
    August 7, 2012
    In the last couple of years the omnipresent force known as Agenda 21 is meeting with increasing resistance worldwide. With the rise of the alternative media, the flow of decade-long propaganda efforts is finally being hindered. As a result of rocks thrown in the stream- the once steady water flow is now exposing itself at every turn as it’s forced to bend and twist its way forward. Ironically, the UN and its affiliate accomplices have themselves to thank for the counter-effort. The internet- as well as some pretty thorough archiving on the part of these transnational bureaucracies- have allowed researchers to withdraw information directly from the lion’s den. As a result of this development, we can display a plethora of documents, often written by UN personnel and ideologues, that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a concerted strategy in place to brainwash (there’s no other name for it) the human population of the planet into accepting Agenda 21 and its inherent depopulation proposals. Furthermore, this pool of document has revealed a plan to de-industrialize the west and to use the “green agenda” to do so. In the last few decades Agenda 21 has been UN policy, and all of its subdivisions were commanded to fall in line.
    Throwing rocks however, is not enough to stall the multi-winged creature that is Agenda 21. What do free people do when confronted with tyranny designed to target people in their local communities? Methinks nothing short of a war declaration is in order to push back the effort. As is custom when declaring war, there first needs to be a listing of the arguments for the war declared.
    Exhibit A: De-Industrializing the West
    A 1991 policy paper prepared for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) by Professor Jeffrey Sachs outlines a strategy for the transfer of wealth in name of the environment to be implemented in the course of 35 to 40 years. As it turns out, it is a visionary paper describing phase by phase the road to world dictatorship under Agenda 21. As the professor states in the paper:
    “To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span.”
    In his paper The Next 40 Years: Transition Strategies to the Virtuous Green Path: North/South/East/Global, Sachs accurately describes not only the intended time-span to bring about a global society, but also what steps should be taken to ensure “population stabilization”:
    “In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient.”
    In the first part of the (in retrospect) bizarrely accurate description of current events as they unfold, Sachs points out redistribution of wealth is the only viable path towards population stabilization and- as he calls it- a “virtuous green world”. The professor:
    “The way out from the double bind of poverty and environmental disruption calls for a fairly long period of more economic growth to sustain the transition strategies towards the virtuous green path of what has been called in Stockholm ecodevelopement and has since changed its name in Anglo-Saxon countries to sustainable development.”
    “(…) a fair degree of agreement seems to exist, therefore, about the ideal development path to be followed so long as we do not manage to stabilize the world population and, at the same time, sharply reduce the inequalities prevailing today.”, the professor states.
    “The bolder the steps taken in the near future”, Sachs asserts, “the shorter will be the time span that separates us from a steady state. Radical solutions must address to the roots of the problem and not to its symptoms. Theoretically, the transition could be made shorter by measures of redistribution of assets and income.”
    Sachs points to the political difficulties of such proposals being implemented (because free humanity tends to distrust any national government let alone transnational government to redistribute its well-earned wealth). He therefore proposes these measures to be implemented gradually, following a meticulously planned strategy:
    “The pragmatic prospect is one of transition extending itself over several decades.”
    In the second sub-chapter “The Five Dimensions of Ecodevelopment”, professor Sachs sums up the main dimensions of this carefully outlined move to make Agenda 21 a very real future prospect. The first dimension he touches upon is “Social Sustainability”:
    “The aim is to build a civilization of being within greater equity in asset and income distribution, so as to improve substantially the entitlements of the broad masses of population and of reduce the gap in standards of living between the have and the have nots.”
    This of course means, reducing the standards of living in “The North” (U.S., Europe) and upgrading those of the developing nations (“The South and The East”). This would have to be realized through what Sachs calls “Economic Sustainability”: “made possible by a more efficient allocation and management of resources and a steady flow of public and private investment.”
    The third dimension described by the professor is “Ecological Sustainability” which, among other things, limits “the consumption of fossile fuels and other easily depletable or environmentally harmful products, substituting them by renewable and/or plentiful and environmentally friendly resources, reducing the volume of pollutants by means of energy and resource conservation and recycling and, last but not least, promoting self-constraint in material consumption on part of the rich countries and of the privileged social strata all over the world.”
    In order to make this happen Sachs stresses the need of “defining the rules for adequate environmental protection, designing the institutional machinery and choosing the mix of economic, legal and administrative instruments necessary for the implementation of environmental policies.”
    Dimension 4: “Spatial Sustainability”:
    “directed at achieving a more balanced rural-urban configuration and a better territorial distribution of human settlements and economic activities (…)”.
    The fifth and last dimension described in the UN policy paper is “Cultural Sustainability”: “looking for the endogenous roots of the modernization processes, seeking change within cultural continuity, translating the normative concept of ecodevelopment into a plurality of local, ecosystem-specific, culture-specific and site-specific solutions.”
    But to realize such a dramatic new direction for the world, Sachs once again stresses the importance of incremental implementation. A matter of boiling the frog slowly as opposed to throwing the poor animal into a boiling-hot cooking pan:
    “Even if we know where we want to get, the operational question is how do we proceed to put humankind on the virtuous path of genuine development, socially responsible and in harmony with nature. It is submitted that UNCED 92 should give considerable attention to the formulation of transition strategies that could become the central piece of the Agenda 21.
    This is the word- Agenda 21: the UN strategy for redistributing the wealth accumulated by the “North” in order to create a completely “balanced” world society- under auspices of the United Nations of course and the private central banks controlling it. This can only come about by destroying the middle-class. A sudden redistribution and industrialization would not do- for the middle-class would undoubtedly rise in defiance against it. Therefore, Sachs argues for an incremental and carefully planned dissolution of the middle-class phase by phase:
    “To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span. The retooling of industries, even in periods of rapid growth, requires ten to twenty years. The restructuration and the expansion of the infrastructures requires several decades and this is a crucially important sector from the point of view of environment.”
    Then Sachs plunges into his most shocking statement:
    “However, the single most important reason to consider the transition strategies over a minimum of thirty-five to forty years stems from the non-linearity of these strategies; they should be devised as a succession of changing priorities over time. A good illustration is provided by the population transition. In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient.”
    Sachs argues that “an accelerated programme of social and economic development of the rural areas should be the outmost priority in the first phase of a realistic population stabilization scheme.”
    Who or what is to coordinate all this, according to Sachs, and how exactly is the UN to take control?
    “The solutions”, says Sachs, “can vary in terms of their boldness and take the form of global, multilateral or bilateral arrangements.” These arrangements should as far as Sachs is concerned ensure “at least partially the automacity of financial transfers by some form of fiscal mechanisms, be it a small income tax or an array of indirect taxes on goods and services whose production and consumption has significant environmental impacts.”
    Over time, gradually, these taxes should increase:
    “Starting the operation with a one per ten thousand tax and increasing it so as to reach one per thousand in ten to twenty years seems a fairly realistic proposal, the more so that the scheme creates an interesting market for the private enterprises involved in R and D.”
    Reading all this, the question as to what entity should take charge is not difficult to answer. Sachs:
    “In order to generate maximum synergies between the national strategies and global action, the United Nations should create a forum for the periodical discussion and evaluation of these strategies and a research, monitoring and flexible planning facility to put them in a global perspective.(…). The forum should have a fair representation of all the main actors involved: governments, parliaments, citizen movements and the business world. Given its importance, it should be lifted from specialized agencies to a central place in the UN system.”
    This almost literally echoes the recent call by a group of scientists for the upcoming UN Earth Summit to create “a Sustainable Development Council within the UN system to integrate social, economic and environmental policy at the global level.”
    The “fair representation” Sachs is talking about is of course only a pretext to get everybody on board. As the “Danish Text”, drafted for the Copenhagen conference in late 2009, clearly illustrates, the IMF and World Bank will always have final say in the construction of any international system.
    The other, more sinister element of Agenda 21 is of course the concerted effort on the part of the global elite, through multilateral treaties and regulations, to not only control the populations of the world but to cull them.
    Exhibit B: Using the Mass-Media To Cull the Overall Human Population
    The 1973 document Mass Media, Family Planning and Development: Country Case Studies on Media Strategy is a good example of how the UN utilizes mass media to propogandize people into cutting their numbers. In this particular document we learn something about the strategies to be implemented in the eugenics-based family planning project of the future. Based on case studies in third world countries, the document proposes the creation of a “family planning communication resource unit” for every nation concerned. The reason being, so the report states, that “culturally, there is an emphasis on fertility, and the birth of children to the family is celebrated, as a symbol of prosperity and for status for women.” Because UNESCO-chieftains can’t have that, the reduction of a population should be accomplished through an elaborate media campaign, utilizing all possible avenues. Ancient tribal instincts, revolving around procreation and creativity, become suspect- as does religion and tribal mythology. The following strategies dates back from the early 1970s- but have now been formalized worldwide by Agenda 21 as enshrined within its dark articles.
    The writers of the 1973 document mean not to destroy the human tendencies, they mean to use them to their own advantage and that of their masters. “The religion”, they say, “supports the idea that children are ‘God’s Greatest Blessing’ but can also be used to encourage the idea that every child should be given the best opportunities parents can offer. There is also a favourable attitude to economic development, a desire to raise living standards, and a desire for education. These factors are helpful in the development of a Preliminary Media Strategy.”
    “A Communication Resource Unit”, the document continues, “is responsible for the implementation of media policy for one, or more than one field.” The document proceeds with outlining the functions of such a unit in regards to family planning messages: “The integration of messages is a matter which concerns the Communication Resource Unit, in that an integrated approach to family planning needs to be worked out. (…) These (messages) may be ‘family planning for maternal health’, ‘family planning for family prosperity’, ‘family planning for your figure’, ‘family planning for national prosperity’, family planning for child development.’ These messages will be pretested to find those which seem to appeal most to the eligible age groups.”
    One of the many case studies (country case study nr.1) involves an unnamed “small island”, total population 3,000,000. Describing the current situation, the report states: “Mass media approaches to family planning are wholly financed by the Government and, since 1968, radio, television and the press have been used to give information about family planning and to create an awareness of the need for population control.” One of the chief objectives for the ‘resource unit’, will be to “extend(ing) the family planning coverage to 90% of the eligible population. The aim at this point is to bring the number of children per family nearer to three rather than four, and to gradually reduce this to two children per family at a later stage.”
    As one of the first proposed “phases” of the programme, the document describes several messages to be embedded within television commercials. “A couple are shown over one of the new Government flats. They are unable to take it, because the accommodation provided is for families with two or three children. Preference is given to smaller families. They (the large family) will have to wait longer.” Another example: “The picture shows a married woman with one child. She is stopped by a voice saying “Do you know about family planning?” “Your local clinic has all the information.”” Or: “(Picture changes to a smiling woman with clinic appearing) “Family planning is free in all clinics (…)””. How about this one: “Don’t put off family planning. Tomorrow may be too late. See your clinic today.” You gotta also love this one: “A picture on the screen could show a woman talking to a consultant about family planning. She turns to the viewers and says: “I’m glad I made up my mind about family planning.””
    Cartoons, say the authors, could also help implant a family planning message, for example “a cartoon in the most widely read newspaper could take the opportunity to ridicule those who cling to the old ways to the detriment of their families.”
    Both television and radio advertisements are subject to the strategies of the Communication Resource Unit: “Advertising on television will be in the evenings, between popular programmes, when a broader audience (both male and female) is expected.” With regards to radio advertising, the report says: “The commercials can be played into record request programmes, women’s programmes, at programme junctions, before and after news breaks, popular serials and plays. The message should be simple, sympathetic, catchy.”
    “For example”, the report continues, “messages like these can appeal specifically to the over thirty age group: “Family planning is for YOU. Have you had two children or more? The now’s the time to visit your local clinic.” And: “Most people plan their families. They know that education, clothing, housing, all cost money. How many children can you afford?” In another instance, people are being scared with all kinds of gruesome images: “For example, the commercial might begin with the hungry cries of four or five children, followed by the tired voice of the mother.” The examples in the document go on and on, crudely distributing messages into the mass media: “A sequence might be set up, (…) showing John and Mary with two children. The caption reads: “John and Mary…. nice house ……lovely children”, and another (showing another couple with four children), “Doris and Jack….. no house ….. too many children.”
    “Personality shows”, the report mentions, “can be useful in the reinforcement phase. (…) A well known personality who demonstrates an interest in family planning, or remarks on the success of the campaign, can often add credibility to the family planning message.” The report would like to see these personalities follow the script word for word, for example in response to a woman, who recently gave birth to her first child: “Well, that’s marvellous”, the radio personality should respond, “Congratulations Mrs……… I suppose you won’t be having any more children for a bit. You want that boy of yours to grow healthy and strong and I know you need time to recover- Children take up a lot of your time, don’t they?” The document states that personality alone cannot fully carry the message through to the listening audience: “Jingles and spot announcements, jokes and quick comments, can be included in the programmes, which will then have the effect of keeping the subject of family planning firmly in mind.”
    How would the UNESCO-people arrange all this? Just by voluntary compliance of the media-people involved?
    “There may be some scheme whereby those people will be paid for their work (…)”- says the document. In other words: bribery is being proposed as an acceptable means of bringing the media into the strategy.
    Also community plays should be used to convey the message: “The afternoon play can carry the theme, skillfully woven into the story. It is possible that some plays could be specially written for the purpose, but it is probable that the message can be incorporated into plays by those writers who have been briefed well enough in advance.” Music and pamphlets are another way of doing it, the report says: “Songs can be useful in this phase, (…). They must be professionally composed and recorded, and the messages must be reasonably subtle if it is to be acceptable to programmers.”
    But the proposed Resource Unit won’t restrict itself to just radio, TV and plays. Feature films are considered perhaps to be the most effective tools in conveying the message to unsuspecting audiences: “(…) There are two ways in which the family planning message can be included in feature films. The first is for the family organisation to commission a film specifically for the campaign. (…) if it is to be successful, well known and popular actors must be chosen, and the scripting and direction has to be professionally executed. Another method is for the family planning theme to be introduced into feature films which are already planned and prepared by local commercial production companies. In this case, the family planning organisers must be aware of the possible ways in which the theme can be subtly incorporated, as producers are not likely to respond to a suggestion which involves the total re-thinking of the plot. (…) Suitable opportunities can be found in love stories, in stories based on conflicts between men and women (…).”
    And the document- thoroughly immersed in deception- continues on, listing example after example- and illustrating quite vividly the willingness on the part of the Malthusian-minded elite to lie, cheat and deceive in order to convince people that “less is more”. In the 1970s, air pollution and global cooling were thrown into the equation- later on it became anthropogenic global warming. As this document shows, nation after nation is methodically bombarded with predictive programming-propaganda, requiring of the receiver an almost superhuman set of defence mechanisms to fence off the pitchforks of the eugenicists, poking at them from all sides.
    Exhibit C: Declaring Man The Enemy of the Earth
    As we know, the globalists have decided long ago that the environmental debate is no longer a debate- it has been decreed that the “discussion is over” and everyone should better realize that man is the prime cause for global warming on the planet earth, or of any other natural calamity. As long as it serves the double purpose of the elite: to abolish nation-states in favor of a great global government, and- as Jeffrey Sachs’ 1991 document reveals- reduce the world population in the same breath. The imagined threat of “international terrorism” hardly being sufficient to justify the drastic measures being implemented, another common enemy has presented itself, and what better enemy than the one staring back at you in the mirror.
    As numerous meteorologists and climatologists have testified to in recent years, their participation in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been used to back a theory that they themselves did not support. And then there are the thousands of meteorologists of good name and standard, who out of scientific righteousness have stepped forward and presented their facts before the public and scientific community. But it is of no concern to the global elite. They have for a good long time, spanning the last couple of centuries at least, presided over the politics of eugenics and enforced its diabolical mechanisms with energy, cunning and precision. It is not an idle use of words, when we identify eugenicists as such, for however just and noble its cloaking makes them out to be, this supposed righteousness is merely a grotesque carnival-costume intended to shade its true countenance.
    For an October 1975 ‘International Workshop on Environmental Education’, UN-representative Lars Emmelin writes: “The adult education effort seems to me most critical. First, because this element- now outside the formal channels of education- will continue to be the decision makers for the next 15 to 20 years, and it is within this period that the most critical and disruptive decisions will have to be made. We cannot afford to focus on youth and let the elders die off before changing our course, which, if time permitted, would be the most efficient way of institutions change.”
    In choosing its course for mass-indoctrination, the 1975 workshop explores various ways in which the mass media can be used to “sensitize” the general public in accepting the UN’s long-term ambitions. Under the headline ‘The Media as Environmental Educators’ (page 4) several options are being presented by one of the participants in how the media can best be used:
    “Discussing the role of media as motivators Sandman concludes that: “Four relatively effective kinds of environmental information are: basic ecological principles; prescriptions for environmental action; early warnings of anticipated problems; and assessments of blame for environmental degradation.”’, the report states.
    During an ENESCO-conference in October 1977 held (bizarrely) in Soviet Russia, the Director-General of UNESCO, Amadou-Mahtar M’Bow, “paid tribute to the Soviet Union and to the spectacular results achieved since the October Revolution in all areas of economic, social and cultural life, particularly in education and science, and, more especially, in environmental education.”
    You’re reading it right. Here the good Director-General is paying tribute to a then 60-year old regime responsible for murdering many millions of its own people in death camps and deliberate mass-scale starvation-operations. Yes, “environmental issues” were very high on the agenda of the USSR, very high indeed.
    After having taken his hat off to his fellow-psychopath, the Director-General plunged into a long and melodious speech on the importance of the “environment-issue” in the decades to come:
    “The objectives and strategies relating to the environment and to development had to be linked and coordinated. (…) It would be the task of education to make people aware of their responsibilities in this connection, but in order to do so it must first be reoriented and based on an ethos of the environment” And a little further on he states: “Environmental education should also promote attitudes which would encourage individuals to discipline themselves in order not to impair the quality of the environment and to play a positive role in improving it.”
    It is true, under the intentionally vague “environment”-umbrella one can assemble all kinds of calamities and as many solutions to combat them.
    “Work in this programme area”, the report continues, “will be intensified “in the line of the conference’s recommendations and move into a more operational fase. This means, among other activities, “making aid from UNESCO available to member states (of the UN) which would like to launch pilot projects”; considering a “bank” of experts on environmental education; augmenting “work in the exchange of experience, in training and in encouraging the production of teaching materials”; and strengthening the Secretariat and UNESCO’s infrastructure in general for the increased promotion of environmental education..”’
    In the meeting, the chairman of the conference stressed that no means must or will be shunned in the coming propaganda war against the people:
    “Some countries have also taken an interest, as part of in-service training activities, in the environmental education of various social and occupational categories of the population, such as factory workers, farmers, civil servants, etc. Marked progress has been made in the preparation of audio-visual and printed teaching materials concerning the environment, and the mass media are being increasingly used for sensitizing and informing broad sectors of the public about the environment.”
    In a follow-up conference more than ten years later (this time in Moscow) the Secretary-General of UNESCO, Federico Mayor, discusses “three levels of global education” in regards to the environment. The first, he states, is the “moral imperative” to reach as many people as humanly possible. The second level is “to harness school systems, non-formal learning and informal education to teach and learn about the global issues that shape and threaten the quality of our lives.” Arriving at the third and last level of global indoctrination, Mayor states: “The third level concerns the means at our disposal to project a global reach for education through both simple and highly advanced existing technologies. (…) the daily newspaper and radio have a crucial role to play in building bridges to the wider world. We must promote these media, defend and expand their freedom and appeal to their professionals at all levels to work with us for global education.”
    We can hardly accuse the globalists of keeping their plans in the dark. At every possible UN event or brainstorm conference, they openly brag about their plans for the world in quite explicit ways. The Secretary-General continues about the steps that have to be taken in order to build a “new global perception”:
    “Our first initiative would be to create a worldwide expert panel of scientists and educators to plan a global education curriculum of practical value and planetary scope.”
    The Secretary-General forgets to mention here that just such a panel was created two years earlier by the very organization he presided over.
    “Second, putting environmental education at the center of all curricula from kindergarten to higher studies and training the teachers and the administrators who can carry the massage into all schools.(..) Third, promoting a global civic education by devising teaching methods and materials that emphasize the ethics of worldwide community living.(…) Fourth, teaching the children of the wealthier countries about the conditions of their brothers and sisters in the developing world (…) Fifth, working with the mass media and telecommunication enterprises to produce and broadcast audio-visual packages that introduce audiences, particularly children and young people, to the great teachers of this world at al levels and in all cultures (…).”
    “And finally”, the Secretary-General concludes, “let me make a very immediate and concrete proposal: building on the broadcast of this forum scheduled for tomorrow (…), to create global television learning networks on the issues of the human agenda for the next century. This would be an experiment in informal global education at its best.”
    Under the term ‘Information Repackaging’, the UN has published several manuals on this subject, teaching their cronies how to most effectively influence public opinion. In a 1986 Manual for Repackaging of Information on Population Education, the UNESCO proposes “strategies for integrating population education into different subject areas”- one of these being playing into fears on the part of the population in regards to the subject of their home environment family:
    “For instance, the effectiveness of fear appeals in changing attitudes and behaviour, such as the adverse effects of non- or limited access to education and housing facilities with more than two children, depends on the credibility of the source of information and the extent of general/public support to the message conveyed by a particular piece of information. Fear appeals directed to the welfare of people valued by the receiver of information (e.g. family members, close friends) are also effective.”
    On page 37 of the manual, under the header “Selective Dissemination of Information (SDI)”, the strategy is further elaborated upon:
    “One SDI package, for instance, focuses on the integration of population education into environmental education. The package contains materials which will help users understand the relationship between man and the environment, as well as provide insights and actual data on how to plan, teach and implement practical environment/population activities for everyday life.”
    As we know, the above mentioned gadgets and gimmicks are being incrementally used in the mass media as the climate change propaganda machine is working overtime. Using the mass media to prepare the population for globalist supreme rule is not only an ambitious plan- it reveals the deceitful spirit behind the provided information, rivaling the work of Joseph Goebbels and his Department of Propaganda.
    A March 2009 policy brief by the United Nations Population Division reveals that the long-term plan for worldwide population reduction is not going fast enough according to the social engineers, not by a long shot. Under the desperate headline “What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?” this particular policy brief gives an overview of the progress made by developing countries in regards to the globalists set goal of reducing population and proposes several ways of speeding up the death. Richly draped with graphic illustrations on the state of global population and the progress made by the UN to bring back fertility to “acceptable” levels, the policy brief advises an increased effort on the part of governments to commit to a strict family planning- policy and other measures designed to bring a halt to life.
    “The reduction of fertility could be accelerated if effective measures were taken to satisfy the existing unmet need for family planning.”
    After these recommendations, the authors plunge into a long, wailing lament about the slow progress of the desired culling of the population. They also blame a lack of commitment of the governments concerned and, as expected, they stress the need for a global intervention in order to avoid certain destruction.
    This recent policy brief was just one out of many in regards to the long-term plan by the elite to significantly bring down the numbers of the existing earth population. From the moment the Rockefeller funded family planning-machine was widely kicked off in the 1960s and 70s, numerous meetings have been held in the last couple of decades where various strategies were discussed to implement population-reduction on as large a scale as possible. The strategies in question were especially directed towards the third world as the globalists had virtual carte blanche in the impoverished developing countries. The famous 1994 population conference in Cairo, held in the wake of Agenda 21′s formal kick-off, outlined some of the proposed strategies to be implemented. Then Secretary-General of the UN, Boutros Boutros-Ghali in his opening statement on the International Conference on Population and Development, stated that:
    “I am not exaggerating when I say that not only does the future of the human society depend on this Conference but also the efficacy of the economic order of the planet on which we live.”
    During a follow-up-meeting held in New York on December 1994, the United Nations’ participants came up with some practical solutions to the “population problem”– one of which is the integration of population issues with matters of “environment” and “human development”:
    “Several priority areas were identified that needed immediate action by the participants. These included creation of awareness of the interrelationships between environment, population and development; advocacy; education; training; population management; gender concerns; monitoring and evaluation; and information dissemination and networking.”
    Under the headline “Youth NGOs Agree to Integrate Environment and Population Issues in their Activities” were mentioned the following activities to “guide” the young into the right mindset by, again, mixing in environmental issues with population issues:
    “Among the current issues identified by the Working Group as requiring priority attention were the problems dealing with population, environment and sustainable development. Hence, a Working Group Meeting of the Regional Consultation of Youth NGOs in Asia and the Pacific was held from 19-21 April 1995 at the UNESCO PROAP to discuss and shape a plan of action integrating issues on environment, population and development for consideration by the youth NGOs. (…) To help them develop a relevant plan of action, the participants were exposed and sensitized to the current policies and programmes adopted by FAO, UNEP, UNFPA, and UNESCO in the areas of population, environment and development.”
    Further on the use of mass-media is being proposed as effective “carriers of population-information” to hammer dehumanization into the collective consciousness:
    “With more than 2 billion radios in the world, roughly one for every three people, and growing number of televisions, the electronic media plays an increasingly important and influential role in building awareness of population and other development issues.”
    The report continues with a prime example of predictive programming:
    “Radio and television soap operas featuring family planning themes, popular songs on population-related issues, and phone-in question-and-answer sessions have all had an impact in different countries. The use of such media can be very important where literacy is low or where written information is not widely circulated. A TV soap opera series is credited with bringing thousands to family planning clinics in Mexico, and night-time drama series integrating family planning themes have proved successful in Egypt, Nigeria and Turkey.”
    In a January 1994 preparation meeting for the Cairo conference called “Family Planning Communications Strategies Examined” it was discussed how best to use the media in order to create tolerance among the general public and “how attitudes and beliefs could be changed through the innovative use of traditional and mass media.”
    “The meeting featured case studies and presentations by communication practitioners and covered a wide range of subjects, such as: the use of folk tradition and drama to organize community action in Egypt; the use of micro-communications to encourage acceptance of family planning in the Philippines; the use of traditional and modern media in Ghana; and the use of songs to propagate family planning messages in Latin America. The success in India and Mexico of radio and television soap operas and films on family planning subjects was also discussed.”
    During the meeting the Executive Coordinator of the ICPD, Jyoti Shankar Singh, stressed the importance of using mass media to “convey family planning and reproductive health messages”:
    “Electronic media, print media (and) interpersonal interventions were all part of the kind of comprehensive information, education and communication (IEC) strategies we need in pursuit of population goals.”
    In another technical report Guidelines on Basic Education with special attention to Gender Disparities for the UN Resident Coordinator System the message is repeatedly conveyed that:
    “It is important that information be disseminated through various channels including traditional means and packaged in various forms to allow both literate and illiterate persons to understand the key messages.”
    In 1997 the UNFPA organized a Regional Media Seminar on Population and Development for the role of the mass media in (euphemistically called) ‘Information Repackaging’ for the Pacific islands. The UN officials boasted on the success of the seminar:
    “The seminar brought together journalists in the print and radio media from 9 countries of the South Pacific to explore both the role and potential of mass media as a vehicle for population advocacy, information, education and communication. (…) The seminar explored the role of the media in developing and packaging population materials for identified target groups. The meeting also provided development partners with an opportunity to forge networks with media personnel and develop effective strategies to better address population and development goals and accelerate the implementation of the ICPD (International Conference on Population and Development) Programme of Action.”
    In other words: every possible resource should be utilized for propagandizing different target audiences. But the people burdened with designing and implementing population education on a large scale emphasized the need for a common tongue and sequence of arguments with which the different UN-divisions sell the people on the idea of dehumanization.
    “Mr. Michael Vlassoff, Senior Technical Officer, Technical and Evaluation Division, UNFPA, introduced the work of the Working Group on Policy-Related Issues. He explained that the Working Group had decided to address the “common advocacy” concern by drawing up a Statement of Commitment that would then be issued by all agencies and organizations involved in the IATF. The aim of such a statement would be to ensure that all UN agencies and organizations use the same language regarding population and development issues.”
    The report goes on to list these arguments with which populations worldwide should be lured into embracing modern-day eugenics as a sensible policy:
    “The “Statement of Commitment on Population and Development by the United Nations System”, drafted by the Working Group, is divided into three sections: a general introduction stressing the commitment by the UN agencies and organizations to implement ICPD (International Conference on Population and Development); a section on the linkages between population issues and other development issues; and a concluding section calling for global partnership in addressing these interrelated issues.”
    In short- in the early 1970s UNESCO laid the groundwork for Agenda 21′s future propaganda-campaigns. A large part of the 1990s was occupied with a coordinated mobilization of mass media for propaganda purposes by the global elite, a test case so to speak, before implementing the same strategies worldwide in the first decades of the 21st century. The great global warming swindle then was put into action, arriving just in time as the environmental issue to attach the basic message to: there are too many of us- and our numbers should be reduced before the planet is destroyed. Because the warming is global, the response should be so as well. However eloquently the message may be presented by hopelessly compliant media outlets, it is the tyrant’s voice we discern amidst the chatter- and all with ears to hear should educate their neighbor in this all-out information war. Let’s not forget what the elite who have funded the UN from the moment of its very conception have always aspired. In the words of the aristocratic fiend Prince Philip:
    “If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
    The killer virus into which the prince would like to see himself incarnated, is Agenda 21. War has been declared on mankind. It is high time mankind declares war right back on them.
    Similar/Related Articles

    NC Land Conservation Coalition Wants State Funds for Agenda 21 Plan
    Agenda 21 Brainwashing: “Integrating Population Issues Into Environmental Mass Media Coverage”
    EPA’s Plans for Implementing UN’s Agenda 21
    RNC Adopts Resolution Exposing Agenda 21
    Two children should be limit, says green guru
    Agenda 21 Alert: Global Warming Freeze?
    Agenda 21 Alert: Obama’s $250 Million Plan to Brainwash Your Children
    The UN, Eugenics and the Mass Media
    UN Receives Agenda 21 Funding from World Governments and Corporations
    The Greatest Threat To Mankind
    Melinda Gates Uses Contraception to Mask Depopulation Agenda
    UN warns of global collapse due to pesticides; Agenda 21 is pushed as solution

    • Ed Darrell says:

      A 1991 policy paper prepared for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) by Professor Jeffrey Sachs outlines a strategy for the transfer of wealth in name of the environment to be implemented in the course of 35 to 40 years. As it turns out, it is a visionary paper describing phase by phase the road to world dictatorship under Agenda

      That’s a pure fiction. I asked if you had any evidence of a call for depopulation in Agenda 21 documents, not whether the wackaloons at Infowars are crazy enough to invent a conspiracy where there is none.

      So, you have no evidence at all?

      By the way, Jeffrey Sachs is famous for being an advisor to nations who advocates free market economics — savagely free market economics in some cases — as shock therapy to counter socialist experiments that failed. He’s famous for arguing that the most effective population control is to use free markets to make an entire nation wealthy — because wealthy people, on their own, limit family size. (When there is a pretty good chance your kids will survive into adulthood, you don’t need a dozen of them.)

      So, if anyone were familiar with Dr. Sachs’s work, they would immediately recognize that the claims against him are fiction — and slanderous fiction at that.

      Why are you sniping at the top free-market advocate in international economics? That’s a slander worthy of Putin . . .

      So, you have nothing but false evidence?

      • davidellis51 says:

        Since when does a stand for liberty become slanderous against those who set out to destroy it? Listen, I’m not commenting on issues blindly, as you seem to infer; and I will not employ sarcasm as a means to prove my point either! I will, however, offer you a sampler of provable quotes ending with facts that you can either research for yourself or dismiss completely. Many of the people listed in the following quotes have either had direct or indirect influence in the formulation of Agenda 21… False Evidence? – No! Truth? – Yes!

        “The arrival of the 7 billionth person is cause for profound global concern. It carries a challenge: What will it take to maintain a planet in which each person has a chance for a full, productive and prosperous life, and in which the planet’s resources are sustained for future generations?

        “How, in short, can we enjoy ‘sustainable development’ on a very crowded planet?” Jeffrey D Sachs

        And then this:

        “The second key to sustainable development is the stabilization of the global population. This is already occurring in high-income and even some middle-income countries, as families choose to have one or two children on average. The reduction of fertility rates should be encouraged in the poorer countries as well.”

        “The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary.” – Initiative for the United Nations ECO-92 EARTH CHARTER

        “A total population world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal” – UN chairman Ted Turner

        “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.” UN Agenda 21– (signed by G.H. Bush, 1992)

        “The common enemy of humanity is man. 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.” Club of Rome

        Notable Quotes – “Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, thegovernment issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” David Brower – first Executive Director of the Sierra Club; founder of Friends of the Earth; and founder of the Earth Island Institute – quoted by Dixie Lee Ray, Trashing the Planet, p.166

        “There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.” Aldous Huxley’s lecture to The California Medical School in San Francisco in 1961

        “The first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size.” Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, p.130-131

        “Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind”- Theodore Roosevelt

        “There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador. . . To really reduce population, quickly, you have to pull all the males into the fighting and you have to kill significant numbers of fertile age females…. The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa, or through disease like the Black Death.” – Thomas Ferguson, State Department Office of Population Affairs

        “Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government.” – Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991

        “The elderly are useless eaters” – Dr. Henry Kissinger

        “War and famine would not do. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved. AIDS is not an efficient killer because it is too slow. My favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world’s population is airborne Ebola (Ebola Reston), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. “We’ve got airborne diseases with 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that. “You know, the bird flu’s good, too. For everyone who survives, he will have to bury nine.” – Dr. Eric Pianka University of Texas evolutionary ecologist and lizard expert, showed solutions for reducing the world’s population to an audience on population control

        “The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control…. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.” – Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviet Union

        Early depopulation programs forged by the Rockefeller foundation in association with the Nazis were the basis of modern day incarnations of eugenics like fluoride poisoning and vaccination sterilizations. This 200 year old program of eugenics for profit was drastically accelerated when the Global Banking “Mafia” owned CIA discovered Global Peak Oil for themselves in the early 70’s. New calculations on finite global oil reserves versus the exponential oil demand for several emerging countries expanded and accelerated their global depopulation programs dramatically. Their goal is sterilization and or depopulation of 350,000 humans per day by 2012


        Slow Kill Man Made Poisons = Persistent, bio-accumulative and carcinogenic industrial waste Sodium Fluoride in tap water.

        Sterilizing Genetically Modified (Food) Organisms and Mercury contaminated High Fructose Corn Syrup/Sugar (HFCS) in most processed foods and drinks.

        Mutagenic, organic pollutants, Atrazine, PCB’s and PBDE’s in the soil.

        Carcinogenic Sodium Benzoate (Benzene) in most beverages.

        Parabens, Heavy Metals and Toxic Fragrances in most cosmetics.

        Gender (turns boys into girls) Bending Phythalates and Bisphenol A (BPA) in most plastics, can liners, dental resins and thermal paper used for receipts.

        Toxic gas producing Teflon® (PFOA) variations on most non-stick cookware.

        Pesticides, Herbicides, Fungicides, Algaecides on most non organic produce.

        Neurotoxic sweeteners Equal®, NutraSweet®, Splenda®, Sweet n Low®,Aspartame/Neotame (a.k.a. Phenylalanine) in most DIET foods, drinks, and candy.

        Toxic ADHD inducing petroleum based food Dyes, carcinogenic Preservatives,flesh melting Meat Glues and Mono Sodium Glutamate (MSG = Food Nicotine) in most non organic processed food = 90% of the American diet.

        Antibiotics, Ammonia, PCB’s, Bacteria eating Viruses, Radiation andGrowth Hormones (rGBH, rbST) in most non organic Dairy, Beef, Fish and Fowl* non organic products. = Anxiety, Asthma, Allergies, Hyperactivity, Lower IQ, Obesity, Tumors, Cancers, Sterility, Infertility, Birth Defects, Organ Damage, Neurological, Immunological and Chronic Diseases.

        Slow Kill Genetically Modified Organisms (Food) GMO’s = Almost 80% percent of the processed food at your local non organic grocery store and ALL fast food is irradiated and contaminated with toxic spermicidal virus/bacteria in GMO corn, soybeans, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa, papaya, zucchini, rice and salmon which slowly poison and sterilize you and your children. = Genetic Pollution, Obesity, Tumors, Cancers, Sterility, Infertility, Organ Damage, Miscarriages, Birth Defects, Neurological, Immunological and Chronic Diseases.

        Slow Kill Dental Mercury-Silver Amalgam Fillings and Root Canals = The second most toxic metal know to man . . . is considered safe by the ADA and your average dentist in your mouth. Root canals contain deadly poisonous mycotoxic anaerobic (need no oxygen) bacteria that have been traced to themost degenerative chronic diseases afflicting modern man in the last hundred years. – Lower IQ, Arthritis, Tumors, Cancers, Neurological, Immunological and Chronic Diseases.

        Slow Kill Weather Modification = ChemTrails, Atmospheric Geo-Engineering – What started in the 60’s as an Air Force ionized metallic salts cloud seeding and hurricane manipulation program was hijacked in the 90’s by the Global Banking Mafia controlled US Military into a genetic specific bio warfare depopulation program, program for the detection of exotic propulsion systems, ELF VLF electromagnetic weaponry, weather warfare and environmental manipulation for profit (HAARP) campaign, disposal of toxic heavy metal industrial waste (Aluminum, Strontium, Barium, Niobate, Sulfur Dioxide, Carbon Black, etc.) to contaminate the land and citizens under cover of the global warming hoax set to benefit Monsanto’s new genetically modified “aluminum resistant” crops and construct a global aerosol 3D projection screen to simulate the false arrival of major religious messiahs and/or extraterrestrial invaders (NASA project “Blue Beam”) to frighten us into submission.

        “others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves… So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations… It’s real, and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our efforts.” – William Cohen, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, April 1997.

        Then there’s the prophet hologram – “the projection of the image of an ancient god over an enemy capitol whose public communications have been seized and used against it in a massive psychological operation.” – US Air Force Colonel John Alexander co writer of the “non lethal technologies” report “Air Force 2025, Executive Summary, White Paper Summaries: Power And Influence, Information StrikeKnowledge Warfare: Shattering the Information War-Paradigm,” Chapter 9, p. 15, prepared by 2025 Support Office, Air University, Air Education and Training Command, November 1996, developed by Air University Press, Educational Services Directorate, College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, August 1996.

      • Ed Darrell says:

        Perhaps you are serious. If so, you should understand that what you claim is not evidenced by any of the out-of-context, uncited quotes you offer.

        The claim was that Agenda 21 calls for depopulation of the planet. You can offer not a single Agenda 21 citation to that effect. Instead, you offer quotes that, when ripped out of context and misapplied and misinterpreted, could be twisted to support such an argument — but you offer no citations to suggest even those not-quite-there quotes is valid.

        As I noted, what you claim about Dr. Sachs is exactly opposite what he has been doing and saying for more than two decades. You offer no citation to justify your claims, but instead repeat what you claim he said, which doesn’t in any way suggest depopulation.

        You quote Dr. Sachs:

        “How, in short, can we enjoy ‘sustainable development’ on a very crowded planet?” Jeffrey D Sachs

        Not only is that NOT a call for depopulation, nor a swing in the direction of depopulation, that is contrary to a call for depopulation.

        That was a starting point. Depopulation is one of your major claims, and you can’t offer a single citation to support that claim — before you wander off into all sorts of bizarre claims about causing earthquakes with electromagnetic waves . . .

        Either you’ve been hoaxed so badly you can’t see what’s going on, or you’re so bent on hoaxing the rest of us that you simply refuse to discuss.

        The claims that Agenda 21 calls for depopulation are completely false. Again, here are the Agenda 21 documents — feel free to show me your claim in them — but the depopulation program you claim is simply not there: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

        I gather you’ve not read those documents before?

  3. Ed Darrell says:

    By the way, the quotes from Henry Kissinger are bogus.

    • davidellis51 says:

      Embedded within your statements, during your converse with me, it seems that you have set out to insult my integrity through certain remarks – these remarks really do not hold favorable value in the context of sharing a difference of opinions. I therefore ask of you to rise above this.

      However, with that being said, concerning Agenda 21 and its mandate: Human intervention is a crucial factor in order to preserve the environment and to find a fine balance between Humanity and Nature – so that we can reap the rewards of the environment, without ravaging its resources in the process. Humanity is protected, the Environment is protected, the skies and oceans become, through an offshoot of green agendas, free from pollution; and, in turn, a foundation is constructed for the growth of trade; which again, in turn, builds a platform to re-energize the world economy, and thus, in achieving this mandate, heralds a way forward to ensure that poverty is eventually eradicated completely! This, in essence, is what Agenda 21 is supposedly about… Some of us have read between the lines!

      Yes, I have read through most of these chapters long before our exchange, and have since completed them, and you know very well – as do I, that the actual word Depopulation is in actuality not mentioned once in these documents. In fact, I never stated for one moment that it was. (The short introduction to these lectures was written by the up loader, and although I agree with his/her description, I, nevertheless, did not write it myself…) In spite of that, you asked me a question – wanting me to tell you where in the Agenda 21 program Depopulation is mentioned! Rather than answering in a negative I thought I would be polite and answer by informing you as to why it is described as such. This is the reason why I sent you the article from the infowars blog site, which represents the views of many people, and which you dismissed. That is absolutely fine, it is your choice. You have that freedom to do so, and I appreciate that fact!

      I then, sent you a small number of , what I deem to be – along with many other people, very disquieting and, quite frankly, chilling and disturbing quotes, which you state I employed out of context, misinterpreted, misapplied and twisted in order to support and substantiate the argument of depopulation. They are quotes, nothing more nothing less! They are not taken out of context, nor are they misinterpreted, nor misapplied to support the argument of depopulation – they are, put simply, what they are – just authentic statements that embody sinister intent, else why say them in the first place…? You dismissed them too!

      I offered you some other relevant information concerning an agenda for a soft or slow kill approach,a depopulation scenario, which you also chose to dismiss. Your latest comment, that the “Kissinger quotes are bogus!” is just pure nonsense, I have heard the recording myself… If you research a little you may be surprised and find it for yourself!

      Lastly, I have not been “hoaxed”, nor am I guilty of “hoaxing” others! The discourtesy and the rudeness you have shown to me and to others, for not sharing your point of view, whilst commenting on this post – and also the name calling of others, here, and on your own blog site, for not agreeing with your opinion is, sadly, very immature…

      I wish you well, and truly hope you find the humility needed to communicate with people constructively in the near future. Good day!

      David Ellis…

      • Ed Darrell says:

        How would the UNESCO-people arrange all this? Just by voluntary compliance of the media-people involved?
        “There may be some scheme whereby those people will be paid for their work (…)”- says the document. In other words: bribery is being proposed as an accepta”Captian ble means of bringing the media into the strategy.
        Also community plays should be used to convey the message: “The afternoon play can carry the theme, skillfully woven into the story. It is possible that some plays could be specially written for the purpose, but it is probable that the message can be incorporated into plays by those writers who have been briefed well enough in advance.” Music and pamphlets are another way of doing it, the report says: “Songs can be useful in this phase, (…). They must be professionally composed and recorded, and the messages must be reasonably subtle if it is to be acceptable to programmers.”
        But the proposed Resource Unit won’t restrict itself to just radio, TV and plays. Feature films are considered perhaps to be the most effective tools in conveying the message to unsuspecting audiences: “(…) There are two ways in which the family planning message can be included in feature films. The first is for the family organisation to commission a film specifically for the campaign. (…) if it is to be successful, well known and popular actors must be chosen, and the scripting and direction has to be professionally executed. Another method is for the family planning theme to be introduced into feature films which are already planned and prepared by local commercial production companies. In this case, the family planning organisers must be aware of the possible ways in which the theme can be subtly incorporated, as producers are not likely to respond to a suggestion which involves the total re-thinking of the plot. (…) Suitable opportunities can be found in love stories, in stories based on conflicts between men and women (…).”

        Oh, no! Plays and films!

        Which plays and films do you think these would be? “Captain America,” maybe? “Green Lantern?” “Porkie’s III?” “Waterworld?”

        By the way, I can’t think of a movie in the last 50 years that makes an argument for depopulation. There were a dozen, maybe a hundred, that argued against it. If Agenda 21 included a plan to make movies and plays that advanced the cause of depopulation, it seems to have failed pretty badly at that. Am I wrong? Can you name movies and plays that support your case?

      • Ed Darrell says:

        Your latest comment, that the “Kissinger quotes are bogus!” is just pure nonsense, I have heard the recording myself… If you research a little you may be surprised and find it for yourself!

        But you forgot where? You don’t know the context? You offered a link to Kissinger on Charlie Rose, where he argued that peace over the next 50 years in Iraq will be difficult to achieve, but that some people in Iraq work hard to get there. He said there may be more killings before peace is achieved. He hoped peace could come quickly with a minimum loss of life. At every turn, what he said is a direct contradiction to what you claim he said. I Googled the quote, and I could find nothing that indicated when or where he was supposed to have said it. I did find two sources that said while that wasn’t what he said exactly, he sorta meant it.

        Henry Kissinger has his troubles. But again, you suggest that he works against the dozens of books he’s published, the advice and policies he gave and held as National Security Director and Secretary of State, and everything he’s worked for over the 40+ years since. If you’re going to make such an extraordinary claim, you need powerful, extraordinary evidence.

        You tell me you heard a tape that sounded like him once? I’m sorry, but that doesn’t cut it.

        You might want to take a look at some of the documents the National Security Council produced under Kissinger. They were worried, back in the 1970s, about threats to critical mineral supplies that come from places where many people are poor, many are hungry, and consequently governments may be destabilized. It was a prescient concern — but a concern which at no time produced a drive to depopulation. The political issue is this: Lower population growth nations tend to politically stable, and therefore greater exponents of freedom. If you read the papers, you’ll see there is great concern to avoid doing anything that would be coercive, nor that would even smack of coercion, both because that would be wrong, and because were such policies exposed at any time, they would be very unpopular both overseas and at home in the U.S.

        Two big things happened after Kissinger’s time. First, Norman Borlaug’s “green revolution” really took off, boosting food production around the world enough to significantly reduce hunger in even the poorest nations. We have not eliminated hunger, but as a percentage of world population, it is greatly reduced. Some estimates say the hard numbers are also reduced, though world population has more than doubled.

        The second big occurrence was the observation among food experts and population experts that increased personal income is the best way to reduce population. Simply, when families achieve a degree of wealth so that they do not worry about food, shelter and employment, they reduce the size of their families voluntarily.

        In places like India, South Africa, China, Brazil, Argentina, and Japan, increasing productivity, bringing increasing GDP and rising personal income. This, in turn, produced a slowing of population growth, and in some places, a reversal of population growth (world population continues to increase exponentially).

        That has not ended the issues with materials availability, however. Oil comes from an area that has been increasingly unstable since the early 1970s, the Middle East. Much of that instability since 1991 has been as a result of the ripples of demand for change for greater democracy after the end of the Cold War. it is a sometimes difficult process — Libya, Yemen, Syria, even Egypt — but it is a process that ultimately leads to greater stability, greater democracy, and so far, free market economics that brings greater prosperity and slower population growth.

        Our world is not a perfect one by any stretch. We still need stuff from places where living conditions are, at best, oppressive. Our electronic devices need metals refined from an ore called coltan, which is found in Congo and the Democratic Republic of Congo, usually mined by hand by people living in crushing poverty who make pennies a day, and then transmitted through warlord-controlled groups to markets in Asia, Europe and the Americas. Gold is often mined the same way. Peace is required to stabilize these areas — which is why we have troops in Africa hunting down Joseph Koney and his bizarre army of kidnapped children fighters.

        None of that involves depopulation.

        Kissinger is a great defender of free markets and anti-authoritarian governments. What you claim for evidence suggesting Kissinger has forsaken his lifelong work just doesn’t cut it.

        See Wikiquotes’ tracking of the quote you claim:

        Here’s the quote from NSSM 200: “Whatever may be done to guard against interruptions of supply and to develop domestic alternatives, the U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States.”

        Notice that at no point does he call for depopulation, for reduction in population, or for authoritarian management of population. Let’s blow the whistle on that misquote. Someone has been pulling your leg.

  4. Ed Darrell says:

    I didn’t ask you to “read between the lines.” It’s rather stilted English, but it’s still English. I just wondered where in any of those documents is there any mention of depopulation.

    It was a simple question. I had thought you a courteous person, one who might strive to answer forthrightly as a patriotic American. I cannot imagine why you thought I wanted volumes of tortured interpolations and searching for mystic symbols in gross misquotes and misinterpretations of other texts. I regret you took my simple request for something it was not.

    So call me immature. Let the record show that, contrary to statements sprinkled here and throughout the canon of irrelevant trivialities and out-of-context quotes hurled like mud at a wall, there is no mention of depopulation in any Agenda 21 document.

    No, I don’t mean this as a question about your umim and thumim used to see secret writing between the lines. I was just trying to figure out whether there was any substance to all this ranting.

    Thank you for your efforts. I see the answer is “no.”

    • Ed Darrell says:

      Codex Alimentarius? What’s the harm in having pure foods? Standards may not be quite what anyone wants, but this effort to make safe food supplies offers no significant threat to anyone I can see. All UN directives are suggestions only. Can you state, simply, what is the problem we’re supposed to see here?

    • Ed Darrell says:

      A 1991 policy paper prepared for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) by Professor Jeffrey Sachs outlines a strategy for the transfer of wealth in name of the environment to be implemented in the course of 35 to 40 years.

      I haven’t found any paper by Sachs outlining “a strategy for the transfer of wealth.” Got a link to it?

  5. davidellis51 says:

    Allow me to send you this link, it is a lecture that lasts for 40 minutes, Dr. Rima Laibow is the speaker. She raises a number of concerns about pollutants in our foods and the consequences it has upon us – http://youtu.be/fb_y4tL3b3I – and this is the problem: concerns about pollutants in our foods which do harm to the consumer. I have no problem with naturally grown food – without the use of chemicals and pesticides, and antibiotics – which is administered to livestock…

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s