State of Mankind

A New Way Of Thinking

VII. The Elitist Agenda




“A world government [can] only be created out of war or crisis—an emergency that provide[s] an appropriate combination of the motivations of fear and opportunity.”  -Herman Kahn (CFR, 1993)

            Quigley taught all about the world elite and their desire to run the world.  They developed central banks to financially link the world.  They decided somewhere in the late 19th century that progressivism and re-distributing wealth (at least the wealth of the middle class) would keep them in power.  They dreamed of one world government and went seeking this dream in the form of the British Empire, the three-bloc world, the two-bloc world, and many other plans.  Their names and money have shown up in the modern environmental movement, so would it be at all surprising if the agenda of the ‘greens’ would be the same as the agenda of the International Bankers and the Roundtable Groups?  It is worth analyzing  their own words.  It’s interesting that they treat the financial crisis and the environmental crisis as two means to the same end.  We’ll start with known Club of Rome member and former Secretary of State (to Nixon) Henry Kissinger, speaking to CNBC about the election of Pres. Obama:

            “The president-elect is coming into office at a moment when there is upheaval in many parts of the world simultaneously. …His task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created.  It’s a great opportunity, it isn’t just a crisis.” (Kissinger: Obama primed to create ‘New World Order’, WorldNetDaily, 6 Jan 2009)

            “Global problems demand global solutions.  And the United Nations is, truly, the world’s only global institution.”

            “San Francisco is the birthplace of the United Nations, which was created to save this world from the scourge of war.  I’m here to discuss the future of our planet Earth, and this can become the birthplace of a new movement to save it for future generations.”  (UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, “UN best –placed to tackle global problems in today’s world—Ban Ki-moon”, UN news release, 26 July 2007)

            Jacques Chirac perhaps told it best when he addressed the 6th Conference of the Parties (COP) at the Hague, 20 November 2000:

            “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance…by acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance, we are working for dialogue and peace…to organize our collective sovereignty over this planet, our common heritage.”

            “Today, at The Hague, the international community, represented by the world’s environmental ministers, has a moral and political duty to move forward in the right direction.”

            “Are we going to allow the gap between rich and poor to grow ever wider, with the former adapting their activities at the expense of colossal defensive investments while the latter have no choice but to submit, for want of the means to modify their practice and policies?  Once again, the question is, do we want to control and regulate the process of globalization in order to make it fairer?”

            “Solidarity between North and South [developed Northern Hemisphere, and developing Southern Hemisphere is what this refers to] means that the North cuts its emissions so that the South can develop while maintaining control over the growth in its own emissions.” (Jacques Chirac, to the 6th COP to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, The Hague, 20 November 2000.  See

Jacques Chirac, Henry Kissinger, Maurice Strong, U. N. Symbol

            So where does the United Nations stand on this?  From the 1994 United Nations Development Program’s Human Development Report:

            “We Strongly believe that the United Nations must become the principal custodian of our global human security.  Towards this end, we are determined to strengthen the development role of the United Nations and give it wide-ranging decision-making powers in the social-economic field by establishing an Economic Security Council.”

            “We must seek a new role for the United Nations so that it can begin to meet humanity’s agenda not only for peace but also for development.”

            “There must be a ‘New World Social Charter’ where the world will redistribute wealth as it cannot survive one-quarter rich and three-quarters poor, and where the UN must become the principal custodian of global human security and help with basic education, healthcare, immunization, and family planning.”

            “A major restructuring of the world’s income distribution, production and consumption patterns may therefore be a necessary precondition for any viable strategy for sustainable human development.”

            “Global taxation may become necessary in any case to achieve the goals of global human security.  Some of the promising new sources include tradable permits for global pollution, a global tax on non-renewable energy, demilitarization funds and a small transaction tax on speculative international movements of foreign exchange funds.” (UNDP, Human Development Report, 1994)

            So many (if not all) of the ‘powers that be’ at the UN want the UN to control the world’s security (military), elementary education, healthcare and family planning, and the global economy, as well as the environment.  They see carbon trading and energy taxes as a way to fund this agenda.

            It is worth pointing out that as of April 21, 2009 Helen Clark is the head of the UNDP.  She is a globalist from New Zealand, who is also a leading member of Socialist International.  The Socialist International tie is also held by Carol Browner, current (as of Jan. 2011, former) Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy.  A good study of these people as well as Socialist International is worth the time, but not to be covered in this writing. 

               Attention was given to most of the above quotes by Ian Wishart in chapter 16 of his book Air Con.  For the science minded investigator, and one who is investigating all opinions of the climate question, it is a must read.  But is Wishart just a crazy conspiracy theorist?  To answer that question, this reviewer read through all of his quotes, from their sources, searching for context.  Also many hours were spent reading through extremely boring UN documents to verify every word, and find many more.  The following is from the Copenhagen Draft Treaty.  This was the treaty that had been hammered out for the December 2009 climate conference at Copenhagen.  It was supposed to be a done deal, and maybe would have been, if it weren’t for two factors—greed and Climategate.  The negotiations at Copenhagen broke down because they couldn’t determine how much wealth to re-distribute from the developed world to the developing, and the frenzy of saving the world (which made the former problem almost a blank check solution) was killed by Climategate.  From the Draft Treaty:

“38.      The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars:  government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

(a)  The government will be ruled by the COP [Conference Of the Parties] with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative process and bodies.  The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

(b)  The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows:  (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components [This is what we owe the developing world for messing up the climate], (c) a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.

(c)  The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include:  (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; (c) a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries.  The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange.”            (Copenhagen Draft Treaty, Annex 1, Paragraph 38 {page 18})

               Let’s analyze this a little, as the words are somewhat long and boring (try reading the entire draft treaty).  This creates (a) a (world) government to handle the transition to a low carbon economy; (b) a financial arm of the government (called carbon trading/taxes to you and me) from which this government must accomplish the transition, which is to be paid by the developed countries to the developing; and (c) a ‘facilitative mechanism’ (the power of government) to transfer technical and financial resources from the developed world to the developing, to accomplish these goals.

            I have to wonder if Americans who support the redistribution of wealth understand that the goal is global redistribution of wealth.  The poorest people in the United States are yet among the richest in the world.  Through carbon trading and other energy schemes, the working class American will have his wealth taken and redistributed throughout the world (after the Elitists and the UN pocket their share).  In the words of President Obama:

            “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.  Even, you know, regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad.  Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations.  That will cost money; they will pass that money on to consumers.”    (Barack Obama, January 17, 2008, San Francisco Chronicle)

            “We can’t drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times whether we’re living in a desert or we’re living in the tundra and then just expect that every other country’s going to say, “Okay.”        (Barack Obama, Rally at Roseburg, Oregon, May 17, 2008)

            I think these quotes show that the person who will be hit the hardest by these policies will be the American worker, followed by the middle and upper-middle class.  The elitist may have to cut back on buying an extra yacht to pay for his SUV and food, but the vast majority of the people will be forced to make major changes.  While I agree that we are a wasteful society in many ways, I don’t believe (at least in our founders train of thought) that governments, especially an elitist run world government has the right to take our property, be it money, energy, or whatever.  Consider the slippery slope:

            “When the Communists seized power in Hungary, the peasants were delighted with the “justice” of having the large farms confiscated from their owners and given to the peasants.  Later the Communist leaders seized three-fourths of the peasant land and took it back to set up government communal farms.  Immediately the peasants howled in protest about their property “rights.””

            “Those who protested too loudly or too long soon found that they not only lost their land, but also their liberty.  If they continued to protest, they lost their lives” (Skousen, ‘The 5000 Year Leap’, Page 117).

            I also have to question the Conference of the Parties (the governing body, according to the Copenhagen Draft Treaty).  I didn’t vote for anyone there.  I don’t even know who represents the United States.  That the U. N. wants this power is found in these and many more documents.  The question is, do we want to give them any power at all?  While I don’t want to dwell on Environmental Elitism too long, a great in-depth study can be pursued by following the trail layed out at

               As this is being written, the Cancun climate conference is going on.  Although Copenhagen fell apart, these powers do not rest.  In looking at the issues to be covered in Cancun, Lord Christopher Monckton declared it to be “world government-lite.”  Once again I have only scratched the surface of the information on this subject, but I feel that Lord Monckton’s words sum up my opinion and call to action.  Just before the Copenhagen summit he wrote:

“As the Copenhagen climate summit approaches, the ambition and interests of the bureaucratic centralists of the UN, the shadowy Kommissars who are the dictators of the EU, the energy imperialists of Russia, the military-industrial complex of China, and the scientific-technological elite here in the US will fatefully and perhaps fatally coincide.

“Whether or not any binding but pointless targets for curbing CO2 emissions are decided upon at Copenhagen, one policy they will all agree upon.  The UN’s climate panel will be given new powers—at first, mere powers of monitoring, but increasingly powers of intervention and eventually of legislation.

“As Maurice Strong, Jacques Chirac and their ilk had always intended, the IPCC will emerge after Copenhagen as the prototype and nucleus of a world government.  We have already seen this in the EU.  We have learned the hard way that supranational government is never democratic government.  Nor is it honest.  Nor is it cheap.

“Yet the highly-placed conspirators who seek to ride the climate scare to world dominion have reckoned without one thing.  You.  You are here, and you will not let the truth go.

“Thanks to you, it is becoming evident that the rent-seeking promoters of this great boondoggle, through the very scientific ignorance that they had sought to exploit in others, have merely deluded themselves.

“In the end, it will be here, in the United States, that the truth will first emerge in all its glory.  Not in Europe, for we are no longer free.  Not in the Middle East, for while militant Islam endures it can never become free.

“It is here, in this great nation founded upon liberty, that the battle for the world’s freedom will be won.

“It is you whose forefathers fought against ours for their freedom, whose fathers and grandfathers fought shoulder to shoulder with ours for Europe’s freedom, and whose gallant sons and daughters now fight alongside ours for the world’s freedom—it is you, the people of the United States, who will surely lead and inspire the world once more in this dark hour that might otherwise have become a new dark age.

“You must not and you shall not fail.  Therefore, I end with the words of your poet Longfellow, addressed by Sir Winston Churchill to your President in the Second World War during the darkest hour before the dawn-“

            “Sail on, o Ship of State,

              Sail on o Union strong and great:

              Humanity, with all its fears,

              with all the hopes of future years,

              Is hanging breathless on thy fate.”

One ResponseLeave one →

  1. I am a warmist. All of us awrmists should mount a two part scientific expedition to explore historical proof that global warming is happening.The facts we will discover will prove our religion to be the one true belief.First we need to discover where the ark landed after the great flood. More floods are proof/effect of warming. The ark needs to be found, put through a battery of scientific tests, and find out whether that flood was a normal flood or maybe the start of a worrying trend. Second, we need to find the iceberg that sunk the titanic. Apparantly, with warming goes more icebergs… So if we can scrutinise the titanic iceberg we may find the right answers. Though if found it may have criminal charges of multiple homicide brought against it and the csi teams may interrupt our data collection.


Leave a Reply