I think its doubtful that the pathocratic leaders actually believe Malthus, but since its what they use as their justification, it must rightfully be shown to be 18th century propaganda.
In opposition to the vile Malthus were, e.g. Leibniz and economist Henry C Carey, 1793-1879. As Matt Ehret writes about Carey, who advised Lincoln during the Civil War, limits to population growth could be changed by encouraging progress! Hearkening back to the debate between Newton and Leibniz a century and a half earlier, Carey exposed the fallacy behind Mathus – and in the 1900s, the Ehrlichs, Holdrens, etc. – by writing in his Unity of Law: As Exhibited in the Relations of Physical, Social, Mental and Moral Science (1872):“Mr. Malthus was led to invent a law of population by means of which to relieve the rich and powerful from all responsibility for the existing state of things; giving them assurance that the poverty and wretchedness by which they were everywhere surrounded had resulted from the fact that the Creator had sent upon the earth large numbers of people for whom He had provided no table at which they might be allowed to eat, no materials by aid of which they might be clothed; thus furnishing the theory by aid of which subsequent writers have been enabled, as they supposed, to prove that, in the British Islands, man had become “a drug” and “population a nuisance.” Of course, The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894 exposed that fallacy, as did the Simon/Ehrlich wager a century later, as well as their second following bet (which was rejected, but more nuanced). Simon’s worldview is simply summarized as “more people, more innovations, more value created, more abilities to deal with environmental problems.” Carey outlined a contrast with his two most influential works: Unity of Law and Harmony of Interests which is masterfully reviewed by Matt Ehret on his substack here https://matthewehret.substack.com/p/does-life-or-death-govern-the-universe-188?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=260045&post_id=84392812&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
What we need to urgently stop is Bio-Digital Convergence and The Internet of Bio-Nano Things. We need to make the world aware of their intentions for humanity.
I didn't plan for a part three, but so many new people-led initiatives, legal actions against pandemic miscreants, court-decisions in favour of the 'spiritual warriors' and other forms of encouraging news to keep us animated, that a part three will be published in the coming week.
Maurice Strong, the leftist hero of global governance, and former Secretary General of the UN’s Conference on Environment and Development, stated in his 2000 autobiography, Where We Are Going, that by 2031, two thirds of earth’s population might be wiped out. A tragedy? Not to the left. He describes this possibility as “A glimmer of hope for the future of our species and its potential for regeneration” (think the evil Professor Weston here in CS Lewis’ Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra).
As James Delinpole observes about Strong’s comment: “See: It’s perfectly OK to fantasize about the deaths of maybe 5 billion people – as long as you show at the end that you really care: you’re thinking about humanity.” Exactly what the leftists said as they wiped out over 60 million in the Soviet Union, Pol Pot with his millions in Cambodia, or Mao with his toll of perhaps 20 million. And this will be done with or without your consent, as Strong again notes: “Our concept of ballot box democracy may need to be modified (Agenda 21, anyone? I think we can agree “Abolished” will be the operative word, not “modified,” once the left is through) to produce strong governments capable of making difficult decisions, particularly in terms of safe-guarding the environment.”
Strong’s United Nations Environment Programme also had a decidely socialist mandate, stating in their 1976 report “Private land ownership is a principal instrument of accumulating wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice Public control of land is therefore indispensible,” and “public ownership of land is jsutified in favour of the common good, rather than to protect the interestes of the already privileged.” And for good measure, Strong also wanted a “collectivist global government.” Unknown is whether Strong wanted a Pol Pot style collective, a USSR style collective, or a Maoist collective. We can be sure, however, that the private property and zillion room mansions of the Hollywood Learjet leftists won’t be affected, nor the leftist limousine liberals in New York’s Hamptons or Martha’s Vineyard, nor Michele Obama’s uber luxe monthly vacations.
The "ends justify the means"? But their assumption that their ends are a worthy goal is bunk.
Lots of humans means lots of solutions, if they weren't exploited by greedy megalomaniacs keeping the majority of humanity in poverty, illness, and desperation. It is proven the Overlords purchase rights to inventions and suppress their use, withholding solutions from the world.
And "safe-guarding the environment"? Totally disingenuous. No one destroys and pollutes more than the Overlords. Clear cutting forests has been obvious, and now the purposeful arson of forests of Canada again shows their concern for the environment is at the same destructive level as their care for human life. Efforts to control the Overlords at every level with legal court cases and government regulations is public record. Now -- with the nightmare of GMOs everywhere and glyphosate in everything, Bill Gates weaponized mosquitoes released anywhere, and tons of geoengineering aerosols in the atmosphere -- we are expected to accept their hollow propaganda about their superior "environmentalism"?
And for the Overlords to restrict ownership of property to themselves and maybe their minions and insist everyone else must live in serfdom? Has there ever been a more audacious and blatant disclosure of greed and prejudice ever? This cannot pass as philosophy, or ideology or even a technocratic operations manual -- because it is purely a PROPAGANDA devised to increase their own wealth and control and power. They are self-absorbed and self-indulgent and no amount of propagandizing can camouflage that fact.
...here's a must see video from Karen Bracken's mentor ... https://youtu.be/xF7EkT-qbG4?si=wTpoDu9LazgdtDAp ...and Michael Coffman is also brilliant...these guys had the inside track!...and are inspiring!...
This is a great video! Thank you Lisa! I didn't know him! I LOVE him!
To the old-bald-men and old-men-with-glasses and pleasers-women, and to small-Israeli-stick-homo-with-glasses-man and all that...OFF WITH YOUR HEADS!!!!
Excerpt from Chapter 2 of Virtually Lost: Young Americans In the Digital Technocracy...
The Club of Rome, which represented exactly the kind of formation Rockefeller was intent on helping develop, also upped the ante in the 1970s. It published its primary mission statement in 1972 (Meadows et al., Limits to Growth); this massively influential work, based on computer simulations, argued that economic growth would eventually and inevitably hit the buffers of resource depletion and was therefore as untenable as it was undesirable. Later, in 1991, the tone and scope of the Club’s prognostications would harden into the kind of highly questionable but emotionally compelling catastrophism with which we are now all too familiar. The key publication here was The First Global Revolution by Alexander King (one of the Club’s founders) and Bernard Schneider. Its primary purpose was to rally humankind to the cause of extreme environmentalism in such a way as to support the Rockefeller–Club of Rome agenda for globalisation. For this to work, King and Schneider argued that humanity at large could best be mobilised through the inculcation of the sense that there existed a common enemy to it:
An examination of the original Limits to Growth model by a multidisciplinary team from the University of Sussex, published Models of Doom: A Critique of the Limits to Growth (1973), criticised the Club’s modelling, inaccurate predictions, and misguided Malthusian assumptions. Later, economist Thomas Sowell took up the critique of the motivations, practices, and methods of the elite environmentalists, in his The Vision of the Anointed: Self-congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy (1995). ...
When these statements -- full of open confession of evil intent -- show what is really behind all the flowery U.N. language, well, one would think it would help sink their grand plans. But it is not like there haven't been a lot of people waving their hands and complaining and warning and angst-ing about AGENDA21 from the start. I wasn't silent in the 1990s but still had to watch this turn into a juggernaut. AGENDA21 REGIONAL GOVERNMENT now has more clout than towns, cities, counties and states -- even if they were in awareness and cared.
And when they don't?
We are seeing this ugly first scene of the last act of their RESET drama in full performance in Hawaii with Governor Josh Green. Noone can convince me he was not aware there would be an engineered housing crisis in his state when the first thing he did when taking office was make himself Housing Czar through emergency powers. Then he went to the floor of the U.N. and openly promised them his fealty to the RESET. Shows us what little loyalty he feels he owes the actual citizens of Hawaii.
This post fire situation in Hawaii is the perfect arena for confronting these U.N. globalists precisely because Gov. Green embraces their goals with such fervent volume. It is time to put the spotlight on his sustainability bravado to show how corrupt the entire plan is -- and that the murderous depopulation plan is in full operation
UK Television Presenter Sir David Attenborough: “We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now”; Paul Ehrlich, now in his 90s and still hasn’t checked out, and a former science adviser to president George W. Bush and the author of “The Population Bomb” said: “To our minds, the fundamental cure, reducing the scale of the human enterprise (including the size of the population) to keep its aggregate consumption within the carrying capacity of Earth is obvious but too much neglected or denied” and “Nobody, in my view, has the right to have 12 children or even three unless the second pregnancy is twins.” Dave Foreman, the co-founder of Earth First: “We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox”; 7. David Rockefeller: “The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident”; Environmental activist Roger Martin: “On a finite planet, the optimum population providing the best quality of life for all, is clearly much smaller than the maximum, permitting bare survival. The more we are, the less for each; fewer people mean better lives.”; HBO personality Bill Maher: “I’m pro-choice, I’m for assisted suicide, I’m for regular suicide, I’m for whatever gets the freeway moving – that’s what I’m for. It’s too crowded, the planet is too crowded and we need to promote death”’; MIT professor Penny Chisholm: “The real trick is, in terms of trying to level off at someplace lower than that 9 billion, is to get the birthrates in the developing countries to drop as fast as we can. And that will determine the level at which humans will level off on earth.”; Julia Whitty, a columnist for the vile Mother Jones: “The only known solution to ecological overshoot is to decelerate our population growth faster than it’s decelerating now and eventually reverse it — at the same time we slow and eventually reverse the rate at which we consume the planet’s resources”; Colorado State University Professor Philip Cafaro in a paper entitled “Climate Ethics and Population Policy”: “Ending human population growth is almost certainly a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for preventing catastrophic global climate change. Indeed, significantly reducing current human numbers may be necessary in order to do so“; Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka: “I do not bear any ill will toward people. However, I am convinced that the world, including all humanity, WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us”; Detroit News Columnist Nolan Finley: “Since the national attention is on birth control, here’s my idea: If we want to fight poverty, reduce violent crime and bring down our embarrassing drop-out rate, we should swap contraceptives for fluoride in Michigan’s drinking water”; John Guillebaud, professor of family planning at University College London: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet”; Democrat strategist Steven Rattner: “WE need death panels. Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget”; Matthew Yglesias, a business and economics correspondent for Slate, in an article entitled “The Case for Death Panels, in One Chart”: “But not only is this health care spending on the elderly the key issue in the federal budget, our disproportionate allocation of health care dollars to old people surely accounts for the remarkable lack of apparent cost effectiveness of the American health care system. When the patient is already over 80, the simple fact of the matter is that no amount of treatment is going to work miracles in terms of life expectancy or quality of life.” Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger: “All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class”; U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of; Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger: “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it”; Salon columnist Mary Elizabeth Williams in an article entitled “So What If Abortion Ends Life?”: “All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides.” Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia and Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne in a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics: “[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk”; Nina Fedoroff, a key adviser to Hillary Clinton: “We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people”; Barack Obama’s primary science adviser, John P. Holdren: “A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births”; David Brower, the first Executive Director of the Sierra Club: “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, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing”; Thomas Ferguson, former official in the U.S. State Department Office of Population Affairs: “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, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it…”; Mikhail Gorbachev: “We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”
...Lisa, Lisa!!!...Maurice Strong never was Secretary General of the UN...he was advisor to Kofi Annan...and while he possibly made that statement in 2015 the year he died i think...there was no earth summit then...however he was a leading light on this agenda...on the basis of this 'disinformation'?...anything we had going Lisa is so, so over!...sorry but i can't associate with disinformants!...😀🤠😀...(edit:...actually ur right he had been undersecretary...for some reason it seems to me i misread the sentence or missed the word under....sorry Lisa!...🫤🫣🫤...) ...(edit: ...this helps to clarify the tangle of terminologies...from wiki Earth Summits...'The 2000-2015 Millennium Development Goals and the 2015-2030 Global Goals are results from these Earth Summits. The first summit took place in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) in 1992 . Last Earth Summit, called Rio+20, also took place in Rio de Janeiro in 2012'...)....
"In 1969, the UN General Assembly decided to convene the first major inter-governmental conference on environmental issues, the UN Conference on the Human Environment. The meeting was to be held in 1972, but by early 1970, hardly anything had happened. The Swedish government began to worry. Eventually their ambassador, Sverker Astrom, contacted Strong, through a mutual friend, Wayne Kines, who was a media consultant to the UN. Astrom recommended Strong to Philippe de Seyne, the UN undersecretary general for economic and social affairs. Kines arranged a meeting between Strong and de Seyne.
"UN Secretary-General, U Thant, invited Strong to lead it as Secretary-General of the Conference and as Undersecretary General of the UN responsible for environmental affairs. Strong turned the preparations for the Stockholm Conference around. He used his consummate diplomatic skills to obtain the support of the developing countries, who were extremely sceptical about environmental issues."
"...Secretary General of the UN Conference on Environment and Development -- best known as the Earth Summit -- held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992."
...thanks Blaise!...this is from wikipedia on Strongs bio...'Strong had his start as an entrepreneur in the Alberta oil patch and was President of Power Corporation of Canada until 1966. In the early 1970s he was Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and then became the first executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme. He returned to Canada to become Chief Executive Officer of Petro-Canada from 1976 to 1978. He headed Ontario Hydro, one of North America's largest power utilities, was national president and chairman of the Extension Committee of the World Alliance of YMCAs, and headed American Water Development Incorporated. He served as a commissioner of the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1986[7] and was recognised by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as a leader in the international environmental movement'.[8]
....it began in Stockholm then...1972...another event in Montreal i think 1976 provided the prototypes of the Earth Summits....a must see video is Henry Lamb on global governance...YT...and Michael Coffman also... https://youtu.be/xF7EkT-qbG4?si=wTpoDu9LazgdtDAp ...(edit...The 2000-2015 Millennium Development Goals and the 2015-2030 Global Goals are results from these Earth Summits. The first summit took place in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) in 1992 . Last Earth Summit, called Rio+20, also took place in Rio de Janeiro in 2012.)...
From the Great Reset to the Great Upset.
Underdog’s do win. So let’s go win.
I WILL NOT COMPLY !!!!
Yes,underdogs do win! Power to you!
Refuting Malthus: the Geopolitics of Creativity and Open Systems Explored
https://matthewehret.substack.com/p/refuting-malthus-the-geopolitics
I think its doubtful that the pathocratic leaders actually believe Malthus, but since its what they use as their justification, it must rightfully be shown to be 18th century propaganda.
In opposition to the vile Malthus were, e.g. Leibniz and economist Henry C Carey, 1793-1879. As Matt Ehret writes about Carey, who advised Lincoln during the Civil War, limits to population growth could be changed by encouraging progress! Hearkening back to the debate between Newton and Leibniz a century and a half earlier, Carey exposed the fallacy behind Mathus – and in the 1900s, the Ehrlichs, Holdrens, etc. – by writing in his Unity of Law: As Exhibited in the Relations of Physical, Social, Mental and Moral Science (1872):“Mr. Malthus was led to invent a law of population by means of which to relieve the rich and powerful from all responsibility for the existing state of things; giving them assurance that the poverty and wretchedness by which they were everywhere surrounded had resulted from the fact that the Creator had sent upon the earth large numbers of people for whom He had provided no table at which they might be allowed to eat, no materials by aid of which they might be clothed; thus furnishing the theory by aid of which subsequent writers have been enabled, as they supposed, to prove that, in the British Islands, man had become “a drug” and “population a nuisance.” Of course, The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894 exposed that fallacy, as did the Simon/Ehrlich wager a century later, as well as their second following bet (which was rejected, but more nuanced). Simon’s worldview is simply summarized as “more people, more innovations, more value created, more abilities to deal with environmental problems.” Carey outlined a contrast with his two most influential works: Unity of Law and Harmony of Interests which is masterfully reviewed by Matt Ehret on his substack here https://matthewehret.substack.com/p/does-life-or-death-govern-the-universe-188?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=260045&post_id=84392812&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
Yeah!
Thank you for covering this!!! I'M NOT GONING TO TAKE MY SHOT!
https://open.substack.com/pub/dee746/p/my-shot?r=1g1b1r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
What we need to urgently stop is Bio-Digital Convergence and The Internet of Bio-Nano Things. We need to make the world aware of their intentions for humanity.
https://horizons.gc.ca/en/2020/02/11/exploring-biodigital-convergence/
Fat lady comment is wonderful!
For long list of ways the fight is being successfully taken forward see:
michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-elephant-in-the-womb
michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-elephant-in-the-womb-part-two
I didn't plan for a part three, but so many new people-led initiatives, legal actions against pandemic miscreants, court-decisions in favour of the 'spiritual warriors' and other forms of encouraging news to keep us animated, that a part three will be published in the coming week.
Maurice Strong, the leftist hero of global governance, and former Secretary General of the UN’s Conference on Environment and Development, stated in his 2000 autobiography, Where We Are Going, that by 2031, two thirds of earth’s population might be wiped out. A tragedy? Not to the left. He describes this possibility as “A glimmer of hope for the future of our species and its potential for regeneration” (think the evil Professor Weston here in CS Lewis’ Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra).
As James Delinpole observes about Strong’s comment: “See: It’s perfectly OK to fantasize about the deaths of maybe 5 billion people – as long as you show at the end that you really care: you’re thinking about humanity.” Exactly what the leftists said as they wiped out over 60 million in the Soviet Union, Pol Pot with his millions in Cambodia, or Mao with his toll of perhaps 20 million. And this will be done with or without your consent, as Strong again notes: “Our concept of ballot box democracy may need to be modified (Agenda 21, anyone? I think we can agree “Abolished” will be the operative word, not “modified,” once the left is through) to produce strong governments capable of making difficult decisions, particularly in terms of safe-guarding the environment.”
Strong’s United Nations Environment Programme also had a decidely socialist mandate, stating in their 1976 report “Private land ownership is a principal instrument of accumulating wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice Public control of land is therefore indispensible,” and “public ownership of land is jsutified in favour of the common good, rather than to protect the interestes of the already privileged.” And for good measure, Strong also wanted a “collectivist global government.” Unknown is whether Strong wanted a Pol Pot style collective, a USSR style collective, or a Maoist collective. We can be sure, however, that the private property and zillion room mansions of the Hollywood Learjet leftists won’t be affected, nor the leftist limousine liberals in New York’s Hamptons or Martha’s Vineyard, nor Michele Obama’s uber luxe monthly vacations.
The "ends justify the means"? But their assumption that their ends are a worthy goal is bunk.
Lots of humans means lots of solutions, if they weren't exploited by greedy megalomaniacs keeping the majority of humanity in poverty, illness, and desperation. It is proven the Overlords purchase rights to inventions and suppress their use, withholding solutions from the world.
And "safe-guarding the environment"? Totally disingenuous. No one destroys and pollutes more than the Overlords. Clear cutting forests has been obvious, and now the purposeful arson of forests of Canada again shows their concern for the environment is at the same destructive level as their care for human life. Efforts to control the Overlords at every level with legal court cases and government regulations is public record. Now -- with the nightmare of GMOs everywhere and glyphosate in everything, Bill Gates weaponized mosquitoes released anywhere, and tons of geoengineering aerosols in the atmosphere -- we are expected to accept their hollow propaganda about their superior "environmentalism"?
And for the Overlords to restrict ownership of property to themselves and maybe their minions and insist everyone else must live in serfdom? Has there ever been a more audacious and blatant disclosure of greed and prejudice ever? This cannot pass as philosophy, or ideology or even a technocratic operations manual -- because it is purely a PROPAGANDA devised to increase their own wealth and control and power. They are self-absorbed and self-indulgent and no amount of propagandizing can camouflage that fact.
...here's a must see video from Karen Bracken's mentor ... https://youtu.be/xF7EkT-qbG4?si=wTpoDu9LazgdtDAp ...and Michael Coffman is also brilliant...these guys had the inside track!...and are inspiring!...
This is a great video! Thank you Lisa! I didn't know him! I LOVE him!
To the old-bald-men and old-men-with-glasses and pleasers-women, and to small-Israeli-stick-homo-with-glasses-man and all that...OFF WITH YOUR HEADS!!!!
...a defining moment from the Club of Rome concerning this agenda illustrated in the comment below...the identification of a common enemy... https://celiafarber.substack.com/p/depopulation-virtue-signaling-how ...and a comment by a subscriber...
Good Citizen
Writes The Good Citizen
Aug 23
Excerpt from Chapter 2 of Virtually Lost: Young Americans In the Digital Technocracy...
The Club of Rome, which represented exactly the kind of formation Rockefeller was intent on helping develop, also upped the ante in the 1970s. It published its primary mission statement in 1972 (Meadows et al., Limits to Growth); this massively influential work, based on computer simulations, argued that economic growth would eventually and inevitably hit the buffers of resource depletion and was therefore as untenable as it was undesirable. Later, in 1991, the tone and scope of the Club’s prognostications would harden into the kind of highly questionable but emotionally compelling catastrophism with which we are now all too familiar. The key publication here was The First Global Revolution by Alexander King (one of the Club’s founders) and Bernard Schneider. Its primary purpose was to rally humankind to the cause of extreme environmentalism in such a way as to support the Rockefeller–Club of Rome agenda for globalisation. For this to work, King and Schneider argued that humanity at large could best be mobilised through the inculcation of the sense that there existed a common enemy to it:
𝘐𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘺 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘮 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘶𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘨𝘭𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴, 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦, 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘧𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭. 𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘵𝘰𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘢 𝘥𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘺, 𝘸𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘱, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵, 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘺𝘮𝘱𝘵𝘰𝘮𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴. 𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘵𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧.
An examination of the original Limits to Growth model by a multidisciplinary team from the University of Sussex, published Models of Doom: A Critique of the Limits to Growth (1973), criticised the Club’s modelling, inaccurate predictions, and misguided Malthusian assumptions. Later, economist Thomas Sowell took up the critique of the motivations, practices, and methods of the elite environmentalists, in his The Vision of the Anointed: Self-congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy (1995). ...
When these statements -- full of open confession of evil intent -- show what is really behind all the flowery U.N. language, well, one would think it would help sink their grand plans. But it is not like there haven't been a lot of people waving their hands and complaining and warning and angst-ing about AGENDA21 from the start. I wasn't silent in the 1990s but still had to watch this turn into a juggernaut. AGENDA21 REGIONAL GOVERNMENT now has more clout than towns, cities, counties and states -- even if they were in awareness and cared.
And when they don't?
We are seeing this ugly first scene of the last act of their RESET drama in full performance in Hawaii with Governor Josh Green. Noone can convince me he was not aware there would be an engineered housing crisis in his state when the first thing he did when taking office was make himself Housing Czar through emergency powers. Then he went to the floor of the U.N. and openly promised them his fealty to the RESET. Shows us what little loyalty he feels he owes the actual citizens of Hawaii.
This post fire situation in Hawaii is the perfect arena for confronting these U.N. globalists precisely because Gov. Green embraces their goals with such fervent volume. It is time to put the spotlight on his sustainability bravado to show how corrupt the entire plan is -- and that the murderous depopulation plan is in full operation
UK Television Presenter Sir David Attenborough: “We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now”; Paul Ehrlich, now in his 90s and still hasn’t checked out, and a former science adviser to president George W. Bush and the author of “The Population Bomb” said: “To our minds, the fundamental cure, reducing the scale of the human enterprise (including the size of the population) to keep its aggregate consumption within the carrying capacity of Earth is obvious but too much neglected or denied” and “Nobody, in my view, has the right to have 12 children or even three unless the second pregnancy is twins.” Dave Foreman, the co-founder of Earth First: “We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox”; 7. David Rockefeller: “The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident”; Environmental activist Roger Martin: “On a finite planet, the optimum population providing the best quality of life for all, is clearly much smaller than the maximum, permitting bare survival. The more we are, the less for each; fewer people mean better lives.”; HBO personality Bill Maher: “I’m pro-choice, I’m for assisted suicide, I’m for regular suicide, I’m for whatever gets the freeway moving – that’s what I’m for. It’s too crowded, the planet is too crowded and we need to promote death”’; MIT professor Penny Chisholm: “The real trick is, in terms of trying to level off at someplace lower than that 9 billion, is to get the birthrates in the developing countries to drop as fast as we can. And that will determine the level at which humans will level off on earth.”; Julia Whitty, a columnist for the vile Mother Jones: “The only known solution to ecological overshoot is to decelerate our population growth faster than it’s decelerating now and eventually reverse it — at the same time we slow and eventually reverse the rate at which we consume the planet’s resources”; Colorado State University Professor Philip Cafaro in a paper entitled “Climate Ethics and Population Policy”: “Ending human population growth is almost certainly a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for preventing catastrophic global climate change. Indeed, significantly reducing current human numbers may be necessary in order to do so“; Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka: “I do not bear any ill will toward people. However, I am convinced that the world, including all humanity, WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us”; Detroit News Columnist Nolan Finley: “Since the national attention is on birth control, here’s my idea: If we want to fight poverty, reduce violent crime and bring down our embarrassing drop-out rate, we should swap contraceptives for fluoride in Michigan’s drinking water”; John Guillebaud, professor of family planning at University College London: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet”; Democrat strategist Steven Rattner: “WE need death panels. Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget”; Matthew Yglesias, a business and economics correspondent for Slate, in an article entitled “The Case for Death Panels, in One Chart”: “But not only is this health care spending on the elderly the key issue in the federal budget, our disproportionate allocation of health care dollars to old people surely accounts for the remarkable lack of apparent cost effectiveness of the American health care system. When the patient is already over 80, the simple fact of the matter is that no amount of treatment is going to work miracles in terms of life expectancy or quality of life.” Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger: “All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class”; U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of; Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger: “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it”; Salon columnist Mary Elizabeth Williams in an article entitled “So What If Abortion Ends Life?”: “All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides.” Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia and Francesca Minerva of the University of Melbourne in a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics: “[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk”; Nina Fedoroff, a key adviser to Hillary Clinton: “We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people”; Barack Obama’s primary science adviser, John P. Holdren: “A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births”; David Brower, the first Executive Director of the Sierra Club: “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, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing”; Thomas Ferguson, former official in the U.S. State Department Office of Population Affairs: “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, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it…”; Mikhail Gorbachev: “We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”
...Lisa, Lisa!!!...Maurice Strong never was Secretary General of the UN...he was advisor to Kofi Annan...and while he possibly made that statement in 2015 the year he died i think...there was no earth summit then...however he was a leading light on this agenda...on the basis of this 'disinformation'?...anything we had going Lisa is so, so over!...sorry but i can't associate with disinformants!...😀🤠😀...(edit:...actually ur right he had been undersecretary...for some reason it seems to me i misread the sentence or missed the word under....sorry Lisa!...🫤🫣🫤...) ...(edit: ...this helps to clarify the tangle of terminologies...from wiki Earth Summits...'The 2000-2015 Millennium Development Goals and the 2015-2030 Global Goals are results from these Earth Summits. The first summit took place in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) in 1992 . Last Earth Summit, called Rio+20, also took place in Rio de Janeiro in 2012'...)....
For clarity:
"In 1969, the UN General Assembly decided to convene the first major inter-governmental conference on environmental issues, the UN Conference on the Human Environment. The meeting was to be held in 1972, but by early 1970, hardly anything had happened. The Swedish government began to worry. Eventually their ambassador, Sverker Astrom, contacted Strong, through a mutual friend, Wayne Kines, who was a media consultant to the UN. Astrom recommended Strong to Philippe de Seyne, the UN undersecretary general for economic and social affairs. Kines arranged a meeting between Strong and de Seyne.
"UN Secretary-General, U Thant, invited Strong to lead it as Secretary-General of the Conference and as Undersecretary General of the UN responsible for environmental affairs. Strong turned the preparations for the Stockholm Conference around. He used his consummate diplomatic skills to obtain the support of the developing countries, who were extremely sceptical about environmental issues."
"...Secretary General of the UN Conference on Environment and Development -- best known as the Earth Summit -- held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992."
http://www.mauricestrong.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15&Itemid=24
...thanks! ...here's a must watch ... https://youtu.be/xF7EkT-qbG4?si=wTpoDu9LazgdtDAp ...and also Coffman...
I believe he was former Secretary General of the UN’s Conference on Environment and Development
...thanks Blaise!...this is from wikipedia on Strongs bio...'Strong had his start as an entrepreneur in the Alberta oil patch and was President of Power Corporation of Canada until 1966. In the early 1970s he was Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and then became the first executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme. He returned to Canada to become Chief Executive Officer of Petro-Canada from 1976 to 1978. He headed Ontario Hydro, one of North America's largest power utilities, was national president and chairman of the Extension Committee of the World Alliance of YMCAs, and headed American Water Development Incorporated. He served as a commissioner of the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1986[7] and was recognised by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as a leader in the international environmental movement'.[8]
....it began in Stockholm then...1972...another event in Montreal i think 1976 provided the prototypes of the Earth Summits....a must see video is Henry Lamb on global governance...YT...and Michael Coffman also... https://youtu.be/xF7EkT-qbG4?si=wTpoDu9LazgdtDAp ...(edit...The 2000-2015 Millennium Development Goals and the 2015-2030 Global Goals are results from these Earth Summits. The first summit took place in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) in 1992 . Last Earth Summit, called Rio+20, also took place in Rio de Janeiro in 2012.)...