Foster Gamble Q&A primer on Agenda 21: “Think Globally, Enslave Locally”

I found the movie “Thrive” to be terrific in the clear and sustained way it spelled out the globalist “agenda” of the 1%. Likewise, I find Foster Gamble’s view of Agenda 21 enlightening. Less clear to me is his apparently jaundiced view of the Transition Town movement as “a creation of the Fabian Society.” I thought it was created by permaculturist Rob Hopkins. . . In any case, I think the questions Gamble says to ask about any movement that aims to save both humans and the planet are vital.

Here’s an extended quote from the article on this “Transition” topic.

A key to understanding Transition Towns is recognizing that the organization was founded and operated out of the United Kingdom as a creation of the British Fabian Socialist Society. Transition Initiatives require local communities to conform to “Energy Descent Action Plans”. The same people who are imposing this Plan are the ones suppressing “new energy technologies” — technologies that obsolete the notions that energy is scarce and that using it has to be intrinsically polluting. We live in a boundless sea of energy that can be accessed cleanly, safely and inexpensively.

Could the “Energy Dissent” serve as a disguised means of maintaining the old paradigm of scarcity, limiting access to energy for poor and middle class people while the elite corporate controllers (and polluters) continue unrestrained?

We need to go beneath the surface language and ask, “transition to what,” “by whose authority,” and “by whose funding?” And how do we avoid simply replacing one problem (pollution) with another (tyranny)?

By the way, Transition Towns are not “required” to do anything. Simply, the Transition movement offers a template that is useful for some towns as they seek to harness and reduce their own (fossil fuel) energy use. And Gamble is right in that once we succeed in harnessing the unlimited energy of the universe sustainably, we won’t have to be in scarcity consciousness.

Meanwhile, rather than “suppressing” new energy technologies, my understanding of Rob Hopkins point of view is that he feels we shouldn’t just magically count on high-tech solutions to all our problems, while continuing our intensely wasteful and polluting lifestyle. Furthermore, the time it will take to redesign our society to make use of sustainable energy technologies may be decades; meanwhile, we need to learn how to reduce our carbon footprint in a big way, preferably before fossil fuels run out. The question becomes, are we to suffer a hard or a soft landing? The longer we wait to deal with the problem, the more likely a crash landing.


AGENDA 21: Think Globally, Enslave Locally

A Q&A with “Thrive” Creator, Foster Gamble

October 17, 2013

by Foster Gamble

CURIOUS: Hey, Foster, I heard about a program called Agenda 21 that seems focused on Sustainable Development and preserving nature. What do you think of it?

FOSTER: So glad you asked! My research reveals that Agenda 21 is a dangerous plan that appeals to our glaring need to protect the environment, but actually threatens to move us even closer to a police state. Let’s unpack it and do some critical thinking:

Agenda 21 was birthed at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development as a tool to “further sustainable development”. It naturally appeals to many environmentalists because on the surface it seems to address critical issues, including combatingdeforestation, conservation of biological diversity,control of pollution, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, and achieving a more sustainable population. Of course, those are all important. But let’s dig deeper.

Agenda 21’s plan for Sustainable Development includes:


  • A “Wildlands Project” to “protect wildlife habitat and corridors”. This can sound appealing given that so many species are dying due to irresponsible human development and the destruction of natural habitat. However, the ultimate goal of this is to erase any sign of human activity (houses, roads, trucks, etc.) from wildlands so eventually humans will be pushed out of wildland areas completely. This project allows people’s homes and land to be legally taken from them in the name of conservation, similar to the way “eminent domain” works now. Note that nothing about corporate pollution, fracking, coal or nuclear waste is addressed, nor the lack of choice people would have over their housing. I am confident that there are better solutions that protect wildlife and people’s rights, such as “trusts” to manage environmental resources that we share in common. You can learn more about them in our article on Environmental Solutions (scroll down to “Stage 2” to learn about successful trust programs).
  • Monitoring of everyone’s activities through “Smart Growth”, the federal Real ID Act, and the installation of “Smart Meters” on homes around the world to oversee and regulate energy consumption. Utility companies and Agenda 21 proponents claim that “smart meters” will make energy use more visible to the consumer in real-time, and this data can be used to lessen our impact on the planet. Again, this might sound attractive to some, but in reality “smart meters” are a danger to our health (they emit harmful radiation); allow for increased surveillance of our homes (every time a light bulb, appliance, or TV is used, that information is sent to your utility company — and can be shared with other companies and the government); and any appliance can be turned off remotely. To learn more about smart meters, and how you can stop them from being installed on your home, see my “Smart Meter” blog here.
  • Population control. Again, some people may agree that there are too many people on the planet and that our current rate of growth is unsustainable. However, Agenda 21 promotes forced sterilization and forcefully limiting the number of children per family. Research shows that populations stabilize naturally in relation to their environment when there is ample education, health and prosperity — all of which thrive in a truly free society of voluntary association — but flounder in totalitarian police states. As we have moved closer and closer to tyranny, our education, health and prosperity have all declined. More tyranny is not the answer.
  • The adoption of Common Core Standards (CCS) in public schools around the country. The stated goal is to mold children into “equals” by nationalizing standards, which proponents say is to lessen the “achievement gap”. In practice it allows the lowest common denominator nationally to determine the standard locally — an essentially socialist model of citizenship.

Agenda 21 seeks to make these policies involuntary. You and your family could be forced to fund Agenda 21 through taxation — as many already are — and then those dollars would be used to enforce environmental regulations that violate your rights. This has happened throughout history with governments around the world. But now we have a chance to say “NO” and choose a course that deals with environmental concerns in a responsible, ethical way, that doesn’t violate our rights by giving even more control to a centralized authority.

CURIOUS: But isn’t the central authority the United Nations? Don’t you trust them to watch out for our best interests?

FOSTER: Do you know who created the United Nations?

CURIOUS: I assume lots of nations came together to try to collaborate for world peace.

FOSTER: After WWI the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers funded meetings to try to create the League of Nations. It failed. After WWII they tried again, calling it the United Nations. The Rockefellers donated the land in New York City. This was part of the Council on Foreign Relations plan to create a front for the eventual one world government they were planning, as documented in THRIVE.

In 1976, the Club of Rome then came up with the notion of controlling people’s lives through environmental regulations. Who wouldn’t go for less pollution, better city planning, and reduction of carbon emissions? It was a brilliant ploy, but with truly sinister motives.

The plan for global social engineering was conceived in the mid-1980s, and launched by the UN in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The primary mouthpiece was to be Maurice Strong, a Canadian oil tycoon. He was a Rockefeller agent, member of the infamous Bilderberger secret society, the Club of Rome, the Committee of 300, and the Aspen Institute (formed by fellow Bilderberger Robert O. Anderson of ARCO oil — whose logo is a missing capstone with an all-seeing eye). I wasn’t surprised to find Strong’s connections to these secret societies or families — in fact, it’s quite predictable. As explored in the movie, THRIVE, when you follow the money behind all major industries and sectors of human endeavor, it inevitably leads to big banking families including the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, and Morgans. Strong appears to be yet another puppet in their game of enforcing environmental rules and regulations that look good on the surface and appeal to well-intentioned people all over the world, but in reality slowly chip away at their rights — and get us used to it.

My research indicates that Agenda 21 is a primary part of the blueprint of the New World Order agenda we describe in THRIVE. 178 national governments signed on to the 288 page “programme.” President George H. W. Bush signed on behalf of the United States. Since Agenda 21 was “soft law” and not a treaty, Congress had no role to perform. Instead, the cabinet agencies of the Executive branch of government were charged with implementing this ‘global to local’ program. In 1993, President Bill Clinton established, by executive order, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. Since Clinton’s order, every cabinet agency has quietly done its part to advance this plan. There are 600+ cities and towns already signed up in the US and 109 of them are in California, where I live.

CURIOUS: That’s a little scary. How is it funded? Is it with dues?

FOSTER: Yes, thousands a year from each town, paid with all of our property taxes, plus millions in subsidies from the Federal Government — once again taxpayer’s hard-earned income.

CURIOUS: I didn’t know that.

FOSTER: They would prefer that we didn’t. Do you know what their main stated goals are?

CURIOUS: Well, I think it’s to save natural resources and reduce population, right?

FOSTER: The architects of the plan rally around the concepts within their “three E’s” symbol. The three E’s are: social Equity, prosperous Economy and quality Environment.

Sounds good, right? But they are simply appealing to our need, and desire, to transform our troubled world by using the usual Orwellian double-speak, just as they did with “No Child Left Behind”. “No Child Left Behind” appealed to people’s desire to have schools do a better job of educating children and assuring that teachers were doing their jobs. But in practice, NCLB actually:

  • Imposed a rigid one-size-fits-all framework that now relies solely on test scores to measure children and schools.
  • Instigated teaching to the test and a more dumbed-down curriculum.
  • Imposed high stakes testing which has increased the drop-out rate at schools across the country and has lead more schools to “push out” low scoring students to protect their “numbers”.

This same kind of disguise happened with the Clean Air Act, the Patriot Act, Operation Iraqi Freedom, among many others. We would be wise to discern the difference between how something sounds and what it actually achieves.

What might Agenda 21’s Three E’s actually mean if they just said it straight?

  • What they seem to mean by “quality Environment” is reserving natural resources and pristine eco-systems for corporations and the financial elite, while preventing citizens from being able to own and protect their own properties, instead driving them into urban environments and stacking them upon one another in high-rise dwellings, whether they like it or not.
  • Their idea of “prosperous Economy” means further centralizing control over money and trade rather than eliminating our fake, debt-based monetary system run by a private corporation (the Federal Reserve), or encouraging a true, un-subsidized, free-market in currencies, pricing and voluntary exchange.
  • Their version of “social Equity” is to further authorize the government to take people’s personally hard-earned money to re-allocate at their own discretion regardless of individual rights. It doesn’t empower people with strategies for increasing access to the money they earn.

Some call it the “Re-distribution of wealth through stealth”. I see it as a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

CURIOUS: But when proponents of Agenda 21 go around to different cities, they hold open public meetings, where people get to give their input and actually be involved in the decision-making.

FOSTER: Let’s pause for a moment and make sure we’re being discerning here. Is there evidence that the banking elite behind the UN, the carbon tax, and cap & trade have taken our interests to heart? They are the same ones who are behind Agenda 21, after all. If they got away with manipulating us for their own gain before, does it make sense that they might just keep doing it until we stand up and say no?

With this in mind, let’s take a closer look at those “community meetings” you mentioned, to see if the customary deceptions might be lurking in the shadows once again when the light of truth is shown on them.

The organization designed to micromanage communities around the globe is called ICLEI — The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. Once again at first glance, it can sound like a good idea. But when local governments sign up, they are in fact signing up to pay dues and adopt globalist policies through what is known as the “Delphi Technique.” This is a process developed by the Rand Corporation for the US Defense Department where a highly trained, “likeable” facilitator uses divisive processes and covert shills in the community “audience” to subtly guide discussion groups and group conversation to come up with certain ideas and initiatives that have already been predetermined prior to the meeting. This hides the coercive imposition of the agenda by clothing it in pseudo spontaneity and fake inclusiveness. Communities are not aware that they are being “directed” in this covert way.

ICLEI methods also include infiltrating local governments and influencing policy changes through the use of funding incentives and rewards.

These are subtle processes and are important to consider when we contemplate the possibility that the deeper agenda might be to seize people’s homes, the natural resources, and increase control over people’s lives — under the guise of environmentalism. It’s a mixture of socialism and communism, referred to as “Communitarianism.” Of course, communities are wonderful…but as anyone in a socialist or communist community will tell you, the determining factor is whether or not what you are doing is mandated by a controlling government, or if it is voluntary.

CURIOUS: But we have to make sure that we steward the environment sustainably somehow, right? And share resources, and don’t overrun the planet with too many people? So how would we do that without programs like Agenda 21?

FOSTER: Yes, of course…but not in a way that would use the effort as a fake excuse to take over everyone’s lives, privacy, rights, and property! That’s where we have been heading with the New World Order. The economy, the ecology and the society are on the verge of total collapse leading to a totalitarian police state. Agenda 21 is just more of the same, perpetrated covertly by the same would-be controllers. We need to wake up and start asking the missing questions on which the survival and thriving of our species and planet depend:

  1. Is it voluntary?
  2. Does it violate our hard-won individual rights?
  3. Does it honor the wholeness of individuals and ecosystems alike?
  4. Is it honest?

Every “resource” we use alters the environment, but we can do it in a way that sustains the wholeness of the vital eco-systems on which life depends. This is not a free-for-all. If systems are violated in unsustainable ways, then the responsible individuals need to be prosecuted — instead of hiding behind corporate liability protections or being able to buy their way out. Imagine the leaps forward we would make in terms of pollution and protecting ecosystems if individuals inside corporations were held accountable for the actions of the corporation.

There is plenty of food to feed all the people on the planet and more if it weren’t for government subsidies and controls limiting distribution and honest trade. There is plenty of water for everyone if the people running corporations were prosecuted for fouling it. The release of “New Energy” technologies currently being suppressed by the state would eliminate quickly most of the coal and nuclear pollution.

A free society is not one without regulations. But the regulations need to be protective — of individual rights, voluntary association and honest interchange. The rules are to protect against fraud, counterfeit, theft, coercion, violence, breach of contract etc. They are not arbitrary opinions of politicians about how other people should live.


Which Philosophy?
Source Natural/Unalienable Rights
US Declaration of Independence
Community Rights/Agenda 21
UN Declaration of Human Rights
Purpose of government Protect unalienable rights of individual
— “Congress shall make no law …”
Control the individual for the greater good of a global community
— “Rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations”
In short You’re born with rights, government exists to protect them. You and the product of your labor belong to you. Government grants, restricts, or withdraws your rights according to its needs. You and the product of your labor belong to the community.

For Solutions strategies, tactics and groups operating in alignment with these principles, I recommend immersing in the Thrive Movement website.

Let me ask you…Which is more important to you — individual rights or protecting eco-systems?

CURIOUS: What an awful question. We shouldn’t have to choose between our rights and a healthy environment.

FOSTER: Well said. And that is exactly what I am getting at. Restoring and protecting our environment can’t happen at the expense of human freedom, personal ownership and voluntary exchange — or we will be trading one catastrophe for another.

CURIOUS: I didn’t think of it that way before. Sometimes you sound like a Republican and sometimes like a Democrat and sometimes like a Libertarian! I would call myself a Progressive Democrat — a true Liberal, and we are for saving the environment for the good of the group. We all have to pull together. But I don’t want to give up our freedoms to do that. Are other political activists also against this?

FOSTER: I am not an adherent to any political party. I believe in Liberty, of a truly transpartisan nature. But I realize we have to start where we are to get to a truly free world, and for that we need to take the best of what all parties, and world views, have to offer.

In terms of Agenda 21, during the last decade, opposition to Agenda 21 has increased within the United States at the local, state, and federal levels. During a space of 18 months in 2011 and 2012, 138 ICLEI member organizations woke up and quit. In July 2013, ICLEI USA removed their membership list from their website. The Republican National Committee has adopted a resolution opposing Agenda 21, and the Republican Party platform stated that “We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty.” Several state and local governments have considered or passed motions and legislation opposing Agenda 21. Alabama became the first state to prohibit government participation in Agenda 21. Many other states, including Arizona, are drafting, and are close to passing legislation to ban Agenda 21.

Democrats are resisting, too. More and more people are realizing this isn’t a partisan issue. It’s an issue of intrinsic and unalienable human rights. The political parties are being played off against each other once again, while the controlling elite take over the money, the land and the people. Rosa Koire, a leading activist on this issue maintains a website called, “Democrats against U. N. Agenda 21”.

Her book, Behind the Green Mask — U.N. Agenda 21, recounts her own discovery of the true agenda and her courageous attempts to keep it out of her community. She and Albert Burns have both delineated clever, effective ways to expose and dissipate the manipulative techniques used by the Agenda 21/Delphi facilitators.

Agenda 21 is a very shrewd and comprehensive approach — but I am convinced that the unstated goal is further coercion, domination and control. What is needed in response are equally comprehensive, whole-systems strategies — but ones that focus on liberation and restoring wholeness to both individuals and to eco-systems — without violating anyone in the process.

CURIOUS: What about “Transition Towns?” Isn’t it a good idea to “transition” to more sustainable ways of living?

FOSTER: Of course, we need to develop sustainable practices. We nonetheless need to be discerning about government-imposed “solutions”. A key to understanding Transition Towns is recognizing that the organization was founded and operated out of the United Kingdom as a creation of the British Fabian Socialist Society. Transition Initiatives require local communities to conform to “Energy Descent Action Plans”. The same people who are imposing this Plan are the ones suppressing “new energy technologies” — technologies that obsolete the notions that energy is scarce and that using it has to be intrinsically polluting. We live in a boundless sea of energy that can be accessed cleanly, safely and inexpensively.

Could the “Energy Dissent” serve as a disguised means of maintaining the old paradigm of scarcity, limiting access to energy for poor and middle class people while the elite corporate controllers (and polluters) continue unrestrained?

We need to go beneath the surface language and ask, “transition to what,” “by whose authority,” and “by whose funding?” And how do we avoid simply replacing one problem (pollution) with another (tyranny)?

If your own research convinces you that Agenda 21 is a threat, here is a collection from some of the experts, of specific action steps you can take.

SOLUTIONS — 10 Action Steps
Strategies and Tactics to Defeat Agenda 21

  1. Get informed.
  2. Take back language like “sustainability” to make sure it is based on the non-violation of human rights.
  3. Spread awareness on blogs, social media, and post flyers around your town.
  4. Connect with others in your local or virtual communities who don’t want their liberties and property taken away.
  5. Go to local meetings and expose the true agenda.
  6. Get good lawyers on your side and take action — here’s a good place to start.
  7. Educate your local politicians.
  8. Refuse local government receipt of federal or state money for new Sustainable Development programs because they breach the principles of liberty and suck money out of your communities.
  9. Avoid local government partnerships with the federal government, NGOs, foundations and corporations that advance the anti-liberty Sustainable Development Agenda.
  10. Learn and teach about human rights and the “non-aggression principle.” Do no harm. Reject transparent theft like “Eminent Domain.”

This entire mock dialogue is just a brief introduction to this critical and urgent issue. I invite you to dive deeply into it so that you won’t be duped to give up even more of your freedom while turning over our natural environment to the governments who are run by the corporations and banks.

Here is a short list of resources you might find useful:

This entry was posted in 2013, new economy, permaculture principles, Uranus square Pluto, visions of the future, waking up, wild new ideas, zone zero zero. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to Foster Gamble Q&A primer on Agenda 21: “Think Globally, Enslave Locally”

  1. laurabruno says:

    It’s comments like that about Transition Towns that make me wonder if Foster Gamble isn’t himself controlled opposition. There’s no top-down forced anything in Transition Towns! We discuss things and target them specifically to the local needs and interests. In fact, Transition Towns are a huge threat to Agenda 21, because we’re finding our own innovative ways to address climate and resource issues so that when the UN and the Feds show up with their demands, we’ve already done what needed to be done in our own way on our own terms.

    He’s either grossly misinformed, or else he’s trying to undermine one of the key initiatives that could move us AWAY from Agenda 21 and its “oh so obvious” “need” for “sustainability.” The whole motto of Transition is the power of just doing stuff. We determine WHAT and HOW we do it.

    • Yeah, sister! It’s the disconnection to both our own bodies and to the Earth that most people don’t seem to recognize, and that renders them needy of rescue by outside forces, whether globalist or ET or “religious.’ In fact, my doctoral dissertation in philosophy 42 years ago centered on exactly that mind/body split that we have enjoyed/endured for so many centuries, or is it millennia? Ever since the gnostics were overrun by Christianity, John Lash Lamb would say. Who knows how long, but the disconnect is still rampant and sends us running to pain pills or liquor or some kind of mental drama or distraction whenever we begin to feel anything at all.

      • ohnwentsya says:

        Thank you for this. You hit it exactly! The disconnect is the root problem out of which all the rest grow! It seems to me that this will require us to act on both spiritual self healing levels and practical levels at the same time-eventually these apparently separate areas will converge as we heal and the practical and the sacred again become one. Whenever the nonsense brings me down lately I read your blog and return to joy. Thank you!

        • Thanks so much, Dorian, for your deeply felt response to all this. I read the About part of your blog and am moved by your dedication and persistence all these years. Yes, maybe you weren’t supposed to be part of the mainstream. Nor was I. What took me out was my radical views, after only one year of teaching in an experimental college in the early ’70s in northern California, I was fired for being “too experimental” . . . That and other crossroads have clearly shown me that I simply MUST follow my nature, and that to do so, I have to somehow integrate my body’s stubborn, security-oriented, sensuous Taurus Moon, with the rest of my high-flying self — lots of Sagittarian fire . . . So I was unusually equipped “by nature” to deeply investigate and come to terms with this “mind-body problem” as they call it in the halls of academic philosophy.

          • ohnwentsya says:

            Thank you. I think perhaps the mainstream is such a mess that many of us not fitting in and thus learning, growing and coming up with creative solutions, making connections with one another is much like the mycelium that grows over decaying things.
            Nature always grows thru around and over problems. We are each parts of nature so I guess we should not be surprised that our difficulties and uniqueness end up being exactly what is needed for our part in the great tapestry of life. I am so grateful to have discovered your blog and met you all. I am more used to being alone expressing ideas like what you write and being ignored or mocked for doing so. It is beautiful to experience a community of like minded beings!

    • ohnwentsya says:

      While it is possible that the co optation of A21 is a real problem-it is designed to promote voluntary local participation including holding corporations and others accountable. Imho transition and a21 should work together to increase creativity freedom and environmental health. The facilitator thing I did not see before I reblogged this and that aspect of co optation is a credible threat that should be addressed. I feel that both A21 as written not all the weird cloak and dagger stuff, and Transition can be wonderful tools f or local communities and overall global healing.
      The point to me would be to use this critique to stop the cloak and dagger co-opters and take the tool back for the people. If a killer steals your hammer and attacks someone you don’t blame and destroy your hammer-you stop the killer and take your tool back to use as it was designed to be used.

      • laurabruno says:

        “If a killer steals your hammer and attacks someone you don’t blame and destroy your hammer-you stop the killer and take your tool back to use as it was designed to be used..” Very well put!

        I am all for co-opting the co-opted … using any and all tools that help to heal the Earth and humanity with RESPECT to all involved. There are some concerning aspects of A21, such as purposely dumbing down the population through schools, since dumb people are easier to manipulate. (That actually is a part of A21.) The thing I like about the Transition concept … at least in the areas I have seen it at work, including in our own town, is that it really doesn’t follow a set of parameters. Maybe it’s “supposed” to, but it doesn’t where we live. We just look at big issues in our town that are not being addressed by government, and a group of volunteers sets about offering completely voluntary solutions.

        I do know one person who actually works for the UN as a consultant — he’s a Mennonite trained in peace and reconciliation. And he’s a good guy. Generally, I am exceptionally suspicious of the UN, but because of conversations with this local person I know that there ARE some good people in there who really do want peace, not just globally centralized control.

        • ohnwentsya says:

          Thank you. It seems to me that the idea of UN is wonderful, and there are many people at UN and engaged with it globally who are acting on the ideal and really doing hood things. But these backroom sociopaths are worse than cockroaches they get into everything and poop all over it:-/

          A21 was originally based on that same local creativity we see with Transition but the attempt was to create a framework globally to support the less powerful such as women, children, indigenous peoples and those with no voices ie the nonhuman living beings so that the usual power structures would not override that local creativity as they have habitually done.

          I reread the text of A21 last year when I could not understand where the things critics were claiming were coming from and none of it is in the actual text-its like people interpreting the Bible to support genocide. They did that too but I don’t think it was Jesus intention at all.

          I did not find any text encouraging dumb ing down, in fact A21 was very focused on increasing educational opportunities for 3rd world and other underserved communities as education is key to environmental protection, improved social conditions and reducing population growth.

          I don’t know how the people using A21 in ways directly opposite the text of it can do that but I know from the incredible array of nasty, violent and oppressive interpretations of the Bible that have caused untold suffering that it is apparently a long term negative human pattern.

          It seems really stupid to waste all the work and international collaboration at the grassroots level that went into creating it when we really need a global environmental protection infrastructure but it will take people en masse getting involved to force the underhanded cockroach crew into the light and make it work as intended.
          It would be easier to destroy it-but that leaves the larger problem.
          We are like Harry, Ron and Hermione on the deadly chessboard. :-/

  2. laurabruno says:

    The other thing is that Transition Towns grew out of permaculture, which is basically a return to good sense indigenous practices that keep people ensouled and in touch with the Earth — en-soled, you might say. The trouble with focusing so much on the release of “new technologies” or a “new money system” is that relying on something that’s provided from outside, even if free and improved to begin with, keeps people enslaved to the very system the new claims to be freeing them from. If an EMP strikes and knocks out all electronics, it won’t matter if they are powered by free energy. If they’re fried, they’re fried.

    Ditto on the new financial system. They’re not going to introduce something that looks terrible to begin with. They’ll create enough desperation so that people will accept ANY relief and then overwhelm them with “generosity,” perhaps even for a few generations. Then wham, pull the plug when — once again — everyone has forgotten how to live in touch with the Earth.

    Permaculture and Transition Towns keep the power with Nature and with individuals working in their own communities. Putting in a global grid of new technology doesn’t remind people of who they are or how they’re connected to the Earth. It’s not about honoring the uniqueness of different cultures or locales. I’m not opposed to SOME technology, but when someone starts pushing technology and knocking indigenous ways that worked for millennia until “progress” brought Earth raping to a competitive sport, my Spidey senses tell me to maintain backup methods of feeding myself and surviving in a community of my own choosing, without someone insisting that if we don’t do things a certain way then we are “Fabian Socialists.” Is that what he says of the Amish, too? Just curious.

    Sorry for the long comment(s).

  3. Thrive Movement for me is overwhelming in its scope, even as I support Thrive. “Thrive — The Movie” is worth watching even still.

    I would rather see Foster Gamble and his wife focus on putting together a Zero Point Energy device demonstration fair (ZPEDD Fair) above anything else. A successful ZPEDD Fair with security, news media coverage, intellectual property protections, transportation, and high level scientific participation, and just one WOW-Factor device presented, would become the needed catalyst around which spiritual, social, and economic peaceful revolution would follow if tempered somewhat in its speed of integration.

  4. ohnwentsya says:

    Reblogged this on Spirit In Action and commented:
    Thank you for sharing this. I find the distortions of the actual text of Agenda21 fascinating as I do seeing who opposes it and how. Thos exposes Foster as an apple that has not fallen nearly as far from the tree as I had supposed. A21 is designed to be VOLUNTARY there are no enforcement provisions. It was created by small groups in 67 countries who met for several years to design it and obtain consensus as it was shared among all and refined. It was passed in 92 not begun-it began much earlier at least by 87 but I believe the germ of it was 84. It specifically requires participation and consensus of ALL stakeholders locally for all local decisions and specifically addressed the bogeyman fears he brings up of forced sterilization and removing people from wildlife corridors. The fact is inthe actual text of A21 the rights of women children and indigenous societies are all addressed as important. It peomotes education of and increased rights for women as ways to reduce populatoon and specifically at least in the draft form forbade forced sterilization. It also engages local groups increating wildlife corridors while maintaining human settlements. This was heavily discussed and debated in the indigenous rights area.
    The corporate cabals set out to stop A21 as soon as it was created-tgey pushed for and got both the no enforcement and the 20 year pause before implementation to give them time to poison the well with propaganda as they ate still doing. If you read the text of A21, available free on UN website, the nonsense fear mongering is easily debunked. You can see the same methods of distortion and disinformation in his laughable critique of Transition which is absolutely a grass roots peoples movement. Anyone can lie and the gullible will believe but when the facts are readily available for inspection all it takes is to stop being gullible and do your own research in primary sources. For A21 that would be the full text of the document on UN site and for Transition Towns the Transition handbook and their own website are available as well as plenty of firsthand accounts from those of us involved.
    Free energy is great and we’d all love to see it but until it is a functional reality common sense and practicality dictate that we make plans without it. Nothing in Transition Towns encourages hardship for anyone- uts about creatice community solutions that improve life for us all. While fascist elements may try to co-opt A21 the process of its creation was very rooted in real grassroots creative lical action and community consensus just like Transition.

    • Agenda 21 in my San Francisco Bay Area has nonetheless been orchestrated by a group of agency employees who work for a regional planning agency of unelected representatives, filling public meetings with “carefully invited” lists that excludes all vested interests that might find fault in their plans. One of its key tenants is the taking of property rights without just compensation….through an old regulatory slight of hand.

      In order to implement “the taking” without “due compensation” land is simply designated as “ecologically sensitive.” To then put teeth in the massively designated sensitive land parcels, local communities are “encouraged” to adopt planning elements in their General Plans that “recognize environmental sensitivities,” overlaying vast areas of thousands of acres with mitigation entanglements that effectively takeaway all property rights except the right to “look at the land.”

      Communities are “encouraged” to go along with Agenda 21 or suffer low financial priorities for federal community grants in every conceivable grant category. Nothing is ever put to a vote of the people. The process is unabashedly Top Down and dangerously deceptive in structure with its structure designed and developed in back rooms with no public input effectively reaching into its design.

      Thousands of landowners, often some of the best stewards of land, end up having their land effectively taken for public benefit without just compensation.

      That’s one problem I see with Agenda 21…i.e., it works to circumvent the “Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment” which guarantees just compensation. So it’s run with a totalitarian top-down lie against the few for the benefit of the many. The spirit of the US Constitution is to protect and insure the rights of a minority. I have not seen Agenda 21 do any such thing….ever.

      A Second Problem

      The second problem is environmentalist hypocrisy of a small group of powerful elites who do not want to see free energy emerge under any circumstances. They fear is zero point energy devices will liberate the average person and lead to a population step-up on Planet Earth to 27-billion.

      These environmentalists do not like oil companies on the one hand, but fear population growth in Third World counties and developed countries even more, to the point they harbor no resistance to the findings of “The Iron Mountan Report” forced population reduction on Earth back down to a manageable 500-million. Ultimately it is they, this elite group of environmentalists, that deceptively work against the release of suppressed zero point energy devices

      I have watched some highly respected scientific minds say this publicly.

      • ohnwentsya says:

        That is very disturbing. I have heard something similar from another friend in California. It doesn’t make sense to me that they can do things directly contrary to the text if the A21 documents and call their actions Agenda21. I guess that is the nature if corruption and fascism tho. The Department of Peace making war and all. I do not know any environmentalists with such ridiculous regressive attitudes but it appears that as polarity increases those most polarized on all sides become caricatures.
        A21 as written is designed to prevent and avoid exactly the idiocy being attributed to it.
        I was aware of the groups trying to stop any global environmental protection structure from being implemented but these insidious twisted uses should not be possible if the programme had been given enforcement provisions.
        Those who wish to do things that harm others, degrade ecosystems etc will always see ANY attempt to limit their impact on the rest of us as unfair but when a consensus process that includes respect for nonhuman life and input from all stakeholders is used the outcomes should be reasonable and fair.
        In Florida we have corporate goon politicians selling off the public lands that protect our main water sources for south west Florida’s largest population centers, developers paving the everglades (and their poor unsuspecting victims ie homebuyers left with repeat flooding indoors) while you apparently face the opposite extreme. A21 was supposed to correct such imbalances of local power and encourage responsible dialogue on integrating human communities within the natural systems that support our existence.
        This appears to be another case of the elites playing both sides against the center-they make sure we do the work for them by manipulating the situation. If we go along they can impose more control, if we resist the outcome is engineered to be complete freedom for them to pollute and destroy our life support systems. 🙁
        We need to use aikido principles to use their power to topple them.
        If the people refuse to be polarized or directed into their cattle chutes of false choices we can do it.

  5. An observation: Some states simply adopt statutes that reject Agenda-21 exercising the spirit of “Nullification.”

    • laurabruno says:

      Yes! I recently posted on Nullification as a valid means of resisting and moving beyond the tyranny: .

      You make an interesting point above, too, about a population explosion as a result of free energy. Still, it seems that without BigAg, BigOil and the usual psychopaths, er, suspects controlling everything, Nature would simply take its course. “They” don’t need to engineer plagues, destroy food, steal land, chemtrail the heck out of our skies, and poison our water and our land. Simple studies of Nature would show that a population explosion, left to Nature, will eventually fall right back into balance with the rest of the Web of Life. It’s when they try to manipulate and impose unnatural agendas that imbalances occur. Nature, on its own, self regulates.

      It’s evolve or die time — as it always IS in Nature. Keep up with the web of life or perish. Nature’s laws are simple.

      • Excuse me please for posting under two names: (1) Peace and Conflict Resolution and (2) Rich Buckley, it’s appears to be a simple function of my new email account and old internet cookies.

        “It’s evolve or die time” … Nonetheless I seem to remain optimistic “Disclosure is coming,” and that will perhaps evolve us spiritually, but slowly, once a majority experience the knowing that we are not alone:

        “If elected President in 2016, I will reverse the slow march towards totalitarianism begun by CIA presidents Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama.” — Andrew D. Basiago … Ref. Facebook “Andy 2016″

        All of Ann’s readers likely know the life story of Andrew D. Basiago.

        I am savoring this moment and being optimistic as yesterday’s conspiracies unravel their perpetrators one by one.

        The way I interpret or sense “It’s evolve or die time” is less desperate than the statement seems to imply. I know Portal 2012’s public vote is saying make the event happen now! … by 87% majority. I’m in the 12% minority that “feel” nature will take is own path regardless of our vote, that the mind of universal consciousness is tuned to the true inner minds of each of us and in that godly soul level of our highest selves, our intuitions are far more powerful and relevant than our meme’s. So I drift, perhaps naively, perhaps ignorantly, but drift along nonetheless feeling intuitively optimistic we are changing at exactly the right rate of change. Just as micro-processors replaced vacuum tubes, fiber optics replaced copper, and digital replaced film our next step evolution may take some decades but we will integrate zero point energy devices, anti-gravitic engines, and clean alternatives (solar, wind, fusion) into global economies…. and do it with an enlightened environmental sensitivity not seen before. Maybe you and I are speaking the exact same language but I feel needlessly rushed in time frames of less than decades.



  6. laurabruno says:

    Rich, sorry, I forget that my concepts of “die” and “time” are extremely different than most. “Moment” is unspecified in linear terms — it could last a nanosecond or a hundred years. We are in the moment of what Dr. Bruce Lipton calls a “biological imperative.” It’s also the synergy between “emergence” and “emergency.” The video on that above link shares Dr. Lipton’s observations on the potential for “Spontaneous Evolution.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *