Ann Bressington (Australian MP) delivers a speech denouncing Agenda 21 among other things
36 replies, posted
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sES6_OXPwOU[/media]
Ann Bressington takes a strong stance against measures such as one that would decree private land ownership as a 'social injustice'.
I frankly am just really surprised that such a high level politician actually spoke up about anything regarding conspiracy.
-snip
Looks like she's crazy then.
It may be difficult to notice since she isn't screaming it off the top of her lungs on some obscure radio station, but what she is saying is run-of-the-mill, tin-foil-hat-wearing tripe. Don't let the calm demeanor, flag, and podium obfuscate what her message is.
According to her, Global warming is a conspiracy hell-bent on establishing a new world order by spreading fear, redistributing wealth to third world countries, and stripping individuals of their rights.
[QUOTE=ChristopherB;39480766]It may be difficult to notice since she isn't screaming it off the top of her lungs on some obscure radio station, but what she is saying is run-of-the-mill, tin-foil-hat-wearing tripe. Don't let the calm demeanor, flag, and podium obfuscate what her message is.
According to her, Global warming is a conspiracy hell-bent on establishing a new world order by spreading fear, redistributing wealth to third world countries, and stripping individuals of their rights.[/QUOTE]
No from what I gather she is saying that those are reasons/scapegoats given for uniting globally, not that they are inherently false or something. She is just reporting on what Agenda 21 itself calls for.
But then again she might just be looking at false documents, its a possibility.
Is she talking about this super-secret document?
[url]http://www.unep.org/documents.multilingual/default.asp?documentid=52[/url]
Is there a good description of what exactly "Agenda 21" (Great name, sounds nefarious) is that doesn't devolve to conspiracy stuff about the UN taking over the world or so?
I swear there is more information about opposition to it on Wikipedia, than there is information about it.
this is what happened when I google image searched 'Agenda 21'
[img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcuclqD17q1rcjp0so1_500.jpg[/img]
wake up sheeple
encourage their interest in sex? this agenda 21 sounds fantastic, whats wrong with a bit of marxist fucking?
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21[/url]
the agenda in question.
so she's basically:
1) doesn't care about poverty in the world
2) doesn't care about the environment
3) doesn't care about the peasants that aren't as fortunate as her, money/family wise
4) doesn't care about any kind of world advancement/education etc
this woman sounds like a fucking idiot who's also probably a creationist, and should retire asap.
[QUOTE=Pelican;39481035]...this woman sounds like a fucking idiot who's also probably a creationist, and should retire asap.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The main purpose of this think-tank was to formulate a crisis that would unite the world, and condition us, to the idea of "global solutions" to "local problems". In a document called the "[I]First Global Revolution[/I]..."[/QUOTE]
Pretty creative, yea?
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39480949]this is what happened when I google image searched 'Agenda 21'
[img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcuclqD17q1rcjp0so1_500.jpg[/img]
wake up sheeple[/QUOTE]
if someone is going to make a poster with a big important political message then they should avoid punctuation errors
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;39481909]if someone is going to make a poster with a big important political message then they should avoid punctuation errors[/QUOTE]
Punchewashen is jast a tric to draw your atention from the reel problams.
lmao when did alex jones get a position in the austrailian government
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39480949]this is what happened when I google image searched 'Agenda 21'
[img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcuclqD17q1rcjp0so1_500.jpg[/img]
wake up sheeple[/QUOTE]
the biggest laugh was finding "vladimir lenin" written at the end
don't vote ron paul, he will give you freedoms and liberties, i want you all to suffer and become gay. - [I]karl marx[/I]
This grass sure is comfortable on my little red shoes, I hope nobody steals my pointy hat. - Noam Chompsky 1984
“Land …cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributes to social injustice.”
- 1976 UN conference on human settlements (Vancouver,BC)
“Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual and material) where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living creatures are considered equal. Therefore the natural way is the right and human activities should be molded along nature’s rhythms.”
- 1992 UN Earth Summit
Those are just two precedent stances that I wanted to illustrate before saying the rest of this. Reading over Agenda 21 it is worded amazingly, and I am sure that if I had been more tired or groggy I might not even of found issue with it. But ultimately after reading it over it seems like a move to establish a utopian socialist state. While this sounds all well and good, if you think of the implications the various measures proposed in the agenda would do, you realize that implementation of this requires nothing short of an all powerful state. This includes sovereignty over land as well just about any development.
My second issue I find is the seemingly nice notion of "Sustainable living". While in theory this is something we must strive towards, numerous times throughout the document they speak of population reaching unsustainable levels, and then it speaks about maintaining a balance of equality between people and the indigenous. It is not that environmental stewardship is a bad thing, but that it seems that mother nature is inherently more precious than human life under this paradigm.
Ultimately I am not drawing conclusions, but rather just saying what reaction I had to reading Agenda 21. All in all it sounds like a Utopia achievable only through a highly empowered state.
[url="http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf"]Agenda 21[/url]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;39484899]it seems like a move to establish a utopian socialist state[/QUOTE]
Something neither the UN nor any of its child agencies has anywhere near enough authority to even get within spitting distance of doing, and even if it could would have at least a few governments up in arms over it (if that were actually what it does/did/is doing).
[QUOTE=Megafan;39484953]Something neither the UN nor any of its child agencies has anywhere near enough authority to even get within spitting distance of doing, and even if it could would have at least a few governments up in arms over it (if that were actually what it does/did/is doing).[/QUOTE]
I think that the problem is that under the guise of buzzwords such as "sustainable living", "equality" and "environmentalism" no-one would immediately question it as it would be like questioning "motherhood" or "progress". This is a sentiment that was mirrored in this thread by Pelican. I think the problem is not so much the authority of the UN and its offshoots, but rather the co-operation of governments towards this supposed goal.
Finally I just want to mention one of the main issues that is being addressed by Agenda 21 and its impact on the world: Overpopulation.
The problem of overpopulation is a very real one and even at this very moment it is feasible to assume that leaders are considering and planning for another BILLION people projected for 2020.
My question is this: If you were "The leader of the world" (hypothetically), what would you do about overpopulation?
(In the time it took you to read my post 200 people were born but only about 50 died)
the problem of overpopulation isn't real. as nations develop the birthrate declines and we have more than enough food to feed everyone, but it isn't in the interest of capital so it won't happen.
[QUOTE=Lazor;39486743]the problem of overpopulation isn't real. as nations develop the birthrate declines and we have more than enough food to feed everyone, but it isn't in the interest of capital so it won't happen.[/QUOTE]
actually no, overpopulation is very real, because resources aren't infinite, add global warming to the whole thing, and its a recipe for disaste.
capitalism also isn't sustainable in the long run, because you can't grow indefinitely, and capitalism is based on eternal endless grow, that also includes populational growth, our current century will be very "interessing" to say the least.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;39489314]actually no, overpopulation is very real, because resources aren't infinite, add global warming to the whole thing, and its a recipe for disaste.
capitalism also isn't sustainable in the long run, because you can't grow indefinitely, and capitalism is based on eternal endless grow, that also includes populational growth, our current century will be very "interessing" to say the least.[/QUOTE]
we dont eat half of the food produced on earth and birth rates are falling
what makes you think of overpopulation
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;39486485]My question is this: If you were "The leader of the world" (hypothetically), what would you do about overpopulation?
(In the time it took you to read my post 200 people were born but only about 50 died)[/QUOTE]
There's a little thing called demographic transition: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition[/url]
Generally speaking, as nations (or rather, civilizations) develop, they go through a period of low population growth [high crude death rate, low crude birth rate], followed by high population growth [CDR lessens, CBR remains about the same], followed by moderate population growth [CDR continues to lessen, CBR decreases], finally ending with the population level stabilizing when CDR and CBR get to be near 1 to 1.
Essentially, there is no "problem" of overpopulation, let alone *sudden* overpopulation, it is a natural cycle of growth that will eventually stabilize.
[QUOTE=Megafan;39490784]There's a little thing called demographic transition: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition[/url]
Generally speaking, as nations (or rather, civilizations) develop, they go through a period of low population growth [high crude death rate, low crude birth rate], followed by high population growth [CDR lessens, CBR remains about the same], followed by moderate population growth [CDR continues to lessen, CBR decreases], finally ending with the population level stabilizing when CDR and CBR get to be near 1 to 1.
Essentially, there is no "problem" of overpopulation, let alone *sudden* overpopulation, it is a natural cycle of growth that will eventually stabilize.[/QUOTE]
Yes but is this guaranteed when extrapolated to the billions?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;39491035]Yes but is this guaranteed when extrapolated to the billions?[/QUOTE]
yes
some countries already have negative population growth
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39491069]yes
some countries already have negative population growth[/QUOTE]
Like China?
I always wanted to start a conspiracy theory where the people who are trying to push conspiracy theories like Alex Jones are really doing to make the New World Order, make the crazies fight each other basically.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;39491160]Like China?[/QUOTE]
Japan for starters.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;39489314]actually no, overpopulation is very real, because resources aren't infinite, add global warming to the whole thing, and its a recipe for disaste.
capitalism also isn't sustainable in the long run, because you can't grow indefinitely, and capitalism is based on eternal endless grow, that also includes populational growth, our current century will be very "interessing" to say the least.[/QUOTE]
youre right about capitalism, but overpopulation isn't a real problem.
[editline]6th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;39491160]Like China?[/QUOTE]
china's population will probably level off and begin to decline around 2030.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39491218]Japan for starters.[/QUOTE]
So you are saying that that principle applies to the global population?
[img]http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/human_pop/worldpop.jpg[/img]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.