(Are we Canadians? Or are we a puppet state of the United Nations?)
Here is the list on what exactly the UN gets its tentacles into. Read through the list, and make your own decisions.
(1) UN Global Migration Compact
Let’s import 258 million people into West. Forget language, culture, religion, customs, security or health and safety. And of course, taxpayers should foot the bill CLICK HERE, for the Globalist Compact. CLICK HERE, for 1 of the reviews.
(2) UN Paris Accord
Never mind that carbon dioxide is caused by breathing. Let’s bankrupt our nation to fight “global warming”. Or is it climate change? CLICK HERE, for the Paris Accord itself. CLICK HERE, for a review of the Accord. In particular, review Articles 2, 4, 9. CLICK HERE, for more info on the scam.
(3) UN Parliamentary Assembly
Yes, the UN actually wants to create a world government. Imagine your nation’s interests being “democratically” outvoted. Death of nations. CLICK HERE, for the proposed global gov’t CLICK HERE, for “Mein Kampf” 2.0 CLICK HERE, for review of the proposal.
(4) Repatriating Terrorists
It doesn’t matter if a group wants to decapitate non-believers, and cause death and destruction. Remember: A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. CLICK HERE, for the UN supporting repatriation. CLICK HERE, for citizenship for terrorists.
(5) UN Global Blasphemy Ban (2008)
If you value free speech, then a global ban on “Islamophobia”, also referred to a “religious defamation” ban, should be very concerning CLICK HERE, for a non-binding global ban. CLICK HERE, for a review of the idea. CLICK HERE, for dishonest propaganda about “World Hijab Day”.
(6) Agenda 21 (June 1992)
Signed by “Conservative” Brian Mulroney, to funnel money into a vague open ended global development plan CLICK HERE, for Agenda 21 plan. CLICK HERE, for a brief review, although it doesn’t really do the 351 page document justice.
(7) Agenda 2030 (September 2015)
Signed by “Conservative” Stephen Harper, to keep funnelling money into a vague and open ended global development plan. CLICK HERE, for Agenda 2030 text. CLICK HERE, for the review.
(8) UN Global Citizenship Agenda
Get ready to have your children brainwashed and indoctrinated on a global scale. There are no nations, no values, cultures that are worth preserving. Remember students, we are all global citizens. CLICK HERE, for global citizenship education CLICK HERE, for opinion on the “education”
(9) UN Internet Governance
They call it “digital cooperation”, but this is a UN scheme to have global regulation over internet content. Not that it will ever be abused. CLICK HERE, for so-called “digital cooperation”. CLICK HERE, for response to this nonsense. CLICK HERE, for Liberal Party of Canada endorsement of UN internet governance.
(9) UN Forum On Forests
Does your nation have plenty of forest areas? Don’t worry, the UN will take control of that too CLICK HERE, for the forum on forests. CLICK HERE, for the review.
(10) UN Urban Development Agenda
UN wants to regulate city development as well. CLICK HERE, for UN Urban Development Agenda.
(11) UN Declaration On Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Ready for some virtue signalling about Indigenous rights? Want to have the UN promote the idea of parallel societies, and prevent any actual development? Check this out. CLICK HERE, for the UN DRIP. CLICK HERE, for virtue signalling from John Horgan, BC’s communist premier. CLICK HERE, for a review of the declaration.
(12) UN Covenant Of Right To Life
UN believes that everyone has the right to life, except of course to unborn babies. Serial killers and rapists have rights, but the most vulnerable do not. CLICK HERE, for the Covenant. See Paragraph 9 in particular. CLICK HERE, for abortion for children.
(13) UN Gender Language Agenda
UN considers “language” to be very important, biological realities notwithstanding. Apparently misgendering someone is as horrific as honour killings or FGM. CLICK HERE, for gender inclusive language. CLICK HERE, for a review of the agenda.
(14) UN Democratic Agenda
UN decides that democracy is important. And just to show it, the UN also wants “its” version of democracy to be implemented. CLICK HERE, for UN democracy agenda. CLICK HERE, for review of the agenda.
(15) UN, MasterCard & “Financial Inclusion”
Every globalist plan needs a set system of financing. Also worth noting, globalism itself can be the means of “financing” an agenda, such as what Mastercard is pushing. CLICK HERE, for the UN and Mastercard. CLICK HERE, for “Mastercard is the final boss”.
(16) UN & Lawyers Without Borders
If lawyers (insert lawyer joke here) weren’t bad enough, the UN sends them to other countries around the world. Keep in mind, they don’t represent or defend clients. Instead, they act as consultants, mainly for the UN and other globalist organizations. CLICK HERE, for Lawyers Without Borders site. CLICK HERE, for a review of the organization.
(17) UN and Sexual Exploitation
This writes itself. The UN takes sexual abuse and sexual exploitation seriously, especially in the case of children. Sounds lovely, if not so hypocritical. CLICK HERE, for the UN discussing the issue. CLICK HERE, for more information.
(18) ICELI Sustainability For Local Govts
Consider them globalist-in-training. Getting cities to adopt (for all practical purposes) UN agendas. Over 1500+ so far have submitted to UN agenda. CLICK HERE, for ICLEI main page. CLICK HERE, for review of ICLEI.
(19) UN Promoting Replacement Migration Across 1st World
The UN believes that falling birthrates across the developed world can be solved by importing large numbers of migrants, aka “replacement migration”. Nations like Hungary, however, would rather spend the money to boost their own populations. CLICK HERE, for the Hungarian/UN contrast CLICK HERE, for UN policy directives on “replacement migration”.
Anyone disagree with the conclusion?
(20) World Economic Forum
This Switzerland based forum endorses globalist business practices in the name of ever expanding growth and trade. To seem “righteous”, however, all sorts of SJW/NPC themes are thrown in everywhere. WEF makes its policies appear to be “moral and humane” practices CLICK HERE, for the World Economic Forum. CLICK HERE, for a brief review of WEF, and overall impressions.
(21) UN Data Hub
Think your government respects your privacy? Think your data won’t be shared globally by those seeking to create a one-world order? That’s both cute, and naïve. Data mining and contrasting is all the rage in trying to implement Agenda 2030. CLICK HERE, for UN SDG Data Hub. CLICK HERE, for response and info on data hub.
(22) UN Principles For Responsible Investment (& ESG)
Watch credit ratings agencies and major investors crawl into bed with globalist virtue signalling. Goodbye to independent and impartial investment advice and decisions. CLICK HERE, for UN PRI/ESG Agenda CLICK HERE, for review to these ideas.
(23) UN Security Council, Legalised Aggression
An elite group of 15 nations sits around the table deciding which conflicts are worth supporting, and which side to support. Permanent 5: US, Russia, China, UK, France have veto power to sabotage any resolution. CLICK HERE, for link to the UNSC website. CLICK HERE, for a review on the Security Council.
(24) CPP Being Invested In Offshore Globalist Ventures
You work hard for your pension, but do you actually think it will be there for you when you retire? Stop being so selfish and invest in risky, speculative projects overseas. CLICK HERE, for link to the UNSC website. CLICK HERE, for a review on CPP Mumbai venture.
(25) New Development Finance, Predatory Lending
The Western World is bled dry for these so-called “climate change” initiatives. Money we borrow is then transferred to the 3rd world. But in an evil bait-and-switch, the money is “loaned” to nations that have little to no prospect of ever paying it back. Debt is “forgiven” when sovereignty is transferred. CLICK HERE, for New Development Finance (178 Pages). CLICK HERE, for the New Development Financing Agenda. CLICK HERE, for the New Development Financing, the bait-and-switch.
(26) UN Convention On Preventing/Punishing Genocide
The following are illegal:
(a) Trying to wipe out a group,
(b) Waging lawfare against them,
(c) Trying to reduce their births so they go extinct.
These things are considered genocide, “except” when multiculturalism is pushed on societies. Typically these are developed, Western nations. CLICK HERE, for 1948 UN Convention Against Genocide. CLICK HERE, for multiculturalism violates convention against genocide.
(27) UN Global Taxation Efforts
We are now into global taxation. All of these so-called humanitarian or environmental efforts are just attempts to tax people for globalist causes.
See “UN Taxation” on right side bar CLICK HERE, for article on UN taxation.
WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?
See this article, from November 2018, promoting that idea.
LWOB was conceived in January of 2000 to create a global association of lawyers committed to internationally oriented Pro Bono service and rule of law.
It is not clear from this. Does the group wish:
1/ To enforce and aid “local” people in their own countries?
2/ To promote a single legal standard?
Who Are LWOB Supporter?
If you or your organization would like to become a founding partner, pro bono supporter (in kind service), or financial supporter of LWOB, please contact us.
LWOB supporters include lawyers and institutions from the most highly regarded circles in the international legal community who provide generous financial support and pro bono human and in-kind resources to LWOB programming and projects. LWOB depends upon the generosity of its donors and funds from grants to underwrite operational overhead and non-grant funded rule of law programming.
LWOB welcomes its newest supporter, easyprojects.net and recognizes them for their generous donation of premium access to their project management tool: EasyProjects. The program is straightforward, intuitive and combines timeline management, assignment, time keeping and management all in one easy to use intuitive program. Thanks Easy Projects!
I find this very odd. LWOB doesn’t list who its supporters or partners are. Considering the support they give to a non-profit, a little name recognition seems the least they can do.
Who Is On LWOB Board?
LWOB is managed by three relatively small boards and an advisory council consisting of representatives from LWOB’s major private donors. Our board members on all three boards are “working” board members, who tend to be very engaged with the organization by contributing in areas of their respective expertise, volunteering to represent LWOB at events, or volunteering as trial advocacy trainers and trial observers. Our board members, while concentrated in the legal profession, include individuals from accountancy, public relations, and educational sectors.
– The Executive Board of Directors chaired by Anne B. Rudman, Esq. She is joined by board members: Steven Wade, Stephen Hibbard, and Joel Cohen.
– The International Advisory Board of Directors, chaired by Dr. Amii OMara Ottunnu
– The local Connecticut Advisory Board chaired by Priscilla Pappadia, Executive Director of Lawyers for Children America
– Advisory Council members are: Laura Ellsworth, Stephen Hibbard, Joel Cohen, Gregory Palmer, Saralyn Cohen, Sara Lulo and Andrew Jones.
Also interesting. They list who their board members are, but not any of the supporting organizations which are behind their work. Is there a reason they don’t want their names listed?
LWOB develops the programming typically supported by grants that cover the hard costs of producing the pro bono work product or deliverable. We commit to our pro bono partners that their work “will never end up in a file drawer.” Where 3rd party financial underwriting is not available, LWOB will often tap into an array of in-kind supporters to self-fund and implement worthwhile programs. The ongoing Liberia Digest Project (now 10 years old) is one such project that launched with 3rd party funding in 2008, but continues now with generous pro bono and in-kind support from Linklaters and Thomson Reuters.
While our work is apolitical and neutrally oriented, security issues that have arisen around the world prevent us from disclosing the location and timetables of our work in real time. We hope you will appreciate that our effort to keep our volunteers safe and out of harm’s way is paramount and essential to the long-term sustainability of our pro bono model.
Linklaters and Thompson “are” mentioned as supporters, but oddly not in the “supporters” section. It look a little browsing to find this. It would be nice to know who these other supporters are
Security issues prevent you from disclosing your location and timetables in real time. This comes across as a red flag. If all you were doing was providing basic legal services, who would care what your real timetable is? Why is it necessary to operate entirely behind the scene?
3. Some Red Flags
From the frequently asked questions section:
What is Lawyers Without Borders?
An organization that is bringing lawyers together from around the world to give back through pro-bono service — supporting rule of law, economic development, conflict resolution, peacebuilding and sustainability in the legal sector throughout the world.
Do you represent individuals?
LWOB does not “represent” individuals. It is not a resource for individuals seeking personal pro bono representation.
From the main page:
Lawyers Without Borders is a not-for-profit 501c3 corporation whose mission is to promote rule of law around the world by leveraging and promoting pro bono service to meet the needs of the underserved, build capacity in justice sectors and support transitions and development aimed at protecting human rights, all with a neutral orientation.
So this group doesn’t actually represent clients. It just promotes rule of law around the world. Strange considering that they claim to prefer silent work to marketing.
LWOB holds special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council Division (ECOSOC) of the United Nations, has associative status with the United Nations Department of Public Information (DPI) and is accredited to the Department at the UN on the question of Palestine. LWOB and its lawyers engage regularly with the United Nations. LWOB online volunteers through the United Nations Online Volunteering service have been recognized for four successive years for their contributions to human rights and development through their work with LWOB.
Now we get to it: LWOB is basically a consulting firm for the UN. Although the site does not specify it, one can assume that a large amount of funding (if not most), comes from the UN.
LWOB doesn’t actually represents clients. Rather, they observe and consult in order to promote a certain “international law”. Yet another tentacle of the UN.
Video by ShortFatOtaku. This is based on the research from Nick Monroe, about payment processors refusing to do business with people based on their political ideologies.
Matt Christiansen meets with Jacqueline Hart of Patreon. From this conversation, it becomes clear that a commitment to free speech isn’t on the agenda here.
First Video is a stunningly thorough video from ShortFatOtaku, who does a piece concluding that Mastercard (and other credit card companies possibly) are behind the deplatforming of various online content creators. Yes, the research and leg work had been done by Nick Munroe, but it’s still quite the compilation.
Second Video is a response from YouTuber Matt Christiansen and a call he got from a Patreon representative, regarding Patreon cancelling certain accounts
Other Videos shows a partnership between Mastercard and various organizations which are promoting mass migration to the Western World.
ShortFatOtaku (SFO) argues that MasterCard is behind the censorship of certain voices who are considered “unfriendly” to their agenda, which is “financial inclusion”. MasterCard wants to grow its business, and sees mass migration as a way to achieve that aim. Voices hostile to that goal are to be silenced.
SFO is definitely correct that Mastercard is pushing for expansion (a lot into Africa), trying to get more people “financially included”. And the reasons are hardly altruistic.
Let’s take a look at the MasterCard FAQ:
Frequently Asked Questions Why is the Mastercard Lab for Financial Inclusion important?
With two billion adults living without access to mainstream financial tools and services, there is an urgent need to speed up the creation of commercially viable products and services on a global scale.
Why is Mastercard Lab for Financial Inclusion located in Africa?
We believe that this region represents some of the most successful countries in terms of implementation and reach of digital financial services. While the lab is based in Kenya, it does have both regional and global reach.
What is the Lab’s proven innovation methodology?
We have implemented a focused, practiced and proven process that includes broad ideation as well as technical and business evaluation leading to prototyping and pilot execution and finally execution. At every step, we combine Mastercard best practices gained from operating in the payments arena for more than 50 years with leading-edge technologies.
What does it mean to be financially excluded?
When you are excluded, you don’t have access to the basic financial tools we take for granted like saving or borrowing money or getting insurance. It means being stuck in a cash-based economy that makes you vulnerable to increased crime, inconvenience and higher costs.
What’s Mastercard’s strategy for meeting the challenge of financial inclusion?
Our approach to financial inclusion is not through corporate social responsibility or philanthropy. We address it by leveraging our existing digital payments technology and applying that through public and private partnerships.
What does a future where more people are financially included look like?
The future is a global economy that is closer to being truly global because we’re more connected digitally and less dependent on cash. Increasing financial inclusion:
-expands the middle class
-generates equal opportunities
-increases social engagement and economic mobility
-narrows income inequality
-empowers people
When MasterCard talks of “financial inclusion”, they mean getting more people into banking, and into the credit system. Why do they want this? Because it grows their customer base.
Center for financial inclusion is located in Africa? Presumably this is because Mastercard sees the most potential for growth there.
Being “financially excluded” is touted as a danger and gross inconvenience, such as being more susceptible to being robbed, or having to pay higher fees. But there is one obvious omission: using cash means transactions are virtually impossible to trace
Regarding the list at the end: 1/ Expand the middle class, 2/ equal opportunities, 3/ economic mobility, etc… Mastercard sets it up such that “their” services are necessary to achieve this livelihood.
What About Payment Processors Like Patreon?
People Who Can’t Use Patreon
.
Because Patreon empowers people financially, we impose restrictions not only on the types of content and projects that can be funded through Patreon, but also on which people can and cannot receive funds through Patreon.
People Who Can’t Use Patreon
.
After creating a Patreon page, any creator caught in the act or convicted of making credible violent threats, committing violent crimes, child abuse, malicious doxing, coordinating nonviolent harm (such as fraud, money laundering and gambling), or encouraging others to do any of these activities, may be banned from using Patreon.
Dangerous Organizations
.
People with a dangerous criminal history or a known affiliation with violent or dangerous groups (including terrorist or cyber terrorist organizations, organized criminal groups, and violent hate groups), cannot receive funds through Patreon, no matter the purpose or apparent intention of their Patreon page.
.
You can discuss these groups on Patreon but any creator praising or actively supporting these groups or their leaders won’t be allowed on Patreon.
This sounds okay, but keep in mind, that these are the days when fairly innocuous comments are viewed as hate speech. Also, if people have vocal opinions on issues which are “counter” to what MasterCard, Visa, Patreon, PayPal, or some other financial processor, would they be shut down?
More and more, the answer seems to be yes.
Further, in the phone call between Matt Christiansen and Jacqueline Hart of Patreon, Hart states that Patreon cannot do anything they want. “We are not Visa or MasterCard.” This raises an interesting question: If Visa or MasterCard didn’t want someone spreading their views online, could they pressure Patreon to ban them?
Who Sponsors “Financial Inclusion” at the UN?
Again, see here.
31 January 2018
Last week in Davos, an influential group of CEOs from a diverse set of leading multinational companies formed a partnership to accelerate financial inclusion around the world. They were convened by the United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Advocate for Inclusive Finance for Development, Queen Máxima of the Netherlands.
Members of the CEO Partnership for Financial Inclusion represent a wide range of businesses, including banks (Rabobank, Santander), fintechs (Ant Financial, PayPal), payments technology (Mastercard), insurance (AXA), mobile network operators (Bharti Airtel, Telenor), and consumer goods companies (PepsiCo, Unilever).
Gathering for the first time during the World Economic Forum, the CEOs agreed to use their complementary assets, expertise, and collective commitment to meaningfully expand financial services for the 2 billion people who currently have no access to basic tools such as savings, insurance, payments, or credit.
“Advancing financial inclusion can lead to good business opportunities, and private sector-driven solutions could really accelerate our progress,” said the Special Advocate. “Expanding partnerships among this varied group of private actors will be key to increasing access and usage of financial services for underserved people.”
Let’s see, who is on that list
Members of the CEO Partnership for Financial Inclusion
Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, UN Secretary-General’s Special Advocate for Inclusive Finance for Development
Mastercard
Santander
Telenor
AXA
Rabobank
Eric Jing, Ant Financial
Sunil Mittal, Bharti Airtel
PepsiCo
Unilever
PayPal
ShortFatOtaku correctly points out that Jacqueline Hart had legitimate concerns about having the phone call with Matt Christiansen recorded. She wants to keep Patreon successful, while still being able to ban people at will.
Christiansen repeatedly calls Hart out for her nonsense. He notes 3 critical points
1/ Patreon is not a free speech platform.
2/ Patreon is not a free market platform.
3/ Patreon enforces its rules subjectively.
In the card Hart lets it slip that Patreon has rules to follow. The implication is obvious “we are not Visa or Mastercard”. Patreon is forced to tow the line of “actual” payment processors. SFO concludes that the credit card companies, specifically Mastercard, is behind the selective deplatforming.
SFO goes to very extensive detail pointing out the connections between Mastercard and other processors. He also details the staffing and relational overlap between the companies. Mass migration is not used as a humanitarian effort, but as a business venture. Obviously, people can’t be publicly criticizing and exposing it.
It is a first class expose.
Is Mastercard the final boss?
In all fairness to SFO, he is partially right here. Mastercard is very much involved. Mastercard definitely is pushing for the “financial inclusion” agenda, and they are certainly pushing for the mass migration to the Western World.
However, Mastercard is but one “boss” here. There are a great many “level bosses” to deal with here.
The United Nations interferes in national governance all over the world. Here are just a few exerps.
2005 World Summit Outcome I. Values and principles
1. We, Heads of State and Government, have gathered at United Nations Headquarters in New York from 14 to 16 September 2005.
2. We reaffirm our faith in the United Nations and our commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter and international law, which are indispensable foundations of a more peaceful, prosperous and just world, and reiterate our determination to foster strict respect for them.
3. We reaffirm the United Nations Millennium Declaration, which we adopted at the dawn of the twenty-first century. We recognize the valuable role of the major United Nations conferences and summits in the economic, social and related fields, including the Millennium Summit, in mobilizing the international community at the local, national, regional and global levels and in guiding the work of the United Nations.
Quite the loyalty oath here….
6. We reaffirm the vital importance of an effective multilateral system, in accordance with international law, in order to better address the multifaceted and interconnected challenges and threats confronting our world and to achieve progress in the areas of peace and security, development and human rights, underlining the central role of the United Nations, and commit ourselves to promoting and strengthening the effectiveness of the Organization through the implementation of its decisions and resolutions.
7. We believe that today, more than ever before, we live in a global and interdependent world. No State can stand wholly alone. We acknowledge that collective security depends on effective cooperation, in accordance with international law, against transnational threats.
8. We recognize that current developments and circumstances require that we urgently build consensus on major threats and challenges. We commit ourselves to translating that consensus into concrete action, including addressing the root causes of those threats and challenges with resolve and determination.
9. We acknowledge that peace and security, development and human rights are the pillars of the United Nations system and the foundations for collective security and well-being. We recognize that development, peace and security and human rights are interlinked and mutually reinforcing. 10. We reaffirm that development is a central goal by itself and that sustainable development in its economic, social and environmental aspects constitutes a key element of the overarching framework of United Nations activities.
This all sounds lovely and flowery, but are nations actually swearing off independence and autonomy? It goes on and on, with “independent” nations swearing and affirming their commitment to being collectively governed.
“The UN General Assembly and democracy
Since 1988, the General Assembly has adopted at least one resolution annually dealing with some aspect of democracy. Democracy has emerged as a cross-cutting issue in the outcomes of the major United Nations conferences and summits since the 1990s and in the internationally agreed development goals they produced. Member States at the World Summit in September 2005 reaffirmed that “democracy is a universal value based on the freely expressed will of people to determine their political, economic, social and cultural systems and their full participation in all aspects of their lives
The Summit Outcome Document also stressed that “democracy, development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing,” and pointed out that “while democracies share common features, there is no single model of democracy.” Member States resolved to promote increased representation of women in Government decision-making bodies, including to ensure their equal opportunity to participate fully in the political process.
The World leaders pledged in the Millennium Declaration to spare no effort to promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law, as well as respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. They resolved to strive for the full protection and promotion in all countries of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights for all and to strengthen the capacity of all countries to implement the principles and practices of democracy and respect for human rights.”
This all sounds good, but why does the UN see the need to meddle in everyone’s elections? Is there anything the UN “won’t involve itself in?
Of course, it wouldn’t be complete without pandering to gender quotas
Here are some of the goals:
In 2000, the Commission recommended a series of important legislative, institutional and practical measures to consolidate democracy (resolution 2000/47); and in 2002, the Commission declared the following as essential elements of democracy:
-Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms
-Freedom of association
-Freedom of expression and opinion
-Access to power and its exercise in accordance with the rule of law
-The holding of periodic free and fair elections by universal suffrage and by secret ballot as the expression of the will of the people
-A pluralistic system of political parties and organizations
-The separation of powers
-The independence of the judiciary
-Transparency and accountability in public administration
-Free, independent and pluralistic media
Since its establishment in 2006, the Human Rights Council (successor to the Commission) has adopted a number of resolutions highlighting the interdependent and mutually reinforcing relationship between democracy and human rights. Recent examples include resolutions 19/36 and 28/14 on “Human rights, democracy and the rule of law”.
Keep in mind, that the Human Rights Council is made up of memberstates which don’t believe in human rights. Also, the Council for the Status of Women contains memberstates which don’t believe women are equal, or should have rights.
Promoting the idea of democracy sounds great, but also keep in mind some of the other ideas this globalist organization is behind:
1/ UN proposes a world government (UNPA)
2/ UN proposes internet regulation (digital cooperation)
3/ UN wants to ban criticism of Islam globally
4/ UN want global migration compact
5/ UN pushed Agenda 21
6/ UN pushed Agenda 2021
7/ UN pushed Agenda 2030
8/ UN promotes gender/language agenda
9/ UN promotes forestry control
10/ UN wants urban development control
11/ UN pushed Paris Accord
12/ UN pushed climate change scam
13/ UN promotes abortion as human right
The idea of building up democratic systems across the globe sounds very appealing. But considering how much the UN controls, it is difficult to not view any such government as a UN puppet.
The UN wants governments “democratically” elected, as long as those governments support UN agendas.
Check out Australian YouTuber Daisy Cousens, for an interesting review on the Green New Deal. Thorough, and on point in her critique.
1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam
CLICK HERE, for #1: major lies that the climate frauds tell. CLICK HERE, for #2: review of the Paris Accord. CLICK HERE, for #3: Bill C-97, the GHG Pollution Pricing Act. CLICK HERE, for #4: in 3-2 decision, Sask. COA allows carbon tax. CLICK HERE, for #5: controlled opposition to carbon tax. CLICK HERE, for #6: controlled opposition Cons ==> Supreme Court. CLICK HERE, for #7: climate bonds pitched as $100T industry. CLICK HERE, for #8: Joel Wood pitching various pricing options. CLICK HERE, for #9: Mark Carney and UN climate finance. CLICK HERE, for #10: Goldman Sachs, Obama, Clinton, Chicago CX. CLICK HERE, for #11: Coronavirus, Pirbright Inst, Gates, Depopulation.
2. Important Links
CLICK HERE, for the Green New Deal FAQ. CLICK HERE, for House Resolution 109, Green New Deal. CLICK HERE, for the Forbes article referenced in the FAQ. CLICK HERE, for the Huffington Post article referenced in the FAQ.
3. Context For This Review
Newly elected US Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has announced an extremely ambitious “Green New Deal”. It will not only save the world, help eco-systems, dramatically boost the US economy, phase out carbon industries, but it will provide economic security for everyone — even those not willing to work.
Of course, don’t bother asking how much this will cost. The only question that matters (apparently) is the cost if nothing is done. That will be the end of the world as we know it.
Many still question this economics graduate, just because she doesn’t know how economics work. But that is just being divisive.
Additionally, it will pander to every imaginable group who is oppressed. The world may be ending, but it doesn’t mean we have to put aside such issues as gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc….
Please don’t be selfish here. Wondering about (a) your job security; (b) your lifestyle; (c) your private property; (d) your civil rights, etc are inconsequential. All that matters is saving the world.
Some may wonder what will happen if they “refuse” to go along with this massive, sweeping, government program. Afterall, many are resistant to change. But we will have to see what the penalties will be later. Perhaps some amendments will be added. Daisy Cousens (in the above video), makes the valid point that in order to see this deal go through, government force will be required.
4. The FAQ Section
“What is the Green New Deal?
.
The Green New Deal is a 10-year plan to create a greenhouse gas neutral society that creates unprecedented levels of prosperity and wealth for all while ensuring economic and environmental justice and security.
The Green New Deal achieves this through a World War 2 scale mobilization that focuses the robust and creative economic engine of the United States on reversing climate change by fully rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, restoring our natural ecosystems, dramatically expanding renewable power generation, overhauling our entire transportation system, upgrading all our buildings, jumpstarting US clean manufacturing, transforming US agriculture, and putting our nation’s people to work doing what they do best: making the impossible possible.”
1/ The first part says that it is to create a greenhouse gas neutral society, yet also promises unprecedented levels of wealth and prosperity.
2/ Logistical question: how do you ensure economic justice when implementing such a drastic plan? It sounds expensive.
3/ So fighting climate change is like fighting Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? Okay.
4/ To dramatically expand renewable power, wouldn’t that involve developing on those lands you want to restore?
5/ Upgrade all buildings? Does that include all homes? How is such a thing possible, and will people be put up in hotels while their homes are being upgraded?
6/ Jumpstarting US clean manufacturing? Will private or public funds be poured into that? Also, won’t you also be putting a lot of other people out of work? Look at Ontario or BC to see how those “clean initiatives” have played out.
7/ If this enviro shift will lead to unprecedented levels of prosperity, why is it no private companies have attempted anything like this (even on a small scale)? Aren’t they all greedy capitalists?
8/ About this crumbling infrastructure, will it all be demolished and new ones built, or is it geared towards massive renovations?
9/ What will happen to people who refuse to go along with it?
Any large-scale transformation of society can create the risk of some people slipping through the cracks. That’s why the Green New Deal also calls for an upgrade to the basic economic securities enjoyed by all people in the US to ensure everybody benefits from the newly created wealth. It guarantees to everyone:
-A job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
-High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
-High-quality health care
-Clean air and water
-Healthy food
-Safe, affordable, adequate housing
-An economic environment free of monopolies
-Economic security to all who are unable or UNWILLING TO WORK
(my emphasis above). That’s right. It guarantees everyone “unwilling” to work economic security. Not those unable to work, but anyone “unwilling”. This is doomed to fail, since there will be absolutely no incentive to work.
People will figure out very quickly it makes no sense to work and pay taxes for non-workers, when they can just be one of those non-workers, and get money for free. It will kill any incentive to be productive.
“Why is such a large-scale mobilization necessary right now?
A recent IPCC report declared that global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate. This calls for global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions of 40 to 60 percent by 2030. The U.S. contributes 20% of global emissions. To hit these global targets, the US must not only get to a greenhouse gas emissions neutral society by 2030, but it must also lead this change abroad to avert climate catastrophe.”
1/ So it’s not that the world will end in 12 years, but that there “may” be a rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, (which was 1700s)
2/ IPCC has a very lengthy history of making wrong predictions. Does that matter to you?
3/ Also, if greenhouse emissions were such a critical factor, wouldn’t all this industrialization you’re calling for make the problem worse?
4/ Wouldn’t planting a lot more trees take a lot of this impact away? Just hire poor highly-indebted college students.
“How will you pay for the Green New Deal?
The Green New Deal is a massive investment program, not an expenditure. The question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what is the cost of inaction, and what will we do with our new shared prosperity created by the investments in the Green New Deal.
We will finance the investments for the Green New Deal the same way we paid for the original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for the rich, and decades of war – with public money appropriated by Congress. Further, government can take an equity stake in Green New Deal projects so the public gets a return on its investment. We already know that investments in infrastructure create huge returns on investment. The interstate highway system returned more than $6 in economic productivity for every $1 it cost. Similarly, investments in upgrading and transforming industry are a chance to grow the wealth of our nation dramatically.”
This completely dodges the question. Leftists tend to refer to all spending as “investments” in order to deflect attention. No responsible government would simply commit to open-ended spending of this sort. The US is already $22 trillion (yes, trillion) in debt. Where would this money come from? And will people be “forced” to pay for and go along with this scheme?
The Huffington Post article echoes that mentality.
“We must give up our obsession with trying to ‘pay for’ everything with new revenue or spending cuts.”
“Will this hurt communities that rely on fossil fuels jobs?
The Green New Deal will prioritize creating high-quality, family wage-supporting union jobs in communities that rely on fossil fuel industries. It will ensure that all communities have a better alternative for high-wage work before they transition away from fossil fuel industry based work.”
This is wishful thinking. Pumping almost endless amounts of money into an open-ended, and largely unquantifiable “World War II” agenda “may” lead to a job boom. But once the borrowed money runs out (hint: it will), it would lead to a regional collapse as those new jobs disappear.
“Is this an environmental plan? Why do you have things like universal health care and other social safety net measures in here?
The Green New Deal is a plan to make a full-scale transition of our economy that puts jobs and justice first. This plan will require a strong social safety net so that every U.S. person can make this transition comfortably and nobody falls through the cracks in the process. If we want to be able to mobilize our economy fully, we can’t afford to have employees stuck in their current jobs because they are afraid to lose health care or workers unable to participate because they can’t afford the education and training programs. We also need to be sure that workers currently employed in fossil fuel industries have higher-wage and better jobs available to them to be able to make this transition, and a federal jobs guarantee ensures that no worker is left behind. We believe that the economic securities and programs for justice and equity laid out in this Green New Deal resolution are a bare minimum of what we need to do to successfully execute the Green New Deal.”
1/ So, this is to dismantle the US economy altogether and replace it with a new one?
2/ We can’t afford to have people stuck in those low paying jobs, yet you are going to shut down entire industries.
3/ Your plan for a new infrastructure involves pumping money in indefinitely. Until these systems are operational, they won’t be running, or able to produce anything else.
4/ This will involve creating a whole separate economy to build up all these new energy efficient systems, and overhauling existing buildings.
5/ Where will all this money come from? Wait, not supposed to ask.
6/ What will happen to transportation when all air travel is phased out?
7/ How does any of this “reduce” carbon emissions?
8/ Can we assume that “going along” with this plan will be voluntary? Or will it be forced?
Okay, now we get to the House Resolution itself, and the introduction of incessant identity politics.
First, here comes the fear mongering, and the costs of doing nothing. Take everything will a grain of salt.
“(3) global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause—
(A) mass migration from the regions most affected by climate change;
(B) more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100;
(C) wildfires that, by 2050, will annually burn at least twice as much forest area in the western United States than was typically burned by wildfires in the years preceding 2019;
(D) a loss of more than 99 percent of all coral reefs on Earth;
(E) more than 350,000,000 more people to be exposed globally to deadly heat stress by 2050; and
(F) a risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the United States; and
(4) global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrialized levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate, which will require—
(A) global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030; and
(B) net-zero global emissions by 2050;”
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez supports open borders and mass migration. She openly calls to abolish immigration control entirely in the US. So how will mass migration to a high-consumption society “reduce” carbon emissions?
B/ $500B in lost economic output, yet we are not supposed to ask about money when funding this new deal?
C/ A source would be nice.
D/ These are the same scientists who say the north pole would disappear.
E/ 350M more people exposed to heat stress? I thought temperatures were only going to raise 1.5 degrees Celcius?!
F/ A risk to $1 trillion worth of public infrastructure by a temperature raise of 1.5 degrees Celcius? And I thought money was no issue.
4/ “Pre-industrialised periods” means before 1800s.
A/ 40-60% cut? Yet you want to phase out carbon entirely.
B/ Plant more trees. Problem solved.
“Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as “systemic injustices”) by disproportionately affecting indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);”
The references to identity politics are rampant throughout the bill.
“(2) a 4-decade trend of wage stagnation, deindustrialization, and antilabor policies that has led to—
(A) hourly wages overall stagnating since the 1970s despite increased worker productivity;
(B) the third-worst level of socioeconomic mobility in the developed world before the Great Recession;
(C) the erosion of the earning and bargaining power of workers in the United States; and
(D) inadequate resources for public sector workers to confront the challenges of climate change at local, State, and Federal levels; and”
It’s an interesting double standard here. Ocasio-Cortez keeps bringing up wages, finances and economic situations when it comes to getting support for the bill. Yet she continuously avoids financial discussion when it comes for paying for this green new deal. Can’t have it both ways.
“(3) the greatest income inequality since the 1920s, with—
(A) the top 1 percent of earners accruing 91 percent of gains in the first few years of economic recovery after the Great Recession;
(B) a large racial wealth divide amounting to a difference of 20 times more wealth between the average white family and the average black family; and
(C) a gender earnings gap that results in women earning approximately 80 percent as much as men, at the median;”
A/ Having an economic disparity by itself is not evidence of injustice. People who are highly driven tend to far out earn their unproductive counterparts. But remember, you wanted to create a system which paid people a living wage for refusing to work.
B/ Is this an apples-to-oranges comparison? Would Ocasio-Cortez be comparing European living standards to African living standards? Or is she suggesting this gap is all within America?
Remember, the 1% is very small.
So, if an average black family earned $30,000/year, does it mean the average white family earned $600,00/year? That doesn’t add up
C/ The gender pay gap is simply the earnings difference between men and women overall. Women tend to earn less since they take more time off to raise children, and often choose lower paying jobs.
If you could get the same work from a woman as a man, and just pay her less, then wouldn’t there be an incentive to fire all the men and only hire women?
“(3) a Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses; and”
Sorry to rain on the parade, but what happens if large segments of these groups DON’T want the deal, and the burdens it imposes on them? Will their will be ignored?
Now, let’s talk about how this will be implemented. Again, the Resolution doesn’t take into account what will happen if people say no.
“(4) to achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization, a Green New Deal will require the following goals and projects—
(A) providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization;
(B) ensuring that the Federal Government takes into account the complete environmental and social costs and impacts of emissions through—
(i) existing laws;
(ii) new policies and programs; and
(iii) ensuring that frontline and vulnerable communities shall not be adversely affected;
(C) providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so that all people of the United States may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization;
(D) making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries;
(E) directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries;
(F) ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level;
(G) ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition;
(H) guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States;
(I) strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment;
(J) strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors;
(K) enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections—
(i) to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas; and
(ii) to grow domestic manufacturing in the United States;
(L) ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and that eminent domain is not abused;
(M) obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect indigenous peoples and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous peoples, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous peoples;
(N) ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies; and
(O) providing all people of the United States with—
(i) high-quality health care;
(ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing;
(iii) economic security; and
(iv) clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature.”
While this may be well intentioned, it is clearly not realistic
A/ Financing is important, but you need to provide “way” more detail on this.
B/ Take the societal impacts into account? Okay. What happens if your own studies say that your program is impractical?
C/ High education to everyone? Government controlled, or free market?
D/ Making investment in research? Okay, but how long will the research take to complete? Remember, this is only a 10 year plan
E/ Directing investments? Great, though again, we need more detail.
F/ Ensuring the democratic process? That “sounds” great, but this can only be achieved by “taking away” people’s rights.
G/ Guaranteed jobs and training?
H/ More guaranteed jobs.
I/ Strengthening their rights, yet this deal can only be achieved by “removing” rights and imposing it.
J/ Strengthening H&S laws? Normally I would be totally on board with this, but it context of everything else, it is chilling what the details will look like.
K/ This may be poor wording, but how does one “transfer pollution”? Also, why would you worry about borders? Don’t you want to abolish ICE?
L/ Protecting public lands? Actually a good one.
M/ Consent from Indigenous Peoples? Okay, will you still go ahead if they say no?
N/ Prevent unfair competition? But don’t you “ensure” it, with this government monopoly?
O/ Guaranteed health care, housing, jobs, necessities
5. Final Thoughts
While this all sounds great, the details (and lack of) are scary. Not only that, the authors seem totally unaware of how self-contradictory the GND is.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez repeatedly RELIES ON financial incentives to sell the program, yet AVOIDS any talk of how this will be paid for.
Further she talks about GIVING rights and discretions to groups and how they run their lives, yet implementing this will require TAKING rights away.
The deal mentions EQUALITY many times, but entire sections are devoted to divisive IDENTITY POLITICS and to pandering to specific groups.
The Green New Deal is to PROVIDE new opportunities and entitlements for everyone in America, yet involves SHUTTING DOWN entire sectors of the economy.
All of these promises are made that the social service needs of AMERICANS will be met. However, Ocasio-Cortez promotes OPEN BORDERS IMMIGRATION, which would see those services overrun.
For this deal to be implemented in any real form, any and all rights of citizens (to oppose) it would need to be taken away, and the deal imposed by force. Even then, it would bankrupt the USA long before it ever became reality.
CLICK HERE, the CBC Propaganda Masterlist CLICK HERE, for the latest propaganda piece by CBC Contributor John Paul Tasker CLICK HERE, for Bernier’s Twitter feed. CLICK HERE, for Bill Morneau’s Twitter. CLICK HERE, for the specific tweet.
The actual text:
Government-sponsored leftist logic:
* Wearing clothes from another ethnic group
* White with dreadlocks
* Blackface
* Men building pipelines
= cultural appropriation, racism, toxic masculinity
Men wearing female dress and makeup
= diversity
People’s Party Founder Maxime Bernier wasn’t “condemning” drag performers for what they do. Rather, he was mocking the “cultural Marxist” left, for their often contradictory views on what is racism/appropriation, and what is diversity. Was the tone very mocking? Yes, but satire often is.
There was another quote about rejecting an offer from Finance Minister Bill Morneau to attend a drag show together. Bernier mocked him as well, suggesting that balancing the budget and ending crony capitalism would be better uses of his time. Here are some quotes from the article:
“People’s Party Leader Maxime Bernier sent a tweet Tuesday attacking what he called the “leftist logic” that praises female impersonators while branding white people who wear dreadlocks or blackface as racists or perpetrators of cultural appropriation.
Bernier said it was illogical for drag artists wearing makeup and women’s clothing to be celebrated as a source of diversity while the actions of others — notably whites who adopt some of the physical characteristics of racial minorities — are demonized as discriminatory.”
The author seems to be missing the point. Leftist hypocrisy towards various “oppressed” groups is worth pointing out. You can’t pick and choose with of your “marginalised” groups aren’t really marginalised. Learning to code may be a better use of your time.
“The source of Bernier’s angst is a tweet from the official Twitter account run by Global Affairs Canada that praised Toronto-based drag queen Brooke Lynn Hytes, who will be the first Canadian to appear on the Emmy-award winning reality program RuPaul’s Drag Race. That show sees drag queens compete for the title of America’s Next Drag Superstar.”
There doesn’t seem to be any freaking out. Rather, it is this person, J.P. Tasker, who identifies as a “journalist”, who seems to be losing his mind over nothing. Perhaps he should learn to code.
“Blackface has a long and complicated history in North America and is widely regarded as deeply offensive. Its origins date back to 19th century minstrel shows that saw white performers paint their faces a darker tone to mock black Americans.
The earliest of these shows ridiculed enslaved Africans on Southern plantations, depicting black people as lazy, ignorant, cowardly or hypersexual, according to the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture (NMAAHC).
‘Let’s provoke some head explosions’
The history of drag performance is murkier. Female impersonation has been a part of stage performances for generations.
Drag queens have been a fixture of gay bars in the West since at at least the post-Second World War era. Performers, typically gay men, dress in women’s clothing and sometimes impersonate famous ‘gay icons’ to entertain patrons.
After receiving backlash for his tweet, Bernier said: “Let’s provoke some head explosions among social justice warriors.” He also said blackface is a “non-existent phenomenon.””
Obviously coding isn’t his strong spot. Even if all this is true, so what? This was a joke. Leftists can’t take a joke, and should probably learn to code in case his day job doesn’t work out.
“Bernier condemned “agitated journalists” Tuesday for “freaking out” and making inquiries about a tweet he himself had sent only hours earlier, saying the media should instead focus on more important issues like his stance on pipeline development, equalization and corporate welfare.”
He has a point. CBC journalists have a tendency to freak out over minor things. Maybe they should learn to code. This author in particular seems really thin-skinned.
