U.N. Policy Paper Outlines 7 Building Blocks for 'Heavy-Handed' World Government

U.N. Policy Paper Outlines 7 Building Blocks for 'Heavy-Handed' World Government










U.N. Policy Paper Outlines 7 Building Blocks for 'Heavy-Handed' World Government
By Analysis of Global Corporate Empire (original post)
Friday, Mar 23, 2012
The
fact that the world is being restructured from decentralized diversity
to collectivized hierarchy by an authoritarian regime cloaked in green
trappings can hardly be disputed.
The final push toward the next and
perhaps final phase may be announced this June at the 2012 U.N.
Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

A Scientific American editorial by Gary Stix highlights a policy article written by several dozen scientists that appeared online March 15 in the journal Science.

The conclusions reached by the scientists, as well as the editorial from a staff member of Scientific American are incredibly unscientific and fly in the face of the many thousands of
independent scientists and researchers who have refuted the theory of
man-made global warming. Regardless, this small group pushes ahead
with their suggestions that the only way to combat such a global
catastrophe is of course to solve it through global government. And
not just any global government, but one that Scientific American suggests should be "heavy-handed (in its) transnational enforcement powers."

The policy paper entitled,
"Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving Earth System Governance" is one
of the most blatantly authoritarian among the incrementally more open
policy papers that we are witnessing, as global governance continues on
its runaway path in the name of saving humanity from itself.
Opening with a summary, the conclusions and solutions are clear:

<blockquote class="tr_bq"> Science
assessments indicate that human activities are moving several of
Earth's sub-systems outside the range of natural variability typical
for the previous 500,000 years (1, 2). Human societies
must now change course and steer away from critical tipping points in
the Earth system that might lead to rapid and irreversible change (3).
This requires fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national
and international institutions toward more effective Earth system
governance and planetary stewardship. (Source)</blockquote>The
full text of the article is available for a fee which we paid for
access, and we can tell you that it is centered around the "Building
Blocks" that form the foundation for the edifice of a one-world
government. These building blocks have been repeated throughout
globalist literature, so this is nothing necessarily new, but the fact
that they fall within the context of at best a hotly disputed assertion
that humans are to blame for catastrophically altering their
environment -- namely through climate change -- indicates that their
agenda must move forward, factually based or not. (All section titles
are paraphrased.)

Consolidating global agencies -- The globalist framework has
been established through agencies like the United Nations, World Trade
Organization, World Bank, and their countless tentacles, which have
formed a web of incredibly corrupt and inefficient bureaucracy that most
thinking people would love to see eradicated. However, as opposed to
dismantling these agencies as complete failures, there is a proposal to
unify them further under the green umbrella. The suggested
organization would be called the UN Sustainable Development Council.

Integrating 'Sustainable Development' to the local level (Agenda 21)
-- Once such a council is established, it will efficiently and
heavy-handedly dictate down the pyramid of global control until it
reaches each and every community. This is the stated objective of Agenda 21 as
a way to transform the 21st century by centralizing power and
eradicating individual freedom. When this goal is understood, then it
becomes quite clear that when we see similar rules put in place for
disparate nations in the areas of food, banking, and the eradication of
civil liberties, it is part of this coordinated plan toward planetary
governance. Local communities become viewed merely as outposts for
resistance and must be made to comply with the dictates of the pyramid's
capstone.

Bringing emerging technologies under global control -- Interestingly,geo-engineering is
openly mentioned here, despite it being still considered a fringe
conspiracy theory under the name of Chemtrails. Nanotechnology,
biotechnology, and other scientific endeavors must also be brought under
global control by a worldwide council that presumably will lay claim
to this intellectual capital and resource generation. There is
discussion about a framework of conventions to theoretically ensure
that all participants adhere to an agreed-upon basis for research and
implementation.

But has this ever really worked before? We have a convention against the use of biological warfare; a convention against the use of most non-lethal weapons, a convention against torture,
etc., and yet our world is seeing only a ramping-up these activities.
The conventions merely provide a framework for enabling the control
and allocation of whatever it is that they are designed to address --
rarely are they a method to prevent and deter abuse.

The creation of a global legal and economic framework -- This is
one of the most insidious, as it literally encourages local laws and
economic policies to be rewritten with the goal of furthering a global
matrix of interconnected bureaucracies that all but eradicate the
ability of local communities (or countries) to opt-out of this
dictatorial mission. The paper uses the word "discrimination" in a most
accurate way to promote only green initiatives. There are no
specifics given, but we only need to look at the "green" and "alternative" businesses that
have been promoted (and invested in) by government to see that most
have been an abject failure, leading to the bankruptcy of several in
near-record time. It is much too early for the proposal of the largest
government the world has ever known to lay claim as being experts in
resource management and alternative energy. If this is put into effect
on a global scale based on the small-scale examples we have seen so
far, we will witness the utter implosion of the global economy, and a
mass reduction in the standard of living for the average person, as
well as the inability for entrepreneurs to circumvent such a system if
it should fail. (Source)

Consensus-based decision making becomes majority rule -- This is
yet another very dangerous concept, as is the antithesis to a
functioning republic. The paper highlights the "efficiency in
decision-making" that is the hallmark of majority-based rule, versus
that of a consensus. And there is a reason for this -- because every
individual has an innate right to participate in the very decisions
which will most impact their life. The decision for global governance
and sweeping policy changes right down to the local level are the last
decisions that should be made hastily. Just one example was the mass
agreement to the validity of man-made global warming, which resulted in a
carbon credits market, and other transformative policies, only to be
swayed the other direction when evidence of a cover-up known as
Climategate revealed a distorted picture of the true scientific data, as
well as the hidden political and economic agendas.
A free society is indeed a transparent one, but that will never
flourish under a panel of experts reporting to select councils and
governed by regents, because the independent researcher has no place in
such a system.

Legitimacy and accountability of stronger intergovernmental institutions
-- Here they admit that global governance removes local sovereignty,
and try to work their way around the issue by proposing a representative
system, no doubt to give the illusion that the people have a say in
what gets decided. "Global governance through UN-type institutions tends
to give a larger role to international and domestic bureaucracies, at
the cost of national parliaments and the direct involvement of
citizens." They claim that accountability and decision-making will be
strengthened "through special rights enshrined in agreements or stronger
participation in councils that govern resources and in commissions
that hear complaints." They also call for more transparency as an
"effective accountability mechanism". Yet, the entire report is based
on cherry-picked and unproven science. Finally, this section also
discusses accounting for "imbalances in the strength" among different
countries, probably to make sure the right countries (the G20) actually
have the power, much like the U.N. Security Council.

The creation of global financial instruments -- I think we all
have learned enough about the inherent toxicity of "financial
instruments" such as derivatives and the carbon market scam. The paper
alludes to an "emissions market" which will be employed to ensure that
poorer countries receive financial support through a system of "equity
and fairness." When has this happened even once within any initiative
promoted by globalist interests? The World Trade Organization has been
an abject failure; the World Health Organization has been a disaster;
and the IMF has been perhaps the most blatantly corrupt and predatory
of them all. These systems do nothing to empower and support the poor;
they are there to create the very terms and compliance that is
required to co-opt their resources and productivity and loot sovereign
nations. (Source)

To enshrine these building blocks of world governance, it is proposed
that there needs to be a "constitutional moment" in the reordering of
world politics, similar to what followed WWII. It is disingenuously
implied that the international norms set for human rights serve as an
example for a similarly standardized approach to counter the destruction
of the environment.

It is admitted that the birthplace of Agenda 21, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
(1992), will once again see a "test of politcal will" to implement
drastic changes. Those changes will continue to radically build upon
the reduction in national sovereignty that we have witnessed across the
board. They are changes which will no doubt continue to erode
individual freedom and contribute to the massive financial hardship we
are being subjected to through authoritarian, centralized rule by a
fascistic cabal of bankers and politicians that collude to keep
humanity from realizing its true potential.

There must be mass outrage to such a degree that even their plan for
"majority rule" cannot succeed. A rising tide of protest and civil
disobedience can easily smash each one of the building blocks above.
The Achilles Heel of their plan is resistance to any initiative that
would remove the power of local communities to support and sustain
themselves, and instead force sworn fealty to a group of overlords who
admit to their desire to impose a scientific dictatorship to be ruled by
councils of experts. It has been these so-called experts, at the
behest of governments throughout history, who have led to nothing short
of a mass murder machine. We need to keep that in mind as they attempt to guilt trip us into compliance with their "humanitarian" agenda.

Source:-
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1937/821/CHEMTRAIL_LINK:_U.N._Policy_Paper_Outlines_7_Building_Blocks_for_Heavy-Handed_World_Government.html