Shocking 1991 UN Policy Paper Describes the Exact Purpose and Trajectory of Current Copenhagen Treat

The following article shows phase by phase what the SOCIALIST elites want for us all.

In 1991 an evil green environlunatic, i mean a good environmentalist known as professor Ignacy Sachs wrote a paper for the UN in which he describes step by step the phases that need to be taken by the SOCIALIST elites in order for western countries to redistribute their wealth to developing countries, as well as the emergence of a One World Government.

He states in this paper that the governments of the western world will most probably not accept this transfer of wealth, and dissolution of their sovereignty unless their hands are forced "by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster.“

How about if you cause all tree of them?... Cause a worldwide economic crisis, claim that there is an environmental problem that MUST BE SOLVED RIGHT NOW, and that if you don't do it THE WORLD WILL DIE, and make a "popular movements of the people backing immediate action to stop such an environmental problem, and economic prolem....Wouldn't that be better?.....

He discusses how it will be needed for the dissolution of all middle classes around the world, which will mean EVERYONE will be equally poor which happens in Socialist dictatorships.

He states this plan, and strategies should cover several decades in order to be implemented slowly, unless there can be redistribution of wealth at a faster pace, which would shorten the time needed to implement this plan.

BTW, I am going to be linking to the official UNESCO website where the paper can be found.

Without further due, here is the article and links supporting what I just described above.

Published on 12-10-2009

By Jurriaan Maessen

“The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster“

Richard Sandbrook, Closing the Circle: Democratization and Development in Africa, Zed Books limited, London, 2000.

A 1991 policy paper prepared for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) by self-described ‘ecosocioeconomist’ professor Ignacy Sachs outlines a strategy for the transfer of wealth in name of the environment to be implemented in the course of 35 to 40 years. As it turns out, it is a visionary paper describing phase by phase the road to world dictatorship. As the professor states in the paper:

“To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span.“

In his paper “The Next 40 Years: Transition Strategies to the Virtuous Green Path: North/South/East/Global“, Sachs accurately describes not only the intended time-span to bring about a global society, but also what steps should be taken to ensure “population stabilization”:

“In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient.“

In the first part of the (in retrospect) bizarrely accurate description of the years to come, Sachs points out redistribution of wealth is the only viable path towards population stabilization and- as he calls it- a “virtuous green world”. The professor:

“The way out from the double bind of poverty and environmental disruption calls for a fairly long period of more economic growth to sustain the transition strategies towards the virtuous green path of what has been called in Stockholm ecodevelopement and has since changed its name in Anglo-Saxon countries to sustainable development.”

“(…) a fair degree of agreement seems to exist, therefore, about the ideal development path to be followed so long as we do not manage to stabilize the world population and, at the same time, sharply reduce the inequalities prevailing today.”

“The bolder the steps taken in the near future”, Sachs asserts, “the shorter will be the time span that separates us from a steady state. Radical solutions must address to the roots of the problem and not to its symptoms. Theoretically, the transition could be made shorter by measures of redistribution of assets and income.”

Sachs points to the political difficulties of such proposals being implemented (because free humanity tends to distrust any national government let alone transnational government to redistribute its well-earned wealth). He therefore proposes these measures to be implemented gradually, following a meticulously planned strategy:

“The pragmatic prospect is one of transition extending itself over several decades.”

In the second sub-chapter “The Five Dimensions of Ecodevelopment”, professor Sachs sums up the main dimensions of this carefully outlined move to make Agenda 21 a very real future prospect. The first dimension he touches upon is “Social Sustainability“:

“The aim is to build a civilization of being within greater equity in asset and income distribution, so as to improve substantially the entitlements of the broad masses of population and of reduce the gap in standards of living between the have and the have nots.”

This of course means, reducing the standards of living in “The North” (U.S., Europe) and upgrading those of the developing nations (”The South and The East”). This would have to be realized through what Sachs calls “Economic Sustainability“: “made possible by a more efficient allocation and management of resources and a steady flow of public and private investment.”

The third dimension described by the professor is “Ecological Sustainability” which, among other things, limits “the consumption of fossile fuels and other easily depletable or environmentally harmful products, substituting them by renewable and/or plentiful and environmentally friendly resources, reducing the volume of pollutants by means of energy and resource conservation and recycling and, last but not least, promoting self-constraint in material consumption on part of the rich countries and of the privileged social strata all over the world;”

In order to make this happen Sachs stresses the need of “defining the rules for adequate environmental protection, designing the institutional machinery and choosing the mix of economic, legal and administrative instruments necessary for the implementation of environmental policies.”
........

blacklistednews.com...

So who wants to keep on cheering for the Copenhagen talks and other treaties the SOCIALIST elites want for us all?.....

Who wants a One World Socialist, I should actually say Communist, Government?....




[edit on 14-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Never mind, found the actual paper.

[edit on 14/12/09 by Chadwickus]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


the push for a one world government has probably been happening behind the scenes ever since we took germany out. this is disturbing, and i would hope if his dream comes true that all americans would stand up and fight for our freedom.

Most disturbing.

Our biggest problem is that the elites put all of this out into the public domain, for all to see, and because there is so much of it, we have no idea where to focus our attentions long enough to actually see what is going on.

It's a well orchestrated plan, and well played out. We need to get smarter.

reply to post by dampnickers


I agree it is disturbing but what troubles me just as much is the fact that these papers ARE out in the public domain and we can read them. They don't fear that people en masse will read these and speak up. And they may be right now to fear it. I make a point to present the documents I find here and present them to my parents (who were both activists in the 60's) and they say they don't want to know or don't care.

They could announce their intentions on television and as long as it was dressed up with a big live show at a stadium and had a band and some celebrities present the masses would accept their chains gladly.

More fuel to the fire every day.

Instead of denials, we're seeing open announcement of their plans.

Problem is, it seems no one's listening. That, or they tell us their words don't really mean what we think they mean.

It's an interesting strategy.

The elite are in for a surprise if they think this plan is going to work.
A rude, painful surprise.

I'm not sure why people keep calling this a Socialist plot. The only way the money is getting redistributed is up to the top which I'm pretty sure is going to all the world's elites, not just the socialist ones.

It's a global elitist plan. Not a socialist one. Don't think for a second that "your guy" would stop any of this from happening. It may happen in a different order, but it will happen.

Originally posted by nunya13
I'm not sure why people keep calling this a Socialist plot. The only way the money is getting redistributed is up to the top which I'm pretty sure is going to all the world's elites, not just the socialist ones.

It's a global elitist plan. Not a socialist one. Don't think for a second that "your guy" would stop any of this from happening. It may happen in a different order, but it will happen.

I agree completely.

A socialist or communist world government would be better than the hellhole of slavery they have planned for us!

But I personally prefer a global democratic system, where there are no "leaders" and there are no "elite", but at the same time everyone has FREEDOM to say think or do whatever they feel like, as long as it doesn't harm others.

Essentially we would have to transplant the original US Constitution to a global level. That would work and be cool.

But anything these "NWO" elites suggest is just a terrible idea, because they ALWAYS plan everything around enriching themselves and gaining more and more power. So we can never trust them or their suggestions.

Originally posted by NW(N)O


Problem is, it seems no one's listening.

I think there are people listening. Just not enough. And the reason is because of the us vs. them paradigm. One half of the country is apt to get riled up about something if a certain label is put on it. The other half will just shrug their shoulders and scoff at those trying to warn them because the label is suppose to allude to their way of thinking.

People just need to get past the labels. Then they'd see we ALL need to be worried about THEM.

edit to add: but that's the point of labeling a plan such as this a "socialist" one. They do risk half the people crying foul, but they don't worry because it immediately means half the people aren't going to pay attention to the warning signs since they believe they HAVE to disagree with the other side all the time.






[edit on 14-12-2009 by nunya13]

Originally posted by nunya13


People just need to get past the labels. Then they'd see we ALL need to be worried about THEM.

Exactly, these "labels" are typically the foundation of the framework of deception and misdirection.

By using these labels, they divide the public along fictional lines, and the majority of the population are so lost in the sea of lies that they think these "labels" actually describe reality accurately, however the sad truth is that reality is far more complex than a few simple labels will allow.

People who do not think for themselves use these labels as signposts to guide them through their pre-programmed path. This is why I think simple education can remedy many of these issues.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Yes, because while Bush was in office the term "fascism" was thrown around like nothing. This made the Right put their hands over their ears.

Because like it or not, the majority of people see fascism as on the right and socialism on the left (thought they fail to see that only is true depending on which way you've oriented the vertical/horizontal spectrum)

So even though normal people on the Right don't agree with Fascism, it automatically denotes that THEIR side is being attacked, which makes them defensive and evermore defiant; therefore, they put their hands over their ears as the left cries foul.

The same exact thing applies right now. Call it a socialist idea and the Left automatically sees that as an attack on their ideas, because even though they may condone socialism, they see it as an overexaggerated attack on their ideals which puts them on the defensive and makes them cover their ears.

See, I used to be a liberal, I'm a little bit more moderate now. Just a little But hearing liberals being attacked even for ideals that I don't agree with tends to make me more defensive because that's the side I most identify with. So I was and can be irrational in my arguments.

Such as this climate thing going on. I scoffed at the numerous threads crying foul about a conspiracy because it was accompanied with an attack on liberals and "progressive" (with quotation marks and everything) and as just a socialist idea. The very mention of socialist made me put my hands over my ears because i KNOW I'm no socialist so if I thought we needed action on climate change, but I'm not a socialist, then those people just plain don't know what they are talking about. Conspiracy, schmiracy...

But now that I've been able to take off and ignore that label, I can see the forest for the trees.

reply to post by nunya13


No, the problem is that the One World Government for the most part alludes people on the left because it is the so called Socialist eutopia....

No boundaries, no sovereignty, everyone being equal, as in equally poor, and the implementations of other Socialist programs.

There is no way around it. No matter how much it hurts to those who advocate to the left paradigm. No matter how much you try to claim there is no left, and no right, you are just trying to ignore, and dismiss the fact that the ideals of a socialist utopia only brings a dictatorial rule.

I am certain there are several members on the left who LOVE, just LOVE that this is happening.

We have seen how some Liberals in the U.S. for example respond to the idea of "MANDATORY Community Service" with claims of "this is great, this is an excellent idea because IT WILL BE FOR THE GOOD OF ALL, AND THE NATION"....

Many members, who sorry to say advocate to the left-wing ideologies, don't see anything wrong with not allowing freedom of choice to other people because they claim "it will show people what it is to be an American, or a citizen of the world, and it will be for the good of all"...

Likewise we have had members on the left side of politics who LOVE, just LOVE the implementation of the Kyoto protocolc, and other treaties because it furthers their idealism.

No matter how many times you try to claim "this has nothing to do with Socialism", you are wrong.... It has EVERYTHING to do with Socialism/Communism..

A One World Government, One World economy, and even a One World religion can only exist because of the Socialist ideals which many people around the world have been indoctrinated into accepting.

As long as people like you keep trying to claim "this has nothing to do with the left-wing policies" the problem will persist, and the Socialist elites will try to continue to implement this plan of theirs.

If you don't take care of the root of the problem, the problem will keep on poping. It is the same thing as trying to get rid of a weed. If you don't destroy the root, the weed will just keep on growing.



[edit on 14-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


If you think this has ONLY to do with Socialism, then how do you reconcile that with the fact that all leaders from whichever paradigm, right or left, seem to be going right along with these plans.

I didn't say there was no left and right. I said that regardless of what side your on, we should all realize that we essentially are on the same side when it comes us vs. the elitist (who aren't only Socialists).

You blame even average everyday American's that are on the left as if they are to blame solely for the globalization we are seeing. As if they are all secretly socialists. Yet you fail to acknowledge that even with a Right wing government, the globalization has also been progressed towards.

As I said before, their are ideals on the left and the right that both go to serve the globalist agenda. It just depends on whose in office at the time.

Edit to add:

I think that as long as you keep blaming only one side, the problem will also persist.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by nunya13]

Originally posted by nunya13

If you think this has ONLY to do with Socialism, then how do you reconcile that with the fact that all leaders from whichever paradigm, right or left, seem to be going right along with these plans.

Did we get to this point in time by U.S. administration officials, and Presidents advocating the principles that made our forefathers fight against the King of England? Or did we get to this point because slowly, but surely the Republic has been infiltrated, and transformed into a Socialist nation?

If U.S. administrations, and their Presidents would have embraced the principles that made the Republic of the U.S. possible, if they would have embraced Republicanism as it should be we wouldn't be in the situation we are, and we wouldn't have lost the Republic of the United States to the Socialist elite bankers who are part of, and want globalization.

Haven't the globalists been taking over the United States by implementing Socialist programs, and by indoctrinating Americans through the educational system to accept Socialism/Communism as the only way to solve all the problems we have, and as the only humane way to help others around the world?

When Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, gave control over the U.S. economy to the Socialist/globalist bankers he started a chain reaction that has been transforming the Republic of the United States into a Socialist nation.

Even Woodrow Wilson years later apologized to Americans for starting this chain reaction.

If Woodrow Wilson had never given control to the Socialist/Globalist elites we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now.

Whoever controls the economy of a country, controls everything, including politics.

Since then Presidents of the United States had to awnser to the Socialist Globalist elites, and the Republic has been hijacked by this Socialist agenda of Globalization.

I don't know if you have noticed but although there have been some Republican Presidents who have continued with the plans of the Socialist elites, some of them have also warned Americans of what was happening, such as Ronald Reagan.

Some people probably don't know this, but Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat for most of his life, until about 1964 when he decided to change sides because of what Democrats had been doing to Americans.

BTW, do watch the following video and don't get stucked in the part where he says there is no "left or right", remember he had been a Democrat for most of his life until recently when he made that speech.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by nunya13
I didn't say there was no left and right. I said that regardless of what side your on, we should all realize that we essentially are on the same side when it comes us vs. the elitist (who aren't only Socialists).

I am not saying that all Americans who are left-wing are Globalists, but those who keep accepting the goals being implemented in the U.S. "for the good of all", those who keep saying that it is ok to give up our individual freedoms "for the good of all", those Americans, from whichever side of politics they are, who are siding with the Socialist elite' plan, and who want globalization through Socialism, are part of the problem.

If we are to save, and recover the Republic of the United States, we must embrace the original principles that made the forefathers of this nation fight against the King of England.

You think that the Liberals, and others that advocate the left-wing ideologies, and who readily accept these new Socialist plans, and laws being implemented to transform the Republic into another Socialist dictatorship are against globalization?

It is not the fault of most Americans that they have chosen one side or the other, and I am not going to tell you that the Republican party now is the choice, since for the most part they have also been bought.

But what I am saying is that if we are to recover the Republic of the United States as the forefathers agreed on we must go back to embracing, and choosing once again the principles which made this nation possible.

We must embrace the Constitution of the United States, as well as the other documents that are the foundation of the Republic, and we must not allow ANY politician to remove, or circumvent the rights given to us all just so their Socialist plans can be implemented.

What I am saying is that, at least in the United States, Americans should embrace the principles that made this nation great for so long.

Have there been problems? of course there have been, just like in every European country where they have embaced in one way or another Socialism.

Socialized healthcare is not going to solve any problems, but it will move us closer to the globalization plan the Socialist elites want.

Having the government taking over PRIVATE businesses, like GM, is taking us closer to the globalization plan that the Socialist elites want.

Perhaps now Americans like you can see why there has been this push, and indoctrination to make Americans accept Socialism as "the solution for all the problems we would ever have."

The globalists have won by indoctrinating European nations into becoming more, and more Socialistic, and for decades these Socialist globalist elites have been working on converting the Republic of the United States, as well as other western countries, into accepting Socialism in all forms, just so that their plan for a One World Government can be achieved.

Through Socialism all of our rights will be taken away "for the good of all, and the good of the world."

If you don't believe me just read again as to what this paper written in 1991 is all about.

BTW, yes I know that the globalization plans were made before 1991, but this paper also shows what they want to do to the United States.

Originally posted by nunya13
You blame even average everyday American's that are on the left as if they are to blame solely for the globalization we are seeing. As if they are all secretly socialists. Yet you fail to acknowledge that even with a Right wing government, the globalization has also been progressed towards.

If those Americans keep cheering for, and keep demanding for the goals the Socialist elites want, then yes those Americans are responsible for what has happened, and for what unfortunately seems will happen.

Originally posted by nunya13
As I said before, their are ideals on the left and the right that both go to serve the globalist agenda. It just depends on whose in office at the time.

Not really, by embracing true Republicanism we wouldn't have ANY official, or president wanting to give up our sovereignty. We wouldn't be having the government take over PRIVATE businesses. We wouldn't be having the government take over healthcare, or implementing any of the Socialist programs which are making the Republic part of the globalist plan.

Originally posted by nunya13
I think that as long as you keep blaming only one side, the problem will also persist.

Not really, the problem did not occur because U.S. presidents, and their administrations were embracing the Constitution of the United States, and the principles which made the forefathers fight against the King of England.

The problem has been occurring because of the slow transformation of the Republic into a Socialist country.

Some other members and I have posted similar articles, and videos in the past about former high ranking Communist officials warning us about this long term plan that the Socialist/Communist elites have had in mind for the Republic of the United States.

There are others apart from former high ranking Russian officers who have been warning us about this.


[edited for errors]



[edit on 15-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

I couldn't post the following in the above response because of lack of space.

Here are some of the people who have been warning us about what is happening.

Meet Marina Kalashnikova: a Moscow-based historian, researcher and journalist. Last August she criticized foreign “experts” for suggesting that a conflict with Moscow will not happen because Russia’s elite is too closely associated with the West. According to Kalashnikova, “The West does not care to wake from the dream of its wishful thinking, even when Moscow turns to … reanimating Stalin’s cult of personality together with the ideology of the Cheka [i.e., the secret police].”

I’m afraid that Marina Kalashnikova is right. The West has been dreaming, and the West will suffer the consequences. If the Kremlin likes Stalin, then there will be trouble. If KGB officers have established a sophisticated form of dictatorship in Russia, they have done so for a reason. We should remind our politicians, with their short memories, that Stalin and his secret police did not run a Sunday school. Furthermore, the recent trail of blood and radiation leading back to the Kremlin is like a finger pointing to the greatest danger of our time – nixed from the news media’s prattle of the hour. (A retired KGB officer recently told me that “nobody is easier to buy than a Western journalist.”)

Russia has built an alliance of dictators, what Kalashnikova calls an “alliance of the most unbridled forces and regimes.” Extremists of all kinds serve the purpose of breaking the peace, damaging Western economies, and setting the stage for a global revolution in which the balance of power shifts from the United States and the West to the Kremlin and its Chinese allies. “Among the ideas that animate general staff analysts in the Kremlin, there is the idea of diffusion,” says Kalashnikova, “It is not that the Kremlin should strive for territorial expansion and the dissemination of its [political] model. The critical thing is power and the fulcrum of an overall strategic context. In that case, even if the Americans appear influential in the post-Soviet countries, Moscow remains in charge. The [Russian] General Staff therefore has successfully expanded Moscow’s position beyond and above the old Soviet position in Africa and Latin America.” What prevails, she says, is Moscow’s “assertiveness and determination without fear of a reaction from the West.”
........

www.financialsense.com...


Watch the following video to see what one of the former Russian high ranking defectors was warning Americans about in 1985, but of course most Americans did not heed his words.

www.dailymotion.com...

There is another faction of Socialists who seem to want a different form of globalist One World government, but the only difference is who would be in power of this Socialist One World Government.

No matter which side of Socialist/Communist One World Government you want to choose, neither will do Americans, or individuals in other countries a favor.

Both of them are a form of totalitarian Socialist regime that will suppress most people by taking away our rights "for the good of all, for the good of the environment, and the world."




[edit on 15-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]