Our focus at CIRNow is firmly on amend Section 128 of the Constitution to give all Aussie voters the right to initiate referendums to amend the Constitution
When we get that right, Agenda 21 will become a non issue, as only the Australian people will decide how we wish to be governed and the treaties with other nations and organisations we wish to sign. We will initiate a referendum asking the Australian people if they wish to scrap all treaties and renegotiate them as the sovereign nation of Australia, beholden to no other nation and acting as a free and independent nation.
Until then, this is what our government has committed us to….
AGENDA 21: THE UN STRATEGY TO ENSLAVE THE WORLD
To speak publicly about a new world order was likely to have you labelled a “conspiracy theorist” or to be regarded as a “political nutcase” even when producing irrefutable evidence. In more extreme cases the attack would become more virulent with shrill screams of “racist”, “fascist” and “anti-Semitism”.
The NWO proposal for “one world government” is not a new idea. Indeed, reference to world government can be found in the New Testament episode where Christ was tempted on the mountain with “all this can be yours if you will bow before me”; this was rejected making him implacable and unforgiving enemies.
If you wish to understand the background of the drive for “one world government” then “The Controversy of Zion” by Douglas Reed is highly recommended whereby Reed traces the thread of the “will to Power” throughout the centuries. It is not a pretty story.
Much has been written to alert people of a threat to their “Freedom and Independence” but it is only in recent years when a readily understood proposal under the name of AGENDA 21 has come to light.
AGENDA 21 is a program of the United Nations Organisation (UN) to bring the entire inhabited world under its control, a plan that directs every aspect of the human daily life and covers areas of environment, education, economics, food production, health, finance and every other facet of life you care to name all of which are preceded by the adjective “sustainable”.
It is a diabolical plan dressed in words designed to deceive the hearer into acceptance but once ensnarled there is little hope of escape but worst of all it is being supported by well-meaning people who cannot see the danger or believing that they must do something… anything… in order to avoid something worse…remember the story of “Chicken Little” who thought the sky was falling.
Agenda 21 is a comprehensive master plan to reshape and control all Nations and lock them into the clutches of the UN under the innocuous phrase Sustainable Development. Along with 178 countries, President George H.W. Bush accepted Agenda 21 as “soft law” adopted by a new tactic called collaborative consensus building, instead of by treaty.
“CONSENSUS” is not agreement but an ABSENSE OF DIS-AGREEMENT. It is an extremely cunning plan and it is implemented THROUGH LOCAL GOVERNMENT in Australia.
It is a plan for total world government involving “international socialists” administered by the United Nations Organisation.
“Climate change” and the sustainability agenda are part of Agenda 21, driven by the United Nations through such bodies as “earth summits”, World Trade Organisation (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other “heritage listings” that are in turn used to bypass the national government’s laws.
Be very wary of sustainable development, and the larger agenda it represents.The “religion” of sustainable development was brought to light as the agenda of the United Nations for the 21st century, to create a “new world order”, as named by a chief strategist behind the plan, with nature as the organizing principle for life. So just what are the dangers of a plan which asserts that a central governing body (the UN) should monitor whether or not the world’s choices are considered sustainable?
What kind of negative effects could possibly come from reducing over consumption of the world’s resources?
The key to understanding the agenda behind sustainable development is to recognize that it is not ultimately about the environment, but about control.
In this new world, which is outlined in the UN’s agenda for the 21st century, called AGENDA 21, and the Convention on Biodiversity (conceived as the practical tool for implementing the objectives of AGENDA 21), rights of the individual are sacrificed for the common good in just about every area of life, with the global governing body making the determination as to just what that “common good” is. The objectives of sustainable development, or the new world order, would involve fundamental overhauls of every area of society.
Just what are those overhauls, in the name of helping the environment?
The scope of the changes are so monumental and far-reaching, including areas of agriculture, environment, labour, trade, technology, and politics (just to name a few), that only three of the most fundamental areas will be addressed here; Environment, Economy and Equity
Control of land and population: Some of the earliest objectives of sustainable development arose in 1976, at the UN Conference on Human Settlements, where a formal policy on land usage was adopted for the first time by the United Nations.
In the Report of Habitat: UN Conference on Human Settlements, which arose from this conference, the vision for sustainable usage of land is delineated: “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 principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes.
The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….”
Further recommendations from the conference stated “All countries should establish as a matter of urgency a national policy on human settlements, embodying the distribution of population…over the national territory” and…
“Such a policy should be devised to facilitate population redistribution to accord with the availability of resources”.
Put simply, under this plan, global governing bodies will control private property as they deem appropriate in the interest of the greater good, and will force people to move to places they designate.
Please note well… it is CONTROL not OWNERSHIP!Control of education and thought
An example of the control over education and thought that will be condoned under this new world order can be found in an organization which is part of the UN, called the Eden Foundation, created by Donald Sagar, who is a representative to the United Nations’ Association for World Education.
Sagar wrote to a correspondent, “Because of the relentless increase in the quantity and complexity of knowledge in the world, we are experiencing a clash between cultures that prevents all but the most capable of surviving with any meaningful identity intact”.
In other words, Sagar says that the problems in the world are due to the fact that people have too much knowledge!
Sagar’s project aims to define what are acceptable ideas and thoughts, and promotes, according to his website the Eden Project, “the return of control to the questioning process”.Agenda 21 is the UN Plan for Your “Sustainable” Community.
Note: This global contract binds all nations to the collective vision of “sustainable development.”
They must commit to pursue the three E’s of “sustainability”:
referring to the UN blueprint for environmental regulations, economic manipulation, and social equity.
The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide — a UN manual for global transformation was prepared by The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). Community leaders around the world are now called to implement a new “Communitarian” system of governance which overrides our constitutional rights and freedoms.
Almost every council now employs a “sustainability officer” to implement Agenda 21 objectives at a local level and these objectives are aided and abetted by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) set-up by Paul Keating and operated through the Department of the Prime Minister, who is the Chairman.
The Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) is another body pushing AGENDA 21 policies so is it any wonder many “cash-strapped” councils are supporting recognition of Local Government in the Australian Constitution for they think it will mean more funding for Local Government…of course they will have to surrender their sovereignty and that of the States in exchange.
An Internet search of “AGENDA 21” and “LG21” will reward the searcher with plans of their enslavement, however, there is opposition and “Freedom 21” is highly recommended for your enquiries.
The part played by the Australian Labor Party and their socialist mates, ICLEI, COAG and ALGA has one goal — the States must be destroyed because they can upset the “one-world” plan.
The States still have their power of financial sovereignty — and they just might try to use it!
Having a so-called conservative party in power makes no difference — they are all socialist by intent.
To conclude, I should stress that I am not opposed to good management of our environment but I am totally opposed to surrendering individual freedom as part of a UN plan to build the bureaucratic slave state.
To paraphrase the words of Churchill; “It may be better to die than live as slaves”
We still have time for offensive action and every concerned reader should start with their local councillors.
- Do they understand the implications of the United Nations Organisation sustainability agenda?
- Oppose recognition of Local Government in the Australian Constitution and alert voters to the consequences of a YES vote which will lead to loss of individual sovereignty.
- Educate yourself about AGENDA 21 and the viable alternatives.
There is much more that you can do BUT please make a start NOW!
Louis Cook, Numurkah, 12 March 2013
Some follow up information:
- Following is Julia Gillard’s “education plan for sustainability” and the brainwashing of students. http://www.australia2020.gov.au/docs/schools_summit_report.pdf
- “The Hidden Messages within Sustainable Development” by Sharon Beder
Many years ago I read disturbing articles on “Liberation Theology” when the World Council of Churches was involved in helping the “emerging nations” takeover by communists.
From the following paragraphs it looks like we now have “sustainable environment theology”
The Uniting Church in Australia has congratulated the Government and the members of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee on today’s announcement of a price on pollution.
The Church welcomes the strong package of measures as the most important step towards a clean economy and a sustainable future.
Rev. AIistair Macrae, President of the Church said, “When the Uniting Church was inaugurated in 1977 we pledged to the nation that we would be a voice urging the protection of the environment and the wise use of the earth’s resources.”
Rev. Macrae said, “The Uniting Church will continue to be a voice for the planet and all its people and will continue to support measures by the government to take action on climate change. Our hope is that Australia may show leadership in successful climate change policy and bold innovation in renewable technologies.”
Then there is the attack on Australia’s sovereignty by selling property to overseas buyers: When dairy business Sustainable Soils and Farms couldn’t find investors in Australia to back a project for sustainable dairy farming in the Murray-Darling Basin, the business looked to China, writes Sophie Loras.
When Sustainable Soils and Farms set out to develop a new approach to dairy farming in the Murray-Darling region, focusing on more sustainable irrigation practices as well as reforming the collapsing dairy sector of northern Victoria, the business faced a brick wall from Australian investors.
It was in the midst of the global financial crisis and uncertainty over future government regulation of the region, in which farmers would continue to be encouraged to sell back their water rights, meant no-one in Australia was prepared to take the risk.
Instead, SSF turned to China where it was able to secure in August, a A$75 million joint-venture agreement with China’s Tianyi Group, to establish a dairy farm business in northern Victoria to export milk products exclusively to the Chinese market.
Water windfall for ex-MPs
Royce Millar ~ November 23, 2011
THREE retired Labor MPs have shared in a multimillion-dollar business windfall as a result of changes to rural water trading rules made by the former Brumby government.
An investigation by The Age has found that changes made in June last year allowed the ex-MPs and their company to sell a 3-billion-litre water entitlement to a joint federal-state buyback scheme.
The state government, then in its dying months, granted the company a special exemption from rules that restrict the volume of irrigation water that can be traded from each district.
The exemption is believed to have been worth an estimated $7 million to Sustainable Soils & Farms, a company led by former federal Labor MP Neil O’Keefe, and which includes among its shareholders former MPs Gavan O’Connor and Bob Sercombe.
The exemption was signed off by then water minister Tim Holding, based on a recommendation from his department. It was one of a string of federal and state decisions that have been favourable to the company.
It occurred as the Brumby government pursued its controversial $2 billion irrigation upgrade – a project that will be the focus of an Ombudsman’s report to be tabled this week.
The report is expected to propose sweeping changes to the so-called food bowl modernisation project.
One possibility could be the scrapping of the Northern Victorian Irrigation Renewal Project, whose chief executive, Murray Smith, resigned yesterday, citing family reasons and a desire to return home to Queensland.
Sustainable Soils – and in particular its relationship with state bureaucrats, officers of the renewal project and consultants – is expected by industry insiders to feature in the Ombudsman’s report.
Exemptions to the cap on water trading can be made for a variety of reasons, including to facilitate the food bowl program and to enable irrigators to leave the industry during extreme drought. However, the rule change of June 24 last year was the only exemption to date to have benefited a single company.Yesterday, Mr Holding said that at the time he signed off on the change, he was unaware that Mr O’Keefe’s company was to be the beneficiary.
”The project was a water recovery project previously approved by the Murray Darling Basin Authority. I was not aware, and nor would it have been necessary for me to be aware, of the ownership of the company when granting such an exemption,” he said.
Mr Holding said the exemption was necessary so that Victoria could meet its commitments to water recovery under the federal-state Living Murray program.
Earlier in June last year, The Age reported that Sustainable Soils had begun buying drought-stressed farms in northern Victoria, beginning with five farms at Leitchville, near Echuca. Backed by Chinese partners, the company’s plan included using brown coal fertiliser to transform irrigation-dependent dairy properties into water-efficient organic dairy farms and to sell milk products to China.
Important to the company’s strategy appears to be the harnessing of state and federal government funds, both from the former Brumby government’s $2 billion food bowl modernisation project and from the federal water buy-back and irrigation upgrade schemes.
In June last year, Sustainable Soils was in negotiations with the Murray Darling Basin Authority to sell the rights to more than 3 billion litres of water under the federal-state Living Murray program. However, Victoria’s 4 per cent trading cap was an obstacle to the deal.The Age has learnt that at least one senior state bureaucrat was lobbied about the proposed exemption in the lead-up to Mr Holding granting it.
In July this year, The Age revealed that Sustainable Soils was behind a newly formed agricultural firm given in-principle approval for a $32 million grant under a Gillard government assistance program for irrigation upgrades. Industry insiders were surprised when a company unknown to them, Irrigation Efficiency Partners Pty Ltd, won the second largest of nine grants, most of which went to public or industry bodies to oversee the modernising of farms.Irrigation Efficiency Partners was registered in March, just days before grant applications were due. At the time, Shepparton-based Liberal MP Sharman Stone queried the grant, describing it as ”rather odd”.
Sustainable Soils’ receipt of favourable government decisions and funds is complicated by Mr O’Keefe’s continuing role as the Victorian government’s representative on Water for Rivers, a joint Commonwealth-state company charged with recovering water from farmers for the Murray and Snowy systems.
In July, federal Water Minister Tony Burke denied the company’s Labor connections had helped it secure government support. He said he had acted on the recommendations of his department, which had conducted an independent, competitive and rigorous assessment of applications.
Sustainable Soils declined to comment for this story.