-Caveat Lector-
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 21:06:52 -0400, Aleisha Saba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, which said:
> THE U.N. PLAN FOR GLOBAL CONTROL
> The Habitat II Agenda
> by Berit Kjos
> Bicycles instead of cars? Dense apartment clusters instead of single
> homes? Community rituals instead of churches? "Human rights" instead of
> religious freedom? The UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II)
> which met June 3-14 in Istanbul, painted an alarming picture of the 21st
> century community. The American ways-free speech, individualism, travel,
> and Christianity-are out.
I would think that the statements quoted below would preserve individualism
and protect it. It seems to revere the right to belong to the religion of
your choice without experiencing the persecution some like to throw around
if you belong to "the wrong religion". It's a matter of rights. And
anytime we discuss rights, someone always chimes in and says, "You have the
right to do anything you want to do as long as it does not infringe on MY
rights!" < continued below >
> A new set of economic, environmental, and social guidelines are in.
> Citizenship, democracy, and education have been redefined. Handpicked
> civil leaders will implement UN "laws", bypassing state and national
> representatives to work directly with the UN. And politically correct
> "tolerance"-meaning "the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism" as well
> as "appreciation" for the world's religions and lifestyles-is "not only
> a moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement."1
...Well, does using free speech to criticize members of another religion
infringe on that person's right to practice that religion? Or does the
right to free speech have precedence over the freedom to choose your
religion?
I don't see anything wrong with tolerating or appreciating all the world's
religions and lifestyles. I think it's a good thing. Apparently some
people can't handle having both freedom of religion and freedom of speech at
the same time because it causes too much unrest. Perhap laws against
condemning religions and the people who practice them would be something
that promotes peace, falling back on the old adage, "If you can't say
something nice, don't say anything at all."
Some might say that once free speech is limited, the arts would certainly
suffer since film makers and authors could no longer openly attack things
they might personally disagree with. However, other artists would come
forward to glorify what was once condemned. I would welcome that with open
arms. I enjoy films that show the beauty of different cultures and
religions, rather than exploiting and judging their faults, as if ours are
superior in some way.
> Hard to believe? Not for veteran UN observers who faced boos and hisses
> for expressing concern in open UN assemblies. Nor for pro-family members
> of NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) who faced exclusion from public
> dialogues for opposing feminist commander Bella Abzug and her radical
> agenda. And not for those who watched the ecstatic welcome given Fidel
> Castro and his anti-American diatribe.
> Yet, our president and our non-elected American delegates, headed by
> U.S. Secretary Henry Cisneros, endorse this revolutionary plan, and our
> U.S. Department of Education is already establishing the framework for
> its local implementation. Why? What is happening?
> PRO-COMMUNIST IDEALS. "We are the world and the world does not yield to
> masters nor to suicidal policies," declared Castro, concluding his June
> 14 plenary remarks aimed at Western capitalist nations. "The world does
> not accept that a minority of selfish, insane and irresponsible people
> lead it to annihilation."
Sounds like a wise statement to me. Have you watched the business news
lately? We are referred to as "consumers". They expect us to consume, and
when you consume, some finite resource gets used, whether it be electricity
produced by coal and oil, gasoline, or whatever. When "consumers" stop
spending their money, capitalists start wrenching their hands in panic and
"the economy" is plastered all over the news with politicians and
businessmen yelling at each other to do something about it. It IS suicidal!
We have a society in America that thrives on the consumption of natural
resources, and now the destruction of natural resources, since Bush decided
that the economy is more important than the environment. Everyone breathes
a sigh of relief when the Dow Jones Industrial Average rebounds and closes
400 points up because it means the gravy train hasn't come to an end yet.
> "Fidel, Fidel..." shouted the audience. The thunderous applause followed
> him all the way back to the Cuban section on the other side of the hall,
> where fans lined up to shake his hand.
> Why are you so enthusiastic?" I asked some of his fans after the
> session.
> "Because he stood up to America," someone answered.
> "Because he is a living myth," explained another. "He was a simple
> guerrilla, fighting for the oppressed against the rich and powerful."
> "Fighting for the oppressed..." The UN claims that mission, but
> third-world women who have faced its abusive birth control practices
> tell a different story. Like the Communist Manifesto, the alluring UN
> promises designed to win support cloak an agenda that shows little
> compassion once power has been won.
I don't think their cradle to grave approach to living the lives of the
people is actually a good thing, but it may not be as bad as it sounds.
Suppose it simply means that all people will have an equal opportunity since
the resources will be made available to anyone who wants to pursue a
particular field? As it stands now in America, just getting good grades
isn't always enough. Sometimes money is in short supply, or there are only
so many scholarships to go around, or someone just grows up in a lousy
neighborhood that stifles their dreams with depression. If their cradle to
grave approach to government doesn't include issuing clothes to wear and it
doesn't include implementing a social caste system, then it might not be so
bad.
> POPULATION CONTROL. The Turner-Fonda message matches the feminist
> agenda. Former U.S. congresswoman Bella Abzug,2 who had led the
> onslaught on traditional values at the 1995 UN conference in Beijing,
> now helped engineer an official partnership between UN leaders, national
> delegates, and NGOs that support the UN gender agenda. Stationed around
> the world, her feminist troops promise to serve as watchdogs, making
> sure "civil society" implements their program for indoctrinating
> students with feminist ideology. Inspired by the spirits of earthy
> goddesses such as Athena and Ishtar whom they worshipped in Beijing,
> they have little tolerance for Christians and others who oppose their
> agenda.
I don't see anything wrong with population control. It's basically birth
control. I don't thing abortions should be performed on pregnant mothers,
but I see no problem with limiting the number of kids people can have.
After all, if we don't find a way to colonize another planet, or live
underwater, or colonize the moon, then this one planet will get too full and
we'll all starve half to death. The quality of life will fall dramatically
as we have billions more people sharing the same amount of resources.
Looking at it this way, population control is good for your great, great,
great grandkids. If one of your kids is killed in an accident, you would
certainly be free to replace him with another. If a mother gets pregnant,
the child would be carried to term, but would either be placed with a
relative family or a family not capable of having kids.
Ideally, of course, we should learn how the spirit and body work together.
Buddhists actually practice dying, so that when death taps them on the
shoulder, it's not a fearful event. They are ready to go. Wouldn't it be
nice if we could simply learn to die? Then, instead of grasping for as much
life as we can possibly get, we can decide that we're ready to go and
voluntarily lay down and pass away. What a great gift to give to the world
-- to simply say, "Here's my plate. I'm going to move on now." However, I
think we'll go through a stage of enforced population control before we
learn to do what I've described above.
> "We want to change things," declared Abzug. "We'll be on executive
> boards. We want the participation of NGO's on the security council."
> She serves the globalist purpose well. Mobilizing worldwide rebellion
> against Christian values, pushing birth control and gender-role equality
> for every family, demanding sex education for every student, and
> requiring international surveillance to monitor compliance, her
> followers are speeding the global revolution. Like countless other UN
> partners, they are winning by propaganda, intimidation, and growing
> popular consent.
And how do we know we Americans are not victims of propaganda? Capitalists
largely control the media in this country and they want to keep their gravy
train rolling. They wouldn't want to show the benefits of globalization
because it would mean that they would not make as much money, since
communism spreads wealth and capitalism places most of the wealth in the
hands of a few. Capitalism is exactly what most people fear that communism
would bring -- the majority of power in the hands of a few. That sounds
like a description of America in this day and age. 1% of the people in
America have 95% of the wealth? That's exactly what most people fear
communism would bring, so what's the difference?
> Note that population control means controlling people, not merely
> births. Regarded as international law, the Habitat Agenda negotiated in
> Istanbul includes all the intrusive action plans outlined at former UN
> world conferences. "We want to ensure that previously endorses language
> [from former UN conferences] is upheld and incorporated into this
> document," declared Henry Cisneros, U.S. Secretary for Housing and Urban
> Development (HUD) who led the US delegation.3 This "international law"
> would limit not only the size of the world population but also housing,
> production, consumption, parenting, communication, and religious
> expression.
It said above that all world religions would be appreciated. I wouldn't
think of that as a bad thing. I guess if one enjoys destroying and bashing
the religions of others, then that person might see the limitation of
religious expression as a negative thing.
> Training in global citizenship would begin with the universal education
> system outlined at the 1990 UN World Conference on Education for All. It
> matches Goals 2000, America's version of the international education
> system. Already molding minds around the world, the UN plan for
> "lifelong learning" indoctrinates young and old with the socialist
> ideology and earth-centered spirituality designed to create solidarity,
> an essential element to the envisioned world of peace.
I wouldn't disagree with this one, as long there's not somebody telling me
that what I believe is wrong or right.
> SOLIDARITY. Traditional beliefs simply don't fit the UN vision for 21st
> Century communities. To find more universal values, Habitat leaders
> convened a day-long "Dialogue" on the meaning of Solidarity at the
> elegant Ciragan Palace in Istanbul. The official list of 21 panel
> members included former Jerusalem mayor Teddy Kollek, historian Arthur
> Schlesinger, Jr, and Maurice Strong6 who led the 1992 UN conference on
> environment.
I wonder if Arthur is related to Dr. Laura. At any rate, I wonder if this
is speaking of a "world religion". If the world religion is all inclusive,
that might not be such a bad thing, either. After all, if we are really all
one, why not unite and broaden our ideologies to be more inclusive?
> "I have gathered leaders with tremendous wisdom and prestige," began
> Habitat Secretary-General Wally N'Dow. "They are bringing the spiritual
> dimension-the only ingredient that can bind societies together." He had
> chosen an American moderator who would add credibility to the
> discussion: Robert MacNeil (of MacNeil-Lehrer), "one of the spiritual
> lights of the media industry today."
>
> This hand-picked "interfaith group" left little doubt that solidarity
> meant a universal shift to the new globalist-New Age paradigm (or
> world-view). "Change your whole way of thinking, because the new order
> of the spirit is confronting and challenging you," said Millard Fuller,
> President of Habitat for Humanity.
Ahhh... so governments are going New Age now? Hehehe. :-) New Age thought
is something that evolves so quickly and is something that's so
freedom-oriented that I hope the "leaders" realize that it means that people
will be offered more freedom, not less, and that all kinds of recreational
drugs will have to be completely legalized for all ages.
> "Citizenship for the next century is learning to live together," said
> Federico Mayor, Director General of UNESCO. "The 21st Century city will
> be a city of social solidarity.... We have to redefine the words... [and
> write a new] social contract."
I wouldn't expect the US Constitution to last for 5,000 years, anyway.
> "We should stop bemoaning the growth of cities," added Dr. Ismail
> Serageldin, Vice President of The World Bank. "It's going to happen and
> it's a good thing, because cities are the vectors of social change and
> transformation. Let's just make sure that social change and
> transformation are going in the right direction." Later he added, "The
> media must act as part of the education process that counters
> individualism."
Counters individualism? Well, I can take that one of two ways. I like
individualism when expressed in the form that expresses one member of a
whole society as a distinct and unique individual. Individualism that says,
"I am different, superior, and above all of you" is not a form of
individualism that I really care for.
> The heart of lifelong education would be spiritual training. "What's
> needed is an interfaith center in every city of the globe," said James
> Morton, dean of the Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the Divine, who
> organized the panel. "The new interfaith centers will honor the rituals
> of every... faith tradition: Islam, Hinduism, Jain, Christian [a
> cross-less version that blends with other beliefs]... and provide
> opportunity for sacred expressions needed to bind the people of the
> planet into a viable, meaningful, and sustainable solidarity."
I wonder if that includes Rastafarians and their practices. Unitarian
Universalists accept members of all faiths and they seem to be a peaceful
bunch. Perhaps interfaith centers would be somewhat similar.
> SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. The guiding principle of the new universal
> education system is "sustainable development." People everywhere must be
> taught "facts" about environmental "risks" that are sensational enough
> to scare them into compliance. They must be persuaded to accept
> unthinkable limits on consumption, land use, transportation, and family
> size. Everyone must protect resources for future generations, say UN
> leaders, but they agree that the real meaning of sustainability is based
> on the E's: Environment, Economy, and Equity, which point to a
> redistribution of the world's resources-money, energy, water, and
> people-in order to create global equality.
> History has shown the emptiness of these promises. Long ago the
> Communist Manifesto announced a proletarian revolution which would
> empower the poor by redistributing wealth. Everyone would be equal. Men
> and women alike would join the socialist workforce, and children would
> be trained by the state.
> It happened! All but the leaders became equally poor, and all the
> children were indoctrinated with an anti-Christian socialist philosophy.
> Morally and economically, the masses sank to the level of the lowest
> common denominator.
For communism to work, the people must want it or it won't work. If people
are still in the "me me me...it's all about ME because I am the world"
paradigm, communism won't work. In order for communism to work, I must want
to work for everyone else except myself. When I work for everyone except
myself, everyone else works for me. There are over six billion people on
this planet. There is absolutely no reason why we can't make this work.
People simply need an attitude adjustment. I think new agers are probably
more open to the concept of true communism than others, when they realize
it's about contributing to a society of one. When I care more about the
happiness of others than I care about my own happiness, I will be happy.
Why? Because once society understands this new paradigm, every person in
the world will be more concerned with everybody else's happiness than with
their own. So, if I work to make the lives of six billion people better and
happier, then in turn, six billion people are working to make my life better
and happier. This is not something that can be forced upon the people. It
requires that the individual make a choice to see the world in this way and
it will work. If everyone had the proper perspective, we can do in five
years what would now take us fifty years or more.
> The similarities between the Communist Manifesto and the UN agenda
> (outlined in the Beijing Declaration and incorporated into the Habitat
> Agenda) should be a call to action. Both revolutions--
> * Use psychology and sociology to establish the victimhood, blame and
> anger needed to fuel the revolution.
Revolution?
> * Use education to conform minds to the new ideology.
Succesful people know a secret. When you go to school, you don't learn how
to make money. You learn how to find a job and work. It's been that way
for a long time.
> * Use synthesis (blending opposing views into compromise beliefs that
> match new goals) to produce group consensus.
I found a definition of synthesis, too: the dialectic combination of thesis
and antithesis into a higher stage of truth.
It's apparent that the world is not perfect the way it is, and it wasn't
exactly perfect when the Constitution was written. We may have new problems
by creating a world government, but creating a world government might solve
certain problems that don't have solutions right now.
> * Promise economic equality to seduce the masses.
As opposed to the econimc equality we enjoy in America today?
> Hitler's Mein Kampf: "The most striking success of a revolution will
> always have been achieved when the new philosophy of life as far as
> possible has been taught to all men, and if necessary, later forced upon
> them."13 He tells his followers to "sift the human material it wins into
> two large groups: supporters and members.... A supporter of a movement
> is one who declares himself to be in agreement with its aims, a member
> is one who fights for them.... and corresponds only to the minority of
> men."14
Hitler's mistake was in trying to conquer the rest of the world to follow
his plan. If he had simply made the changes for Germany and left the Jews
alone, then if his ideology was sound, it would have spread. I think he was
schizophrenic, myself.
> "GUIDE TO GETTING OUT YOUR MESSAGE"
> "Find information that lends credence to your argument and creates a
> sense of urgency." "One of the best ways to influence public opinion is
> to influence the news and information that people rely upon in making
> decisions."19 (Community Action Toolkit)
> Hitler: "The first task of propaganda is to win people for subsequent
> organization.... The second task of propaganda is the disruption of the
> existing state of affairs and the permeation of this state of affairs
> with the new doctrine...."20
Okay, so live in joy in the knowledge that you're being manipulated, and
just go along for the ride since opposing is likely to get your head cut
off.
> Sustainable America: "Community-based coalitions can create educational
> media campaigns..., disseminate high-quality information on community
> issues, and promote public discussions that identify solutions to
> problems." (p. 90) "Accurate information built on basic scientific
> research established the foundation of knowledge needed for sound
> decisionmaking...." (p. 61)
> Agenda 21: Use "neighborhood surveys, community meetings, and public
> forums to directly engage the resident population in identifying and
> analyzing issues...." (p. 45)
Sounds good to me.
> "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN organization
> regarded by many as the best source of scientific information about the
> human impact on the earth's climate, released "The Science of Climate
> Change 1995".... I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of
> the peer review process.... More than 15 sections... were changed or
> deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had
> accepted the supposedly final text... The following passages are
> examples of those deleted:
> * "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can
> attribute the observed climate changes to... increases in greenhouse
> gases."
> * "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate
> change to... man-made causes."
How do we know those "deleted passages" are not decoys to make people think
they were deleted, actually causing more confusion?
> The words King David wrote more than 2000 years ago, fit our times. Then
> as now, the leaders joined together to plot the end of God's reign. They
> would destroy His influence, break free from His natural order, and
> establish a new form of government based on their own imagination.
> History shows the devastating results. But God continues to reign! No
> matter how much people shun, mock or slander Him, He remains God. We,
> not He, become the losers when we ignore Him and shun His truth.
I suppose America is a perfect example of a nation that follows God?
Racism? Slavery? A land taken by force with gallons upon gallons of
bloodshed? School shootings? Gay bashing? Forbidding the sick from taking
an herb (cannabis) that relieves their miseries? What God runs this
country? God says we are all one. If we are one, wouldn't we be better off
operating as one? Seperatism apparently doesn't work. Our current
situation with China, Iraq and Columbia is proof that seperatism doesn't
work. This world is a perfect example of cancer and AIDS. We attack others
of the same body.
> "The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing, He makes the
> plans of the peoples of no effect," wrote the author of Psalm 33. "The
> counsel of the Lord stands forever." To those who know His wisdom,
> that's good news!
> The bad news is that most of the world is following false counsel. It's
> time for Americans wake up, return to God, and stand together against
> the oppressive forces that now surround and permeate America.
> Meanwhile there is no need for fear. Someone has wisely said,
> "Christianity is designed to be lived in difficult places." No matter
> how hard it gets, He offers shelter to all who trust Him and follow His
> wisdom.
Ah, so this is a Christian plug? That explains everything. Some of us
don't believe that the Bible is infallible. Some of us don't believe that
Christianity is the only way to God. If Christians believe that theirs is
the ONLY way, then what?
Damaeus
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
