Exposing the Influence Behind the Anti-Agenda 21 Anti-Sustainability Agenda

PIC: PD

PIC: PD

Is the movement against Agenda 21 fertilized by astrofoil?  If the U.N. can’t be trusted, and they certainly can’t always, does that mean moves towards sustainability and permaculture should be opposed?  Lloyd Alter writes at TreeHugger:

Agenda 21 is a pretty innocuous 20 year old document that calls for “sustainable development.” ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability helps local governments build capacity and share knowledge about sustainable development. It is all pretty mild stuff, yet across America, it, and the very word sustainability, are under attack. However, a recent survey showed that most people never heard of it and only 6% say they are against it. so why are politicians from State governments up to the National Republican Party and Presidential candidates like Newt Gingrich make such a big deal of it?

” People don’t wake up in the morning sweating bullets about the United Nations.”-Robin Rather

Robin Rather of Collective Strength, who commissioned the survey, says ” I genuinely believe the Agenda 21 phenomenon is highly manufactured. It’s not out there in the mainstream.”

Robin lives in Austin, Texas and has a lot of family who are Tea Party members. She respects and agrees with a lot of what they say. But she says “they don’t wake up in the morning sweating bullets about the United Nations. Their anger is directed at Washington.” Yet the scale of the Agenda 21 campaign is enormous. Who is manufacturing it? Robin continues:

Usually when you listen to complaints like those of Tea Party members, there are different inflections, a much wider variation. But this isn’t organic and local, the same talking points come up everywhere. They are being played and used. The whole campaign serves no interest to anyone who isn’t trying to ensure that we keep burning as much fossil fuel as we can for as long as possible.

“The UN’s Local Agenda 21 program may already be in your local community, through your home town or city’s membership in ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability. Agenda 21 seeks for the government to curtail your freedom to travel as you please, own a gas-powered car, live in suburbs or rural areas, and raise a family.”- Arthur Thompson, John Birch Society.

Read more here.

The full text of Agenda 21 can be read here.

  • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire
    • http://lmgtfy.com/ jasonpaulhayes
      • Andrew

        “You should view the world as a conspiracy run by a very closely-knit group of nearly omnipotent people, and you should think of those people as yourself and your friends.” — Robert Anton Wilson

        • http://lmgtfy.com/ jasonpaulhayes
          • Andrew

            “It is hard to resist the conclusion that this enemy is on many counts the projection of the self; both the ideal and the unacceptable aspects of the self are attributed to him. The enemy may be the cosmopolitan intellectual, but the paranoid will outdo him in the apparatus of scholarship, even of pedantry. Secret organizations set up to combat secret organizations give the same flattery. The Ku Klux Klan imitated Catholicism to the point of donning priestly vestments, developing an elaborate ritual and an equally elaborate hierarchy. The John Birch Society emulates Communist cells and quasi-secret operation through “front” groups, and preaches a ruthless prosecution of the ideological war along lines very similar to those it finds in the Communist enemy. Spokesmen of the various fundamentalist anti-Communist “crusades” openly express their admiration for the dedication and discipline the Communist cause calls forth.

            “On the other hand, the sexual freedom often attributed to the enemy, his lack of moral inhibition, his possession of especially effective techniques for fulfilling his desires, give exponents of the paranoid style an opportunity to project and express unacknowledgeable aspects of their own psychological concerns. Catholics and Mormons–later, Negroes and Jews–have lent themselves to a preoccupation with illicit sex. Very often the fantasies of true believers reveal strong sadomasochistic outlets, vividly expressed, for example, in the delight of anti-Masons with the cruelty of Masonic punishments.”

            http://disinfo.com/2011/01/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/

          • http://lmgtfy.com/ jasonpaulhayes

            “And the silken sad uncertain rustling of each purple curtain
            Thrilled me – filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before;
            So that now, to still the beating of my heart, I stood repeating
            `’Tis some visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door -
            Some late visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door; -
            This it is, and nothing more,” Poe -The Raven

          • Juan

            Yep. This dynamic is also tied into the phenomena of finding so many public moral crusaders in compromising positions with transgendered hookers in bathroom stalls, etc.

          • Echar Lailoken

            I’ll settle for spontaneous combustion.

          • Adam’s Shadow

            And similar to how “terrorism” and “counter-terrorism” end up being the exact same thing.

          • Oginikwe

            Thanks for posting that link, Andrew. Very interesting.

        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          You should also repeat the godspell of RAW as though it is your own idea.

          • Andrew

            You should cite the exact passages of Agenda 21 you object to.

          • Number1Framer

            What? You mean…read the document? Like, the whole thing? Awww man, can’t I just listen to this lady ramble for an hour and a half and say that’s even better than actually reading the text of Agenda 21 because it also regurgitates my own pre-formed opinions back to me conveniently gift-wrapped with a fresh coat of rhetoric and conjecture?

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            ¡butt teh ~90 minute videhoez, d00d!

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            So you read all 351 pages I take it? Care to summarize? Let me guess, it’s whatever they say and it’s good for the environment dabgummnit! ;)

          • Number1Framer

            Agenda 21 is not a priority for me, so I don’t care to. I do think Andrew has a good point in asking for your specifications as to what is so insidious about it rather than dumping a 2 hour movie and walking away. Since you’re the one so staunchly against Agenda 21, let’s see you pose a rational argument citing actual passages from the literature. Make me a believer and show me why I should stand against it.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Here ya go, have you heard of this little thing called, the, “precautionary principle”? Well guess what, it is intentionally vague, ambiguous, mercurial and designed to enable bureaucrats to rule over resources under the presumption that they are taking a “precautionary” approach to potential long term effects on the environment. Sounds nice right? Really fluffy and “green”. That’s the point, the same way that “global warming” (record cold temperatures abound) became “climate change” (gee the climate changes all the time, NLP, “as I stand here” hard to disagree with mind control technique) is the same reason that they hide their true intentions in such saccharine double speak. To dupe the simpleton unaware of the nature of such sophistic “legalese”. Before I go further, let’s use their definition to pin down the hidden meaning and potential abuse of this power grab hidden inside a flowery bouquet of newspeak. ”

            “WHEN AN ACTIVITY RAISES THREATS OF HARM TO THE ENVIRONMENT OR HUMAN HEALTH, PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES SHOULD BE TAKEN EVEN IF SOME CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSHIPS ARE NOT FULLY ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFICALLY.” WINGSPREAD STATEMENT ON THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE,
            1998.

            http://nwri.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/The-Precautionary-Principle-in-the-International-Arena.pdf

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            “Why is the federal government so obsessed with grabbing more land? After all, the federal government already owns more than 40 percent of the land in 9 different U.S. states. Why are federal bureaucrats so determined to grab even more? Well, the truth is that this all becomes much clearer once you understand that there is a very twisted philosophy behind what they are doing. It is commonly known as “Agenda 21″, although many names and labels are used for this particular philosophy.

            Basically, those that hold to this form of radical environmentalism believe that humanity is utterly destroying the planet, and therefore the goal should be to create a world where literally everything that we do is tightly monitored and controlled by control freak bureaucrats in the name of “sustainable development”.

            In their vision of the future, the human population will be greatly reduced and human activity will be limited to strictly regulated urban areas and travel corridors. The rest of the planet will be left to nature. To achieve this goal, a massive transfer of land from private landowners to the federal government will be necessary.

            So the conflict between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the BLM is really just the tip of the iceberg. The reality is that the BLM has their eyes on much bigger prizes.

            For example, Breitbart is reporting that the BLM is looking at grabbing 90,000 privately-held acres along the Texas/Oklahoma border… via http://www.infowars.com/agenda-21-the-blm-land-grabbing-endgame/ (read the whole article)

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            “In order to achieve sustainable development, policies must be based on the precautionary principle. Environmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. “ (unless of course it involves force medicating the population through fluoridation of the water supply, that’s just fine with them, oh and dont’ get me started on stratospheric geoengineering) 7 http://nwri.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/The-Precautionary-Principle-in-the-International-Arena.pdf

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            “The precautionary principle, by virtue of which preventive measures are to be taken when there are reasonable grounds for concern that substances or energy introduced, directly or indirectly, into the marine environment may bring about hazards to human health, harm living resources and marine ecosystems, damage amenities or interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, even when there is no conclusive evidence of a causal relationship between the inputs and the effects. 8″

            Of course the fact that CO2 has never been proven to drive temperature increase, and that higher levels of CO2 enable longer growing seasons further north of the Equator and the increase of ambient CO2 is in fact a result of off gassing due to solar forcing should be kept in mind, especially when Al Gore and company (everyone on the gravy train of “sustainability”) sets himself up to make billions on carbon credits (getting the picture yet?)

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Classic example of doublethink here. “The parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent, or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measure, taking into account that policies and measure to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost.”

            See one rule for the commoners another for the so called “elite”. They have no issue with spraying tons of sulfates into the atmosphere to combat there own manufactured “climate change” threat, regardless of any unforeseen “adverse effects”, they just expect you to pay for it, to feel guilty for “destroying the Earth” and to accept that their supercharged land grabbing scheme is inherently “just” for the sake of Mother Earth (who they nuke, wage war upon and prevent from providing for all of humankind. Pure psychopathic “reasoning” here.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Harry Reid and his criminal family need more money thus the desert tortoise must be “saved”!!!!

            “Where there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimize such a threat.”

            Never mind he was angling to make millions on sweet heart deals on land he coveted that wasn’t his to begin with. Bundy said he would be happy to pay the state of Nevada because he understands the game and nature of the attempts at land grabbing by the fed here. Thus he is demonized and called “racist” for daring to resist the BLM thugs and their handlers.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSkr267xShE

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason fo rpostponing cost- effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.14″

            Translation, we decide reality, you must impossibly defend yourself against our presumption of your guilt

            and we will not employ science whatsoever in determining judgement. Ecofascism in a nutshell.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            “One final point needs to be made about the principle. It is most commonly criticized on the grounds that uncertainty is something that is inherent to the scientific process and that it is not scientifically possible to prove any fact with 100% certainty. The fundamental basis of science is to disprove a theory not prove it conclusively. Even when broad consensus of the scientific community is found, there will always be a few who disagree and some level of uncertainty will always exist.” 27

            Translation; the burden of proof is on you to prove (which is not possible) you are not harming the environment and we do not have to make a rational or scientific argument for your “sins” or “crimes” we need only submit that there may be unforeseen damage at an undetermined point in the future and then we have the right to regulate and control the use of land, all for the animals and nature.

            How many cattle died being stampeded by helicopters by the BLM with their recent heist of Mr. Bundy’s private property? How many gallons of oil did they burn with their 200+ shock troops sent out to harass him and his family? How many taxpayer dollars doing nothing but enforcing sickening Agenda 21 takeover bullshit? How is that for “sustainability”.

            http://nwri.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/The-Precautionary-Principle-in-the-International-Arena.pdf

          • Andrew

            > Environmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of
            environmental degradation. Where there are threats of serious or
            irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

            I don’t have a problem with that part.

            > unless of course it involves force medicating the population through fluoridation of the water supply, that’s just fine with them,

            That’s the part I have a problem with. In fact, I think it proves a precautionary principle should be applied to governments too.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            The crazy part is…

            This actually sounds way better to me than the overt farce that they’re currently running.

            Also, awfully sophisticated operation, yet so incompetent as to be easily debunked exposed on deh internutz.

            Anyways, asked and answered…

            For whatever reason people enjoy having enemies. When none are readily at hand they invent them.

            I think the concept of psychological projection explains it pretty well.

          • Number1Framer

            Just to be clear, let me say straight away that I read the link you posted – including footnotes. Tell me where you find all this “hidden meaning” (provide a citation or at least an anecdotal example proving said “hidden meaning” exists otherwise it’s your own conjecture)? What are the potential dark implications at work here and how do you come to that conclusion?

            I know if I lived out in Wyoming, or Colorado, or any other state that’s currently being fracked right now, I’d probably be pushing hard for something like what is discussed in this essay to be implemented. It seems like the Precautionary Principle would come in pretty handy to prevent situations like adjacent land having fracking wells go up and then suddenly all my livestock dies after unknown proprietary chemical mixtures are added to the water table. The Earth is after all a finite resource regardless of how big and vast it is. Why is it so insidious to err on the side of caution in a situation involving unknown parameters? Or am I missing some diabolical agenda hidden between the lines?

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            Sounds like a last ditch failsafe mechanism to ensure Libertarians Anarcho-Capz™ don’t destroy us all with their religious dogma about Free Markets™.

            Checkmate, Koch Brothers™? Or maybe this is why The Powers That Be™ have devised structures like the Trans-Pacific Partnership™ to be implemented.

            Either way, just one division of the Ill Umen Naughties™ consuming another. It’s like when competing species of coral meet.

            ◬⨻◬

            ᠠᠡᠢᠣᠤ⅋ᠶ

          • Andrew

            It’s called an Appeal to Motive.

          • Number1Framer

            Another hypothetical example: you have a fishing hole near your home. A factory
            goes up nearby that produces a new chemical that has never been manufactured
            before. Current environmental laws do not apply to this chemical because
            it is new and unknown, so the factory is legally able to dump it in your favorite fishing hole. Turns out once the science comes back a few years later on the chemical they manufacture that it causes scrotum tumors and you’ve been eating it every time you go fishing. Gee, woulda been nice if they were held to be more liable with this unknown chemical in the first place, right? I’m really not seeing the ‘legalese’ devil you’re seeing in these details. Or am I just taking the essay at the link you posted too literally by referencing situations in which it could apply in a beneficial manner? Go ahead and call me too stupid to notice, clarify with specifics (ANY example would be nice-even hypothetical), or GTFO.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            I’m not calling anyone stupid. I am presenting that Agenda 21 leaves the door open for exactly what you saw at the Bundy Ranch. The federal gov’t seizing state land under the presumption of preserving nature. Nature they themselves destroy. Nothing hypothetical about that. Now if you want to prove the federal gov’t. has jurisdiction please do so, I would love to see their legal arguments and where this so called precedence is established.

            The hypothetical you listed is understandable, but there are more ways than Agenda 21 to mitigate such a circumstance yes? For all parties to come to an agreeable solution yes? We needn’t fall into the false dichotomy/dilemma mind set to work out our differences. The controllers control by limiting the spectrum of allowable thought.

            There must be a win win scenario available but it requires work, accountability and justice to produce. Mr. Bundy asked that his sheriff do his job and uphold state’s rights. Whether the sheriff will uphold his sworn oath remains to be seen and this is the crux of everything, do we abide by the constitution or do we let the federal gov’t steal from us without a fight.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            The present human paradigm destroys nature. Every last bit of it. To constrict your thought tubes so severely as to misjudge matters of scale and relativity is quite revealing.

          • Number1Framer

            “Leaves the door open?” So you’re admitting Agenda 21 in its over 20 years of existence has accomplished nothing in the way of what you are painting as tyrannical NWO takeover? Also I wouldn’t say the government directly destroys as much of nature as it simply allows industry to destroy through inaction.

            “For all parties to come to an agreeable solution yes?” Of course, because that’s always the route taken by your friendly neighborhood heavy industrial corporations. They always work one on one with locals to mitigate situations that are dangerous or environmentally catastrophic, right? Show me one example of this that doesn’t involve a class action lawsuit and a settlement AFTER the fact. Precautionary principle sure would have been a nice principle to adhere to in the famous case of the Hinkley, CA groundwater contamination. Could’ve saved alot of people alot of pain and misery as well as saving Pacific Gas & Electric the $333 million they ended up paying out. Sounds less like tyranny to me and more like the smart way to manage a business in the long term. Maybe if they had just stood outside holding guns all the pollution would’ve gotten a-scared away.

            As for trying to pigeon hole me as taking the government’s side in the Bundy debacle, let me reiterate what I have said about Bundy elsewhere that I do not believe there are any ‘good guys’ in that whole thing. I’m against all sides in that case, but why didn’t the militia get rounded together for the Keystone XL land grabs that went on in OK and TX? Was it because no one knew about it until it was too late because it was swept under the rug unlike Bundy who bears every sign of being an astroturf cash cow for money-grubbing shills like Hannity and Alex Jones? Face it, you’re as much of a pawn as everyone you label as indoctrinated – you just play for the other fake team.

          • Andrew

            > The federal gov’t seizing state land under the presumption of preserving nature.

            I have absolutely no problem with that part.

            > Nature they themselves destroy. Nothing hypothetical about that.

            That’s the part I have big problems with.

          • Number1Framer

            Still waiting to hear back on my last response to you. Or are you conveniently ignoring the real life examples I cited to instead focus on the childish squabbling above? You still have yet to show one single tiny shred of proof that Agenda 21 has done anything in the way of infringing on the rights of anyone.

          • Andrew

            I hate to (partially) agree with you, but yep, a precautionary principle makes room for overreach. Something like it is necessary, but it must be very precise and carefully balanced. If the FDA did its job honestly, the regulation requiring chemicals be tested for safety before being put in foods would be a good example.

          • Oginikwe

            Please. The U.S. hardly ever practices the precautionary principle in anything which is why the courts are full of lawsuits from corporate harm in many different industries. Industries regularly distort science to exaggerate or underestimate risk and keep stables of scientists-for-hire. Today’s regulatory agencies allow anything to be released until it is proven detrimental (measurable harm) meaning that preventative action is not taken until the damage is already done. One example: We are the only country who allows rBGH in our dairy. Another, Vioxx and other harmful pharmaceuticals. Another, fracking and the toxins it not only introduces into neighborhoods but also underground. Or, even “Five Dangerous Substances Big Ag Pumps into Your Meat.”

            That the precautionary principle could be threat is hilarious. You might as well worry about unicorns overgrazing Bundy’s land.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Just provided several. Please read through everything and then respond. Cheers.

    • Anarchy Pony

      Is your head up your ass for the warmth? You are so pathetically predictable. You very reliably spew every bullshit right wingnut talking point and conspiracy. Does being so utterly one dimensional hurt? Or is it just sort of like having an irritating buzz constantly in your ears? Is your paranoia conditioned or is it innate? I suggest you seek psychiatric help.

      • Guest

        How did the useful idiot cross the road? He was convinced he was already on the other side.

      • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        I have a mental challenge for you “anarchy”. Take any one point in the film I presented and argue against it, citing your sources and avoiding your seeming reliance on name calling and other logical fallacies. I don’t think you can do it, in fact I’m sure of it.

        • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

          Challenge accepted and answered. It’s a documentary produced in 2009 called Collapse. Even if this bullshit you’re on about has an iota of truth to it, it is superseded by the imminent collapse of Western Civilization™. Agenda 21 is shadowboxing.

          But in the interests of fairness, same challenge, “Camron”. The movie is based of a book that Ruppert wrote as an actionable Presidential Energy Policy. So if there’s not enough meat in the doc, feel free to dig deeper.

          Maybe this could be your next article on Disinfo, kay?

          Good luck.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdO2Xh51Q-U

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Read my challenge again as obviously you misunderstood it. To be clear, pick one point from the Agenda 21 film from Rosa Korie I linked that you disagree with and argue against it. If you aren’t interested in doing that then you’ve not answered my challenge now have you.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            Yes, the one point I am picking that Agenda 21 matters, at all. I say no. Mike’s got my back.

            Consider your BS debunked.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            So you really think ignoring the entire movie and then rerouting focus (non sequitur) towards Collapse is answering the challenge….right. Can you do your own thinking? Why don’t you take one point from the film I linked and debate it’s merit, but that would require you watching it, understanding it and then being able to address a point you disagree with and nothing leads me to believe you are willing to do so so why not let Tuna step on up and take my challenge since you seem incapable.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            You said pick a point.

            I did.

            You don’t like that my answer makes your propaganda irrelevant.

            Tough shit.

            Next you’ll be telling me to go vote.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            Also, wow. Someone made a ~90 minute film… that must mean it’s all true!! No one who makes ~90 minute films could possibly be wasting anyone’s time!!!

            Just how myopic are you?

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            Additionally, still waiting on that birth certificate to verify your identity.

            Better get one for this Rosa Korie person too.

            I doubt either of you are actual people. And hey look, the internet proves me right! I can’t find a picture of your birth certificates!!

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            “Camron”, separate question, just want to clarify “your” belief system…

            But, it is critically important to understand that Governments, far more than the private sector, are now the greatest wasters of Earth’s energy resources and the predominant cause of environmental pollution. Nothing undertaken by industry can match the detrimental environmental consequences of the interminable, destructive wars conducted by our own unaccountable government.

            Is this what you stand behind? Or is this a paycheck?

          • Jonas Planck

            Not until you provide the four 7000+ word essays complete with sourced references and MLA citation that I requested. If you are unwilling to engage in a fair exchange, then you deserve no consideration as anything other than a deranged street person spouting random gibberish at passers-by. Now adhere to your own standards, demonstrate that you are capable of independent thought, or else STFU and GTFO. Ain’t nobody got time for your bullshit.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            You’ve got a massive amount of time to rant and avoid considering the information I’ve presented. Look, you don’t want to think about it, I get it. By the way, just one point! ;)

          • Jonas Planck

            MAKE a point, and I will discuss it! Until that happens, you have nothing to bitch about, because you have SAID nothing! Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I can only assume that you don’t have an opinion, since you can’t say what your opinion is.

          • Mr Grim

            And round and round and round it goes… Give it up, dude. You seem like a pretty smart guy, there have to be more productive things you can do than argue with such a rusted on oil-industry shill.

          • Jonas Planck

            After you’ve completed the two 7000 word essays on Holy Mountain that I’ve requested, I will then need you to watch an obscure 1973 Polish surrealist film called The Hourglass Sanatorium which is a visually rich dreamlike exploration of one man’s personal religious journey throughout various periods of his own life, and write an essay explaining the themes and symbolic metaphors that the filmmakers were attempting to convey, before then writing ANOTHER essay (again, no shorter than 7000 words) explaining why you think it’s all bullshit… remember, your rebuttal must center around the actual themes as presented, simply saying that “it makes no sense” will not cut it… you must actually confront the themes on the same terms as the surrealist presentation of those themes, or be considered a liar who can’t be bothered to consider any viewpoint but his own, and you will therefore be unqualified to criticize any material at all, since you clearly think that this is fair.

          • marshall

            You are quite indignant for someone who is so righteous.

          • Jonas Planck

            Why thank you! Nobody’s ever called me righteous before! At least, not during THIS century….

          • marshall

            So 1999 was the last time? 15 years, yeah, thats about in line with my track record as well.

          • Jonas Planck

            Uh… yeah. the twentieth century. Sure, we’ll just go with that. Whatever’s easiest for you to process.

          • misinformation

            “my request is actually much more reasonable than yours”

            The main difference seems to be that the video he posted pertains to the discussion at hand – saying nothing of the fact that, predictably, nobody seems to have watched it.

          • Jonas Planck

            Sorry, but my time is not yours to allocate. If you wish to pay me, then I’ll reconsider, but I have a low regard for entitled moochers who demand free handouts of time and effort in exchange for nothing. Since you see fit to make such demands, I have no obligation to respect either you or the deranged astroturfer lady in that video.Them’s the breaks, kid. Someday, you’ll learn that you aren’t entitled to dictate to other people how their lives should be spent, but until that day, you have no right to complain when someone else tells YOU where you can stick your attention. If that’s a problem for you, then maybe this whole freedom thing isn’t for you. Perhaps you’d be better off living somewhere that doesn’t allow others to dismiss your immature petulance and sense of entitlement.. Good luck finding such a place!

          • misinformation

            Interesting. I checked the post you referenced but didn’t see any demands being made. It almost looks as if you meant to respond to another post. If not, I’m not too sure how your response pertains to anything I wrote.

            Honestly though, it pretty much seems to be par for the course with internet “discussions”. People are really just interested in reading their own monologue. If that’s the case, good luck. Otherwise, you may want to check the recipient of your response because it doesn’t really follow my post.

          • Jonas Planck

            So you take up for him, then abandon and deny him just as quickly? Such loyalty is to be commended! Sometimes, not often, but sometimes, I’ll lash out at someone, and they will man up and illustrate that I was wrong to do so, that I acted presumptuously in haste, and when that happens, I will admit that I was mistaken. This doesn’t seem to be the case here. And frankly, I really don’t see where either of you is attempting to stay on topic, so the topic is now moot.
            If you would like to discuss this Agenda 21 thing, a good starting point would be to note that the U.N. has no enforcement apparatus, and our media is already inundated with lies propagated by wealthy people who will do or say anything to protect their profits, even at the expense of their countrymen, so the burden is on the opponents of this non-binding, toothless measure to demonstrate not only that they are acting in good faith, but that they are not lying on behalf of those monied interests nor are they attempting to sway public opinion against any form of behavior that would threaten their continued dependency on said interests for their survival. Is that on-topic enough for you, or would rather just go back to deceptively blathering about your opponents’ unwillingness to trust your point of view, while simultaneously failing to state your point of view in any way?

          • misinformation

            This is pretty simple. Let me repeat…

            Quoted from you:

            “my request is actually much more reasonable than yours”

            My response:

            “The main difference seems to be that the video he posted pertains to the discussion at hand – saying nothing of the fact that, predictably, nobody seems to have watched it.”

            ……………………………………………………………………………………

            You can go back and read your diatribe that followed, if you want. But, as you can see from my post, i didn’t “take up” for anyone and therefore never “abandoned” them, regardless of how much you’d like that to be the case – so your “loyalty” gibberish, is just that.

            If you feel that posting a documentary as a response to a written article is disingenuous, especially while asking others to be original, I would agree with you. As for all the other “responses” you’ve given to my initial post, they make sense in a “guy standing on the corner, muttering to himself”, kind of way.

            Also, if you haven’t watched the documentary (which I also haven’t and won’t) it’s pretty lame to disparage it – which of course, winds us back to the beginning of this whole ridiculous exchange.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Ahh Misinformation why can’t everyone here be as considerate and fair as you. Thank you for being another small voice for sanity amidst the deluge of nitwitty smarm that passes for the average disinfo commenter here. There is about a handful of people I genuinely respect and whose perspectives I look forward to hearing and you are definitely counted amongst them.

          • Jonas Planck

            Sockpuppets are so agreeable, aren’t they?

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Projection is your only weapon.

          • Oginikwe

            Ha!!! Nice reach-around.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            It must be rough being a cream pie baby.

          • Oginikwe

            That seems to be more your thing.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            Awww, look. You shamed him. Awww.

            Just. Awww.

          • Mr Grim

            Is it still a reach around if he’s doing it to himself?

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ
          • misinformation

            I enjoy a lot of the content on disinfo. I also believe there are probably a lot of people (with opposing views to my own) who could provide interesting discussions IRL.

            Unfortunately, the interwebs seem to have a knack for destroying all (well, most, actually) ability for quality human interactions.

            Often when I’m about to hit “return” on my keyboard I have to ask myself, “Is this worth my time” (I suppose I should be asking that long before “return”)? Often, this is the image that best captures my own answer:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A

          • Matt Staggs

            I totally agree. It’s the greatest communication system the world has ever seen, but it utterly depersonalizes people. It’s kind of like when you’re driving in traffic and don’t see other people anymore. You see “that damned SUV” or “the idiot in the Volkswagen” or whatever.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            The American driving experience says a lot about Americans in general.

            What it boils down to though, is entitlement. On the road, on the net, or in person, the individualist’s ego demands on other individuals frequently violate basic libertarian principles, even from an American Libertarian standpoint. The only reason it is more apparent on the internet than elsewhere is the complete dominance of the robotic symbology of the written word. Thought, even employed to the best of ends, is something of a moral hazard according to most advanced wisdom traditions.

            FYI, there is no probably no better (first world) education on humanity than to spend some time of necessity being a pedestrian in the average American urban environment. However you will only derive the full benefits if you remain fully present yourself. So I guess for most of us that would mean no smartphone use. Skill points if you can not cheat with music.

            Honestly, I’m shocked every day by peoples’ casual disregard for other people. I don’t know if I’m supposed to get used to it or what…

          • Ted Heistman

            Have you read Agenda 21? Wouldn’t that be EVEN MORE relevant?

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            I’m working my way through the 351 pages of bureaucratic doublespeak now, but have actually watched hours of documentation, listened to hours of podcasts (from all sides) and have read about 10 articles on the subject. Soon as I finish I will be happy to decode it for those willing to listen.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            So because you’re willing to undergo some flagellation that is literally irrelevant to the issues collectively and individually facing humans, you have some kind of authority? Becoming an expert on bullshit doesn’t make “your” observations smell better.

            You must get compensated really well for the disinfo you spread. Which is sad, because you’re terrible at what you do.

            Good luck with your PsyOp “Camron”.

          • Ted Heistman

            You just replied as Camron Wiltshire, are you fucking joking?

          • Number1Framer

            LOL

          • Andrew

            Sounds like you’ve already decided it means something other than what it says.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Sounds like I’ve done more research than anyone else here. Again, feel free to refute any of the points I brought up on this thread regarding Agenda 21. Have you yourself read all 351 pages and if so please point to a particular portion that gives you peace of mind regarding their intentions.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            Being an expert on bullshit™ doesn’t obscure that your very presence brings with it the waft of a particularly fragrant pile of shit.

          • Andrew

            Sounds to me like you’ve swallowed more of big business’ anti-environmental astrofoil than anyone else here.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            …fascinating…

          • misinformation

            No, I have not read Agenda 21. At this time, I do not plan to. Which is why, as you can see, I didn’t make any comments with regards to it.

            Seems like that would’ve been a better question for Camron but I’ll answer it, regardless.

            I’m not sure I would look at it as “more relevant”. It’s certainly as relevant of document one can read with regards to the subject. And, I believe it best to have read it if one is going to partake in a discussion of it’s merits.

            I don’t know if Camron has read it (I have not read this thread in it’s entirety). I saw that you have read it and maybe one or two others claim to have. I would bet that 90% (conservatively) of the people in this thread have not. But, as you can see it doesn’t stop people’s smug assertiveness on the matter. It’s not unlike global warming.

            I would wager that 95% (again, conservatively) of people who espouse the theory of AGW have never looked at one scientific paper regarding the subject. If they had, they probably wouldn’t understand it. But it doesn’t stop them from “knowing the facts”…that they heard from someone else.

            Frankly, these posts, where Camron is involved are pretty much a parody at this point. Camron will hold (as far as the “majority” goes) the contrarian view. He will then get assaulted with “astrofoil”, “head up ass”, “right wing”, “Glenn Beck”, “Infowars” (as if they’ve never been correct before) blah, blah.

            I may not always agree with Camron (the value of Jan Irvin being one such instance) but he’s generally pretty solid about putting the issues on the table and challenging others (who, mostly, invariably fail) to drop their emotional baggage and engage in a logical discussion.

            I’m not surprised, of course. And posting on sites like this is a little bit masochistic because virtually everyone’s intention is to simply drop some shot, smarmy comment (and yes, I occasionally do too) or a spew some unconnected, non-sequitorial (is sequitorial a word?) gibberish (perhaps this is a case-in-point).

            At any rate, with regards to your question; at least Camron’s post had to do with Agenda 21. The one that preceded mine, did not.

            Warning, this comment not checked for errors…

          • misinformation

            I thought I posted this last night. I wrote it, then. Often those mistakes turn out to be fortunate, as it’s often the case, upon review, that whatever it was shouldn’t have been sent in the first place. I’m throwing that logic to the wind. Here is what I wrote last night:

            No, I have not read Agenda 21. At this time, I do not plan to. Which is why, as you can see, I didn’t make any comments with regards to it.

            Seems like that would’ve been a better question for Camron but I’ll answer it, regardless.

            I’m not sure I would look at it as “more relevant”. It’s certainly as relevant of document one can read with regards to the subject. And, I believe it best to have read it if one is going to partake in a discussion of it’s merits.

            I don’t know if Camron has read it (I have not read this thread in it’s entirety). I saw that you have read it and maybe one or two others claim to have. I would bet that 90% (conservatively) of the people in this thread have not. But, as you can see it doesn’t stop people’s smug assertiveness on the matter. It’s not unlike global warming.

            I would wager that 95% (again, conservatively) of people who espouse the theory of AGW have never looked at one scientific paper regarding the subject. If they had, they probably wouldn’t understand it. But it doesn’t stop them from “knowing the facts”…that they heard from someone else.

            Frankly, these posts, where Camron is involved are pretty much a parody at this point. Camron will hold (as far as the “majority” goes) the contrarian view. He will then get assaulted with “astrofoil”, “head up ass”, “right wing”, “Glenn Beck”, “Infowars” (as if they’ve never been correct before) blah, blah.

            I may not always agree with Camron (the value of Jan Irvin being one such instance) but he’s generally pretty solid about putting the issues on the table and challenging others (who, mostly, invariably fail) to drop their emotional baggage and engage in a logical discussion…even if I’d prefer to see more original content from Camron (as opposed to video bombs, etc) . At least he rarely seems to resort to personal attacks and non sequiturial monologues.

            I’m not surprised, of course. And posting on sites like this is a little bit masochistic because virtually everyone’s intention is to simply drop some short, smarmy comment (and yes, I occasionally do too) or a spew some unconnected, non sequiturial (is sequiturial a word?) gibberish (perhaps this is a case-in-point).

            At any rate, with regards to your question; at least Camron’s post had to do with Agenda 21. The one that preceded mine, did not.

            Warning, this comment not checked for errors…

          • Jonas Planck

            Oh, so now you’d rather NOT talk about it. Very well, then. I’ll be waiting here if you ever make up your mind and decide what it is you’d like to do.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Just pick one point.

          • Jonas Planck

            Just make one point.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            the 7th Chakra?

          • Mr Grim

            The one at the top of your head seems a good one for starters…

        • Jonas Planck

          Sure thing, tough guy, I’m right in there… just as soon as YOU demonstrate your willingness to do the same by spending two or three hours of YOUR day watching whatever bullshit propaganda I want YOU to be subjected to, and then waste another hour or two writing a thoroughly researched essay on why you think it might be untrue, providing citation from unbiased sources to back up your claims, and then accepting without question all the excuses I’ll come up with to shoot down any rebuttal you can concoct, because you obviously don’t have a job or a life or anything, so you have plenty of time to DO all that. Failure to do this indicates that you are lying and can never be right about anything, as per your own criteria used to determine when someone is a liar.
          We’ll start off easy with Alejandro Jodorowski’s Holy Mountain … I want you to analyze this film’s themes and imagery and describe in full detail what you think the messages are that he’s trying to convey, before attempting to refute that message, because if you don’t get it, you won’t be able to refute it, so we have to determine first if you’re capable of interpreting metaphor and symbolism… Your first essay will need to be at LEAST 7000 words in length. Once we get all that out of the way, you may THEN proceed to give us your take on those themes, IF you can understand what those themes actually are.
          If you can’t be bothered to do that one simple thing for the next five hours, then I’m not obligated do the same for you.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Just pick one point you disagree with.

          • Jonas Planck

            Very well, the point I choose to disagree with is your insistence that you have made a point. I disagree with that assertion. You have not made any point at all… You posted a video of some lady standing in a church voicing HER concern that the U.N. is going to destroy our way of life by cutting into the profits of oil companies… HER concern, not YOURS. That’s not making a point, that’s letting someone else think FOR you. If you would like to join the discussion and state an opinion or perhaps say a thing that you are thinking using your own cerebrum, feel free to DO that. But if you can’t actually be bothered to think for yourself or formulate your own ideas and opinions, and it’s too much work for you to state those ideas, IF you even have any, which I doubt, don’t be surprised when you get mocked for it. In fact, I don’t think that you’re CAPABLE of making a point, because if you were, you would have done so by now. You’ve had plenty of time. What’s stopping you? Are you lazy? Or are you just too stupid to express your own opinion? Do you even HAVE an opinion?

  • http://lmgtfy.com/ jasonpaulhayes

    Freedom is thinly veiled code for a return to a system of Local Notables calling every shot and family is code for White Separatism.

    • marshall

      Wow, you are spot on. Did it take 16 years of school for you to come up with that? I bet your “white” too!

  • wfzlsster

    There may be a close relationship between the Bundy Ranch scenario and Agenda 21. It’s time for liberals to stop being robots that take there cues from corporate media.

    • Jonas Planck

      You’re right! Agenda 21 is the secret plan to make people pay grazing fees on public lands, but then back off and say no, actually you don’t have to pay grazing fees and you won’t serve jail time for failing to pay all the fines we levied against you which you don’t actually have to pay, and that will destroy our way of life, because chemtrails or something! You’ve blown the lid off of this conspiracy! Not being made to pay fines for failure to pay fees is JUST LIKE THE HOLOCAUST!!!!

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

      I agree, good luck with that though. “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” Or who mindlessly follow “sustainable” talking points without understanding the hidden meaning behind that deliberately ambiguous term, just like “climate change”. Mind control is what it boils down to.

  • BuzzCoastin

    the UN is a balless puppet of the homeland oligarchs
    it has no power whatsofukingever
    & this little wag of an issue
    is for those without enough already to worry about

    • Echar Lailoken

      Where will I get my next meal?

      • BuzzCoastin

        KFC?

        • Echar Lailoken

          But that costs money.

          • aaron

            I hear government assistance is a pretty happening thing lately.

          • Andrew

            I heard it’s morally equivalent to the Holocaust.

          • aaron

            Yea, but only if you arnt a corporation right?

          • Andrew

            Corporations are people. I’m not.

          • aaron

            Well this is true. Us slaves are not people.

    • misinformation
  • Jonas Planck

    You mean I can destroy our civilization simply by planting some tomatoes? I am SO doing that! Hell, planting a few bell peppers as well could easily destroy the government and turn everyone into gay communists! How I can resist doing it now that I know how easy it is!

  • Ted Heistman

    I actually read Agenda 21. I really don’t see what the problem is either.

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

      So you read all 351 pages there huh Ted? What was your takeaway? How about that whole “precautionary principle” reversing of innocent until proven guilty. Kind of impossible to prove a negative. “An inability to disprove does not prove”.

      • Ted Heistman

        I posted on FB about reading it.

      • Ted Heistman

        You seem fucked up somehow.

        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          Ted you are really disappointing me lately, first you refuse to do your homework now you insinuate I must be paid or that , “I’m fucked up somehow”. Is this your usual reaction if someone calls you out on being incorrect? Please stick to the topic and stop projecting shit onto me to avoid dealing with the facts.

          Are you just a follower Ted? I mean really to say shit like this, “But at some point you seem to have decided that everyone who disagrees with your paranoid anti-government view point is the enemy.”

          Uh, no, what I did was ask that if you wanted to debate, to at least know what you are talking about. Rather than admit you hadn’t done your homework and that you were repeating discredited lies (talking points) you go on the attack.

          See the problem is you are unwilling to debate so you have defaulted to snipey smarmy trolling behavior and frankly I find it appalling and simplistic, I expected better from you man.

          • Jonas Planck

            Where do you get the idea that you’re debating? Is it that weird dictionary with all the wrong definitions you’re using?
            you see, a debate is a discussion of a subject between two people with differing points of view ON THAT SUBJECT. What you’re doing is avoiding the subject matter entirely and telling everyone that they aren’t qualified to talk about it at all. That’s not debating, it’s an attempt to prevent a debate from happening.

          • Ted Heistman

            How is reading the entire document not doing my homework? Are you aware of the importance of primary sources when doing research? Does everything you read need to be first vetted for you by people with the proper ideological lense? Now who’s the follower? What you don’t trust your own brain?

            The document is pretty innocuous and very long and redundant it says a lot of common sense truisms about not depleting no renewable resources etc. all the alarmism is based on paranoia and vague innuendo as far as I can see. It’s totally ridiculous really. The document says boring common sense things and all these right wing pundits project their paranoid Armageddon fantasies onto it. That is how I honestly see it . Take a look at yourself, before you call me dishonest.

          • Ted Heistman

            Here is my Facebook Post from September: Feel free to apologize Camron.

            Well
            I read through this whole thing. I must have missed the juicy parts. It
            was rather dry, but most of the ideas still seem like good ideas. I
            think the point is the more We work on living sustainably ourselves, the
            less it will need to be imposed on us. Fortunately a lot has changed
            since 1992 in terms of people attitudes toward the environment. I think a
            lot of these things can be accomplished through the values of
            Jeffersonian Democracy.
            http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdfhttp://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content

            https://www.facebook.com/100004997435908/posts/203302076513039

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Ted, I posted a slew of comments that were all based on primary documents, they may have been deleted because I replied to my own posts en masse. That being said, you are presuming that I have an ideological lens simply because there is real world information demonstrating that Agenda 21 is destructive in it’s aims and you conveniently ignored all of them as though reading Agenda 21′s manifesto would provide incriminating evidence against itself. Think about that. It is absurd “logic” to believe so. It would be the same as reading the IPCC’s most recent publishing and ignoring all information that doesn’t conform with their edicts presuming they are not “primary”, therefore not “relevant”, this demonstrates clearly your own ideological lens as you’ve misapplied the term as though it sanctifies propaganda through appellation.

            “Generally, accounts written after the fact with the benefit of hindsight are secondary.[3] A secondary source may also be a primary source depending on how it is used.[4]
            For instance the same memoir would be considered a primary source in
            research examining its author or his or her friends characterized within
            it but a secondary source if it were used to examine the culture in
            which its author lived.[5]
            “Primary” and “secondary” should be understood as relative terms, with
            sources categorized according to specific historical contexts and what
            is being studied.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

            So Ted, do you think Smart Meters are a good thing? If so why? Can you imagine that perhaps the entire carbon trading scheme is entirely ineffectual by design and that this dovetails a little too conveniently with the “precautionary principle” espoused by Agenda 21? Can you think out of the box, having studied conspiracy on some level (I hope and imagine) that maybe you are in error and maybe the evidence I cited (primary and secondary) deserves to be heard and addressed point by point.

            I challenge you to a debate. Choose any one point and I will gladly demonstrate where there is ample evidence for concern.

            The ball is in your court Ted. You appear to be easily mislead by propaganda as long as flowery words like “sustainable” are thrown at you.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Jesus you really do think “sustainable” is some kind of flowery jargon, don’t you?

            Guy. You don’t know how to debate. I’ve told you this a dozen times after watching you ignore evidence and dodge questions and accuse everyone of using “fallacious” logic despite the fact that you wouldn’t know a logical argument if it jumped out from behind a potted plant and clawed you to death. You think any word whose meaning you don’t know is “jargon” and some attempt to suffocate you under meaningless argot, which, since there are so many words of which you don’t know the meaning, gives you room to dodge and avoid any point you don’t like the smell of.

            Apparently you’ve earned yourself a reputation for being terrible at arguing on a site full of people that are terrible at arguing. You deserve it.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            So what is the definition of sustainable you are using Tuna? How about Agenda 21′s version? Let’s start there. It should be fairly easy to demonstrate who is and isn’t the logical party in this “debate”.

          • Tuna Ghost

            I’m gonna go out on a limb and suggest that the logical party won’t be the guy that has been called out repeatedly over the course of a few years for deliberately ignoring evidence, given in literal black and white, simply because it doesn’t back him up. I don’t know what you think “debating” is, but I know I’ve never seen you actually do it.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Unsurprisingly, yet another projective strawman attack from you. Notice I am the one calling your bluff and advocating for a fair and logical discussion and you respond with the predictable smear campaign as though you can gaslight away all facts in an anonymous fashion.

            Always the same sick tricks from the anonymous Tuna. I will take your repeated avoidance to debate as a sign that you are actually unwilling and or incapable of doing so.

            Balls in your court. I put out my challenge, really simple actually, just define “sustainability”. Looks like you are just talk as always.

          • Tuna Ghost

            What strawman? You absolutely have that reputation. You’ve earned it. Don’t give me that line about “debate”, you disingenuous shit. You’ve done nothing, not ever, to advocate a fair a logical discussion during your time here. It’s not a smear campaign if the things I say are true and backed up by years of your behavior.

            I don’t need to smear you, Camron. You’ve destroyed all the goodwill and willingness to engage seriously with you all on your own.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            So you curse at me when I ask for a simple definition? Tells you everything about our dynamic. Put up or shut up noob. Focus on the challenge. What is the definition of sustainability provided by Agenda 21?

          • Tuna Ghost

            You don’t challenge anyone, Camron. You’re a child demanding to be spoken to like an adult. You don’t deserve to be taken seriously. Your opinions don’t deserve any consideration. If the “trolls” bother you too much, you are more than welcome to stop posting, but you’ll never do that because God doesn’t love his children that much.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            I don’t challenge anyone? Obviously you feel challenged, you and about everyone else avoiding what is presented and instead providing a steady stream smarmy shit storms and other foul invective posing as considered commentary. So obviously your statement is incorrect.

            Actually I’m not a child but thanks again for proving you have a real hate boner going for me

            “I don’t deserve to be taken seriously” <<Hilarious!! So you are the anonymous king of the internet who decides who will and will not be taken seriously. Great.

            "If the trolls bother you too much, you are more than welcome to stop posting…" This is how you rationalize your sick fetish, by blaming the victim, again go figure.

            It's funny how you shit talk everything I put up here and still remain anonymous like the coward you are. If you hate me so much, why not at least have the balls to let me in on your little secret. Let me guess, that would blow your cover and you couldn't withstand the embarrassment, thus the anonymous harassment will continue.

            I pretty much see everything you write under the title of "Queefs of Rage". Stay squeefy my neefy.

          • Tuna Ghost

            I didn’t decide that you wouldn’t be taken seriously, Camron. You ensured that, all on your own, with your behavior over the years. You’re a victim of your own actions.

            These other people aren’t “trolls”, they’re just tired of you continually bringing shit to the table and demanding others to consider it a culinary “challenge”. You’re a walking Dunner-Kruger effect.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Nice! And you are still an anonymous coward who can’t define “sustainability”. My challenge remains.

            It is funny though all of your little silly tactics, all to avoid a simple challenge. Rather telling.

            And I quote,

            “I don’t challenge anyone? Obviously you feel challenged, you and about everyone else avoiding what is presented and instead providing a steady stream smarmy shit storms and other foul invective posing as considered commentary. So obviously your statement is incorrect.

            Actually I’m not a child but thanks again for proving you have a real hate boner going for me

            “I don’t deserve to be taken seriously” Hilarious!! So you are the anonymous king of the internet who decides who will and will not be taken seriously. Great.

            “If the trolls bother you too much, you are more than welcome to stop posting…” This is how you rationalize your sick fetish, by blaming the victim, again go figure.

            It’s funny how you shit talk everything I put up here and still remain anonymous like the coward you are. If you hate me so much, why not at least have the balls to let me in on your little secret. Let me guess, that would blow your cover and you couldn’t withstand the embarrassment, thus the anonymous harassment will continue.

            I pretty much see everything you write under the title of “Queefs of Rage”. Stay squeefy my neefy.”

          • Oginikwe

            There is no one definition of sustainability because it means different things in different systems. We farm sustainably: that is a closed-loop system. We don’t use petrol-based fertilizers or soil amendments or pesticides or antibiotics. We are diverse and grow all kinds of stuff and raise all kinds of meat. The fields feed the poultry, cows, and pigs and their output is put back on the fields. All the hay we have leftover each spring and all the agricultural leavings are either fed to animals or put back into the soil. Everyone gets fresh air and sunshine. We feed quite a few people in our area. We plan on leaving this place better than the way we found it. Actually, I’m headed for the compost bin, gardens, and woods but that’s not part of the sustainability.

          • Number1Framer

            The exact definition of the word “sustainability” is not contained (that I can find) within the text of Agenda 21 – because the UN previously defined the term for their uses in a 1987 report entitled “Our Common Future” (AKA The Brundtland Report) section 3, paragraph 27 as “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising
            the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Jesus Camron, why didn’t you just say that’s what this was about – sounds downright apocalyptic…

            I don’t think anyone here is going to disagree with you regarding the government’s misappropriation and abuse of the environment and its hand-in-hand relationship with corporations. In the days of yore, regulatory agencies such as the EPA existed to safeguard US citizens from things such as corporate environmental malfeasance rather than serving as a rubber stamp for corporations to shit where we all eat. Sounds to me like Agenda 21 could really use full adoption in this nation rather than being undermined by those who could benefit most.

            You proposed “there are alternatives to preventing ecological destruction than giving whole sale power to the gov’t.” <your EXACT words. Care to share what those proposals may be? Perhaps you could be the one to unite us all together to combat tyranny while also preserving the finite planet that all of our lives derive from.

            I've engaged you repeatedly with minimal snark, zero rage, and nothing but real-life applicable examples thus far. Are you ever going to pony up and get to the point of providing any kind of example of how Agenda 21 has been used one single time in the last 20+ years to undermine anyone's rights?

          • Number1Framer

            Allow me to repost the response I gave you on the thread we had below citing a real-life example which you have been ignoring since I replied 2 days ago. I you’re unclear, see your own post farther below (or check you disqus account for notifications) for context. Otherwise I accept your defeat. –Begin repost:

            “Leaves the door open?” So you’re admitting Agenda 21 in its over 20 years of existence has accomplished nothing in the way of what you are painting as tyrannical NWO takeover? Also I wouldn’t say the government directly destroys as much of nature as it simply allows industry to destroy through inaction.

            “For all parties to come to an agreeable solution yes?” Of course, because that’s always the route taken by yourfriendly neighborhood heavy industrial corporations. They always work one on one with locals to mitigate situations that are dangerous or environmentally catastrophic, right? Show me one example of this that doesn’t involve a class action lawsuit and a settlement AFTER the fact. Precautionary principle sure would have been a nice principle to adhere to in the famous case of the Hinkley, CA groundwater contamination. Could’ve saved alot of people alot of pain and misery as well as saving Pacific Gas & Electric the $333 million they ended up paying out. Sounds less like tyranny to me and more like the smart way to manage a business in the long term. Maybe if they had just stood outside holding guns all the pollution would’ve gotten a-scared away.

            As for trying to pigeon hole me as taking the government’s side in the Bundy debacle, let me reiterate what I have said about Bundy elsewhere that I do not believe there are any ‘good guys’ in that whole thing. I’m against all sides in that case, but why didn’t the militia get rounded together for the Keystone XL land grabs that went on in OK and TX? Was
            it because no one knew about it until it was too late because it was swept under the rug unlike Bundy who bears every sign of being an astroturf cash cow for money-grubbing shills like Hannity and Alex Jones? Face it, you’re as much of a pawn as everyone you label as indoctrinated – you just play for the other fake team.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Nice try. Obviously a strawman attack is what passes for logical discourse from you. Go ahead and pigeon shit strut away man. Completely predictable behavior.

          • Tuna Ghost

            oh wow he completely avoided the issues you presented, I mean seriously you guys can you believe it

          • Andrew

            The historical examples he gave (Hinkley and Keystone) were not straw men. Your response is not intellectually honest. You have gotten “irate, irritable and irrational when presented with evidence that goes against your preconceived notions of how the world operates.”

          • Number1Framer

            Hmmmm… Seeing as I directly addressed 2 of your own quotes from the previous post below that my scree was originally in reply to, I’m really not seeing the straw man here. Don’t forget our discussion was in regard to the nefarious (or not) nature of the Precautionary Principle. I’ve provided a grand total of 3 cases in which the principle would have been of great use to people in protecting their personal liberties rather than diminishing them. Earlier this week there was also the big fracking settlement in TX (there’s number 4) which would have been another case in which preliminary precaution would have saved much trouble for people and also money for the extraction industry. Sounds win-win to me. Choosing Precautionary Principle as the jumping off point of your argument against Agenda 21 was IMO a misstep on your part. Please feel free to choose another specific and let’s start over.

            I repeat your quote, that the verbiage of Agenda 21 “leaves the door open” for abuse. It’s been over 20 years. Was the plan for the original authors to pass the resolution then wait to die of old age before implementing their true evil intentions? As the loudest voice taking a stance contrary to Agenda 21, the burden of proof has been on you from the beginning and you’ve yet to produce anything other than unverifiable ‘what-ifs’.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Greetings Framer,

            I finally got to see your above post in full and am happy to respond. You seem to be maintaining a false binary opposition in your narrative. I am no more pro fascist than I am pro eco-fascist. To be clear, I believe there are alternatives to preventing ecological destruction than giving whole sale power to the gov’t (which by the way has committed just as many ecological atrocities via War/Commerce (depleted uranium, dupont’s agent orange devastation) to oversee the use of all private property and determine what is and is not possible for private property rights holders to do on their property under the auspices of “precaution”.

            So presuming that corporations are solely responsible for ecological tragedy and that we need Agenda 21 in order for their despotism to be reigned in is a fallacious belief because gov’t. (actually another corporation) has much more blood on it’s sordid hands and looks the other way for the highest bidding companies (BP oil spill, Bhopal etc etc).

            So there is no reason to assume giving the gov’t the power to eviscerate property rights under the auspices of “environmental protection” has any historical precedence for working. You have to understand the nature of the fascist system we operate under to see through the false divide you have espoused.

            Especially when in their own words they describe not being bound by requirement for providing scientific proof or evidence whatsoever when weighing their judgement of what a private property owner (not just corporations) might plan to do at any given time and what the foreseeable and unforeseeable consequences might be.

            “In order to achieve sustainable development, policies must be based on the precautionary principle. Environmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.7″

            Before we go on, we should define “sustainable”. What does that actually mean to you? What do you think it means to the authors of Agenda 21?

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            well???

          • Number1Framer

            (sigh) Having to repost ignored answers yet again… It’s okay, there is alot of posts here to sift through, so there’s your cop-out. Begin repost:

            The exact definition of the word “sustainability” is not contained (that I can find) within the text of Agenda 21 – because the UN previously defined the term for their uses in a 1987 report entitled “Our Common Future” (AKA The Brundtland Report) section 3, paragraph 27 as “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Jesus Camron, why didn’t you just say that’s what this was about – sounds downright apocalyptic…

            I don’t think anyone here is going to disagree with you regarding the government’s misappropriation and abuse of the environment and its hand-in-hand relationship with corporations. In the days of yore, regulatory agencies such as the EPA existed to safeguard US citizens from things such as corporate environmental malfeasance rather than serving as a rubber stamp for corporations to shit where we all eat. Sounds to me like Agenda 21 could really use full adoption in this nation rather than being undermined by those who could benefit most.

            You proposed “there are alternatives to preventing
            ecological destruction than giving whole sale power to the gov’t.” Your EXACT words. Care to share what those proposals may be? Perhaps you could be the one to unite us all together to combat tyranny while also preserving the finite planet that all of our lives derive from.

            I’ve engaged you repeatedly with minimal snark, zero rage, and nothing but real-life applicable examples thus far. Are you ever going to pony up and get to the point of providing any kind of example of how Agenda 21 has been used one single time in the last 20+ years to undermine anyone’s rights?

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Please read through. No cop outs. Just information. Yes, please, no need for ad hominem, let’s stick to the facts alone. http://benswann.com/exclusive-videos-feds-260k-acre-land-grab-at-vail-lake/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=nl

          • Number1Framer

            Sounds good. I’ll be back tonight after work is over and I’ve had a chance to go over everything. Looking forward to seeing direct evidence of UN infringement.

          • Number1Framer

            Read the article and watched all 3 videos.

            According to Bill Johnson: “He said that the goal of the MSHCP is a “very coordinated and concerted effort”
            to devalue property and re-market it to developers who give large
            campaign contributions to politicians who are responsible for driving
            out the original land owners.” Sounds more like an issue to take up with elected officials rather than drawing an arbitrary line straight to the UN. Perhaps we need to also consider what this man’s neighbors have to say as well. It could be that they live here because they enjoy the rural character of the area and would rather not live next to his golf course surrounded by pop-up subdivisions. If they are elected in the majority to zoning/planning commissions, then Bill’s goose is cooked regardless of any federal involvement. If things are exactly as he says they are, then yes, it is problematic, but everyone has their own perspective and there’s obviously alot more to this particular story which will probably emerge in the next few days. But for now, UN it most certainly is not until proven otherwise by photo, video, or documentation. I will post a second reply with 2 links to Riverside Co’s planning commission website which may serve to give more info regarding Bill’s case (disinfo always holds my links for moderation, so check tomorrow). In any case, it will be interesting to see how many and what type of people show up on Memorial day.

            Have you given any more thoughts as to what your proposals are for preventing environmental destruction without giving wholesale power to the government?

          • Ted Heistman

            In all fairness, he could probably kick everyone’s ass here in a fight but he tries to be a gentleman. That’s more than I can say for most of the posters here.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            Yeah, if “Camron” tries to fight me, I’ll shoot him and claim “Stand Your Ground”.

            I’ve been smaller than teh odor kidz for a long time. The unsuccessful attempts “to put me in place” using tactics of physical intimidation have never held much coin in my realm.

            But whatever. You believe “Camron” to not be the Bad Faith Actor™ he has clearly demonstrated himself to be over the years. You want to fight, @ted_heistman:disqus?

          • Ted Heistman

            Too cool for courtesy, are you?

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            lol
            That’s rich coming from you, Ted.

            No quarter asked for; none given.

          • Ted Heistman

            Oh, really? Its too late to not be a dick? For everyone?

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            It is for you, apparently.

            Sad. I thought you were making progress lately.

            That’s what I get for having an opinion.

          • Ted Heistman

            I’m being Dick? Really? I am just saying be polite. I know I get heated at times. There really is an anonymity on the internet. I think most people would be way more polite face to face.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            Fake courtesy is just that.

            And no, your thesis about face to face is not supported by facts on the ground.

            Goodbye™

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32Qr5oKKP-M

          • Matt Staggs

            This is getting way the hell out of control. Nobody is fighting or shooting anybody, and if they are, I sure don’t want any of that here.
            http://www.mattstaggs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/WHOA+Whoa+Okay…+where+the+++did+you+find+that+_6f641fe8168015bda8a98999e1d1645a.gif

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            I’m merely voicing an ideological position that Ted has claimed to be acceptable in the past in light of a “physical” threat to my person.

            While I doubt my semi-anonymity would be sufficient to prevent a truly deranged individual from tracking me down in meatspace, I have neither the budget nor the fucks to give about “settling a score” to be that deranged individual myself.

            The only use for violence I have is saving my life from an immediate direct threat. Some other posters here, clearly not so much. The Hypocrisy™ is tastee®.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Matt you are just seeing the reality of a disintegrating forum. The trolls have had their way. The irony is I didn’t say anything about fighting and these clownboys immediately project like the little gossip ninnies they are. Honestly I’m gonna refrain from anymore conversation here as it is totally pointless. I will post my articles and the trolls can huff each others flatulence chanting platitudes grifted from RAW and co.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ
          • Echar Lailoken

            Fights are for playgrounds, people who are in over their heads, or outright bullies. Telling everyone that disagrees with him that they are asleep is the opposite of polite. Besides, fuck being polite.

            Respect is given to those who are deserving. To use Matt’s traffic analogy… If a truck is jacked up, with huge knobby tires, gold truck nuts hanging off the hitch. All you see of the driver is a tribal tattooed arm sticking out the window, while he rudely gestures and swerves about like a drunken douche… How will you react?

            Me, I’d keep my distance, but try to get rid of them.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Where did you see me saying that everyone is asleep? The rest is just your projected fantasy Echar.

          • Echar Lailoken

            Your mom!

          • Tuna Ghost

            “Well at least he’s not kicking the shit out of us” isn’t really a praiseworthy thing

          • Ted Heistman

            I think he tries harder to be polite than others he engages with here. I think he does insult peoples intelligence, but I am not 100% convinced its deliberate.

          • Ted Heistman

            Basically if you are a loyal friend, and your friend is Jan Irvin, what you get may very well be what you see here.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Another ad hominem attack. Really bro?

          • Tuna Ghost

            Jesus christ you’re embarrassing

          • Andrew

            I used to try and be polite and not react in anger, but then Mr. Wiltshire posted “Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist” which indicated that such behavior is a sign that someone is a paid government agent. So, nothing personal, but all of you go fuck your dead mothers in hell.

          • Tuna Ghost

            Yeah, but you’re being paid to tell us to fuck our dead mothers in hell, so your conviction is questionable

          • Echar Lailoken

            He’s pushing his agenda, that’s about it.

          • Ted Heistman

            I am just saying, he posts in his own name and is a former MMA fighter. He seems like he tries to be polite. So I would side with him over a myriad of anonymous trolls.

            As far as Camron, being a troll, after giving it some thought, I don’t think so. I really think he is convinced that anyone of average intelligence who simply watched all the same youtube clips and read all the same Alex Jones/Jan Irvin articles would immediately reach all the same conclusions as he.

            That’s the disconnect, I think. He is erring on the side of sincerity, really is what it comes down to. Its really pretty pointless to engage in activism here in the comments section of disinfo. Its a pretty jaded, savvy left of center crowd here.

          • Tuna Ghost

            I really think he is convinced that anyone of average intelligence who simply watched all the same youtube clips and read all the same Alex Jones/Jan Irvin articles would immediately reach all the same conclusions as he.

            That much I understand, it’s the complete and deliberate denial of any evidence to the contrary that is so mind-boggling. I’m being serious here, he’ll say “prove it”, and then when evidence is presented, he’ll act like it never happened and then almost immediately ask why you can’t provide evidence for your claims. I’ve seen him do this a dozen times.

            This is what makes people think he’s a troll — otherwise, it’s an extreme and likely harmful case of self-delusion.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            I agree it is pointless as this place is swarming with anonymous smarmy trolls who have no interest in anything other than self aggrandizing and or destroying any perspective that challenges their own self appointed (and delusional) perspectives on controversial ideas. Just because I post something from this or that person does not mean I fall in lockstep with their every utterance, such an oversimplified smear is par for the course for the folks here. There are certain names they decide shall not be uttered and any offender is raked over the coals for heresy. Many are most likely paid and or just dejected and irrelevant fucktards (right Matt? ;), you see behind the veil here after all). So yeah it is pointless, I just don’t like bullies or bullshit artists and am happy to point out where they are wrong if I believe that to be the case. On the odd occassion where a controversial topic is allowed to be discussed openly without the now defacto troll spoilage and aspersion casting (just like Big Bro wants, irony anyone?) I’m happy to hear different perspectives if they are actually linked to a cogent and clear stream of argumentation complete with citations and especially devoid of logical fallacies.

            Ted I appreciate you keeping it real here and for standing up. We may disagree on Agenda 21 and I think the previous conversation over Bundy is where we had our biggest disagreement.

            I wish you well. As for the anonymous haters, trolls and other assorted schmucks who can’t manage to do anything more than project their common (trite and predictable anonymous) schtick my way. It’s fairly obvious you’ve no case 99.9% of the time and it’s also obvious to waste anymore time in the comments section.

            I will let the thinkers see through your bullshit and keep posting what you don’t want to hear for your own childish reasons. Enjoy smelling your own farts in the comment section like the boorish butt hurt clownboys you are.

          • Andrew

            Tell that to someone who’s had the shit kicked out of them.

  • emperorreagan

    I’m confused as to how people come up with these paranoid fantasies about the UN in the US. The US is, quite arguably, the primary road block to UN action on many fronts: from land mine bans to global courts of justice; from action on environmental issues to punishing war crimes.

    The only UN actions on which the US has any follow-through are those things it intended to do anyway.

    • aaron

      Im confused how people come up with the paranoid fantasies that the UN isnt just a front to implement NWO agendas.

      Plus not to mention there are like 150 countries in UN and the US finds something like 20% of the UN budget…interesting coincidence.

  • Ted Heistman

    That was pretty funny! The reality of the document though: Reaaaaallly Boooring. But vaguely positive. I mean in 1992 maybe it was ahead of its time now its just…old news

    • marshall

      I think many peoples’ problem with it, is that it set in motion these weird, vague organizations that lobby local governments to set aside land for “conservation”, then selling or allotting said land to businesses or developers that are compliant with “green” laws and regulations….much like crony capitalism, except for its labelled under a more soccer-mom/caucasian/hipster/im-going-to save-the-world-by-believing-in-something-that-feels-good-this-week/PC umbrella philosophy everyone learned on television. I’ve volunteered for HFH a few times, and they always use this tape to put on cracks of particle board wall frames to “make it more energy efficient”. The shit is expensive. I think someone just wanted to sell tape, and labelled it as “green”, and got some relative who works in the government to regulate that all newly built houses must use it. Whatever, everything is veiled.

    • Oginikwe

      It is boring but sometimes interesting. When I was researching this last year, I was unpleasantly surprised to find out how many other countries have adopted Agenda 21 and did some great things with it. Many of them have since built wonderful high-speed trains for mass transit and other things while we sit here doing nothing with cross-country mass transit.

      Around these parts, the people go batshit crazy and hoot how the U.N. is taking over the the area for Agenda 21. One resident told me how Clinton had given Isle Royale National Park to the UN. I started laughing because, well, you can’t really believe that can you? Yes, apparently you can and I made an enemy for life. Thus, this is the “problem” with Agenda 21 for the TeaPots. The U.N. wants our gunz and our landz and they’re gonna put us in FEMA camps!

      • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

        Guaranteed room and board? What are they bitching about? It’s an improvement over welfare, innit?

        • Oginikwe

          Freedom & Liberty.
          ‘Nuff said.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            Freedom To Die© & Liberty To ~Choose The Spot And Method®

            I Talk To The WindⒶ
            The Fnords Are All Carried Away℗

  • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire
    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire
    • Jonas Planck

      That’s great… do you have an opinion of your own yet?

      • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

        “Camron” gets paid $$$ per minute of non sequitur videhoez “he” posts to duh internutz.

        Der’s a large $$$$$ bonus if some zombie actually clicks play & sticks around for +/-30 seconds.

        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          nice ad hominem deflection, feel free to actually respond to what I’ve posted instead of casting aspersions backed by zero evidence. (as usual)

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            nice ad hominem deflection, feel free to actually respond to what I’ve posted instead of casting aspersions backed by zero evidence. (as usual)

          • Mr Grim

            You do know you haven’t posted anything that’s actually your own independant thought, right…?

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            I don’t think he does, actually. To me, that’s one of the core issues, at least.

      • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        I’ve posted above, ball is in your court sport. Try to avoid fallacies and sophistry and yes I will call you out on everyone. Good luck!

        • Jonas Planck

          So your answer is no. You do not have an opinion, nor can you exhibit the ability to think for yourself, much less express those thoughts in the highly unlikely event that you could actually manage to formulate some.
          That’s ONE way to prevent people from disagreeing with you, isn’t it? If you have no thoughts of your own, then there’s nothing for anyone else to agree or disagree with at all! That way, you can play make-believe and pretend you “won” an argument, when in reality, you didn’t even participate in it.

  • ersatz

    why is it so hard to comprehend the fucking danger of granting corrupt authoritative agencies unlimited eco-based ‘sustainability’ protocols to go along with their established ‘eminent domain’ powers?

    well..it’s not like they’re already planning smart cities and smart grids to monitor every fucking move everyone makes via the surveillance grid, internet surveillance that so many had scoffed at as paranoid hyperbole for years.

    • Andrew

      > granting corrupt authoritative agencies unlimited eco-based ‘sustainability’ protocols

      They’re not unlimited, and they’re non-binding. If you think I’m wrong, cite your proof.

      • ersatz

        since when does the fed gov bow to any stipulated ‘limits’ they have the capacity to change at any given moment?…

        as if eminent domain isn’t bad enough,or enough proof of
        the danger of overreaching gov powers.

        if the gov tells you to get the fuck out of the area you live..simply refuse and see what happens to those limits you speak of.

        that’ll be your actual hard proof,for you to discern and contemplate.

        • Andrew

          That’s not an argument against Agenda 21 in itself.

          • ersatz

            oh really tho,’agenda 21′ has become obsolete..and has evolved into something else…which kinda makes this entire thread moot,considering.

            as far as you agreeing with un corruption..oh that’s great since it’s just readily known at this point,but then by that admission, plan itself was put forth by a corrupt source that is concerned about the environment…does that exclude a concern about leaking sewage into drinking water?

            they’re a corrupt source,who’s troops brought cholera to people that were promised benevolence and instead got pestilence and rape in return.

          • Andrew

            Again, the same thing could be said of the Constitution, which was written by slave owners who stole land from the Indians.

          • ersatz

            did you read me citing the constitution in any of my comments or was that based on your assumption that i’d cite the constitution next like scripture?

            nah,i’m not that predictable.

            surely the foundation of the us is steeped in a history of violent conquest and heinous treatment of the indian population who’s land was stolen….
            so consider my comments based purely on learning from those past violations as a fucking guide regarding gov’s usual intentions.

            and then ask yourself why you any many others still trust the state with such land-grabbing powers ?

          • Andrew

            I mentioned the Constitution to make a point, and to see how you’d respond. And I don’t mean to imply that I trust “the” state(s). I just don’t trust corporations or individuals like you any more than I do states.

            My point is that sincere sustainability programs are necessary, not that they’re possible. I’m not talking about “global warming,” I’m talking about xenohormone pollution, acid and plastic and radiation poisoning of the oceans, deforestation due to excessive meat consumption, dropping oxygen levels, and monoculture and pesticides killing off pollinators. The human race is heading for extinction and changing climates are the least of our worries (which may be why the corporate media focuses on them).

            I support the spirit of the texts of Agenda 21 and the Constitution to the degree that I understand them. Will either be enacted honestly? I doubt it. The human race seems to need to have our asses kicked repeatedly before we take responsibility for our actions. And not everybody survives hitting bottom.

            What I haven’t decided is which of my liberties I’m willing to die for, if any of my supposed liberties are worth making the rest of the human race die for, and how to respond to those who are willing to kill me for what they think are their liberties.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            Well said.

            Though I would have also added the extinction event level die off of flora and fauna. Nature isn’t killing itself. And blaming any one specific human organizational principle will capture only part of the story at best.

            So run away Run away
            From the land of the sinking sand

          • misinformation

            “Nature isn’t killing itself.”

            What does this mean?

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            ¿Are the oceans overfishing themselves‽

            ¿Are the rainforests clear cutting themselves‽

            ¿Did the animal trapped in six pack rings manufacture oil into plastic‽

          • misinformation

            The first two could spawn interesting discussions. I think the third is a bit of a stretch. Certainly several creatures have died from 6-pack rings but this illustration is more useful for government school propaganda.

            Science shows that there have been at least five “great extinctions” – none previously precipitated by humans. More mega fauna went extinct during the last one, than currently exist on the planet today (so I’ve heard). Current deserts were once forests, ice covered much of the planet. Nature does this. Nature will do it again.

            Do human actions have unforeseen and detrimental effects on the environment, absolutely. Do they cause the globe to warm or create “mass level extinctions”? Not so sure.

            Nature does and has “killed nature” And “it” will do it again.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            …Your anthropomorphism of “Nature” is quite telling…

          • ersatz

            …i’d say misanthropy™ is quite telling as well.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            “Hell is other people.”

          • misinformation

            What isn’t telling are cryptic posts that say nothing at all.

            Try expanding on your thoughts. Not just plugging and playing with “gotcha” words and phrases that sound biting.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            What isn’t telling are cryptic posts that say nothing at all.

            Try expanding on your thoughts. Not just plugging and playing with “gotcha” words and phrases that sound biting.

            Did you temporarily blackout forget where we are, what we were discussing, and who is involved?

          • misinformation

            I’m not going to finish your thoughts for you.

            Let me try to make it easy for you. What is it that my “anthropomorphism of ‘Nature’” tells you?

            Try to stop being clever and instead, work towards coherence. Everyone will thank you.

            I tire quickly of cute and vacuous. You’ll know I’m there when my replies to nothing, stop coming.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ
          • misinformation

            Note to self: In the future, &#255′s post can be glanced past without worry about missing any substantial content.

            Appreciate the time-saving tips.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            Note to Disinfo™: In the future, @disqus_yd79rOpr3A:disqus’s post can be glanced past without worry about missing any substantial content.

            Appreciate the time-saving tips.

            Thanks, “Camron”! Got anymore sock puppets for me?

          • misinformation

            Let me get this straight. You believe your strategically important enough for some, undefined entity to spend money on? Okay.

            I suppose the understanding that, you haven’t expressed a singe coherent, original thought in the last five posts, is more than enough to end this “relationship”.

            Don’t think of it as “goodbye”, so much as, “This is a waste of time”.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            Let me get this straight. You believe your strategically important enough for some, undefined entity to spend money on? Okay.

            I suppose the understanding that, you haven’t expressed a singe coherent, original thought in the last five ~236 comments, is more than enough to end this “relationship”.

            Don’t think of it as “goodbye”, so much as, “This is a waste of time”.

            Did you temporarily blackout forget where we are, what we were discussing, and who is involved?

            For whatever reason people enjoy having enemies. When none are readily at hand they invent them.

            I think the concept of psychological projection explains it pretty well.

            ⚇⚉⚇⚉⚆⚈⚇⚉☹☻✌✌✌♟♙☻☺☯

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBYGChzUhU0

          • marshall

            Wow, a sincere answer from you, which actually makes sense….did you wake up in a good mood that day? I’m impressed, Andrew, hear hear.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Because he isn’t thinking, he is trolling.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ
          • Echar Lailoken

            Ad Hominem

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Oh God. So because people owned slaves we must ignore everything they have said? It is the most ridiculous non argument, invoking all of these pity plays to obfuscate the point… a little too obvious Andrew.

          • Andrew

            Slavery is a litmus test for morality. I wouldn’t trust any “founding father” who engaged in it. The real question is why would anyone?

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            …because conceivably even White Supremacists™ can agree that there was something fishy about Building 7…

            …let’s get a Disinfo™-brand Seance™ together and see what the Moldy Oldies have to say…

          • Jonas Planck

            You’ve implied that because the U.N. has allowed corrupt practices to go unpunished that we must ignore anything they say about sustainability, so what’s your problem here, slugger? This is one of your ideological flip-flops I was talking about… the ones you can’t perceive yourself, but other people CAN see.

          • Echar Lailoken

            Personal Incredulity

          • Oginikwe

            And allowed only white, male, landowners to vote.

      • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        See how they always keep it “black and white”. No where has any supposed “pro-oil anarcho capitalist” said anything. Breaking the left right paradigm isn’t easy when folks like Andrew believe in it so heavily.

        • Andrew

          Oh please. One doesn’t have to be a leftist or rightist to acknowledge that there are such people and that they are active. You might not be pro-oil or an anarcho-capitalist, but some of the people (see the article) opposing Agenda 21 are.

        • Echar Lailoken

          Appeal to Majority

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

      ersatz, thank you for pointing out the connection here to existing intrusive surveillance devices, marketed under the umbrella phrase “sustainability”. It’s hard for them to comprehend because they don’t want to most likely. Thank for clarifying anyway.

      • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

        ersatz, thank you for pointing out the connection here to existing intrusive surveillance devices, marketed

        ¿Who markets to the marketers‽

  • ersatz

    when you cite glenn beck and alex jones as examples,at this point ,you’re just as fucking lame as those who cite them and post links to them as viable sources.

    • Oginikwe

      Nothing like running off at the mouth without actually looking at the links. “Glenn Beck” is not trademarked just to the right wing. I look at everyone’s information to understand all points of view.

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

      You may not like a particular source, but you cannot out of hand dismiss it because it comes from someone you dislike. Don’t kill the messenger, respond to the message or you are no better than anyone else here who participates in character assassination over considered weighing of the facts.

      • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

        You’ve confused your (individual) right to an opinion with an ego-gratifying tyrannical demand on attentions and liberty of the collective individual.

        You are no Alexander The Great™.
        You have not freed the serfs.
        Adapt or perish.

        Some people are beyond redemption on this rotation of the Merry-Go-Round™. To some, it is a marker of wisdom when one can quickly and accurately make such a distinction given the limitations of the experience.

        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          ….. so you are here to troll because you can’t argue one single point, look I get it.

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            ….. so you are here to troll because you can’t argue one single point, look I get it.

            Nah, I’m here to mirror your own insanity back to you. However, he who has blinded himself cannot see.

            Ÿ are u here, “Camron”?

          • Echar Lailoken
          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            El Topo is a masterpiece
            The Holy Mountain is trapped in Netflix™ Queue (aka Hell™)
            I would gladly buy both on disc if I had the $$$

            I like my soundtrack better, though (synchronicity!)
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN1lsRtSFPs

          • Echar Lailoken

            I’ve not watched El Topo yet, but I did watch Jodorowsky’ Dune documentary recently. That’s a fantastic video, thanks.

          • Mr Grim

            I can’t figure out if you’re paid to spout this utter nonsense, or if you are actually so damaged that you can’t recognise that you are yet to make _one single point_ for anyone to argue.

            All you do is post links to things and sit back, presumably thinking “job done”. But you appear to have no opinion, or indeed coherent thoughts, of your own.

            It’s almost impressive the new level you’re taking sock puppetry to, not so much in the online avatar sense, so much as your nominal existence in meatspace.

            Does the big hand hurt, jammed so far up there…?

            C’mon, you can share with us. We’re your digital friends. Or at least digital validators of your existence, which is likely as close as it gets for you.

          • Echar Lailoken

            My impression is that he has read a few articles or even books on how to win arguments.

            such as this

            http://www.wikihow.com/Always-Win-an-Argument

      • Andrew

        What if someone dislikes Snopes because they’re wrong about Building 7?

        • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ
        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          Building 7 is a litmus test for sanity and authentic reporting. I wouldn’t trust any “news” source who didn’t comment on it. The real question is why would anyone?

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            Especially sites that purport to debunk “conspiracy theories”. What part of this do you not understand exactly?

          • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

            What part of doublethink do you not understand exactly?

            …It’s stupefying…

          • Andrew

            Some conspiracy theories are untrue and should be debunked.

          • Andrew

            Oh God. So because people believe the official story regarding Building 7 we must ignore everything they have said? It is the most ridiculous non argument, poisoning the well to obfuscate the point… a little too obvious Camron.

      • Jonas Planck

        You mean like saying that because the UN is corrupt, that means the entire concept of sustainability is corrupt, because they supported it? Yeah, that would be bad if someone were to do that. Don’t you agree/disagree?

  • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

    It is interesting how they ignore the sordid history of the UN and presume good will, all because of flowery rhetoric? Makes you wonder why…. thanks for posting again.

    • Echar Lailoken

      It is interesting how you ignore reality and
      presume good will, all because of fearful rhetoric? Makes you wonder
      why…. thanks for showing your ignorance.

      • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        What “reality” do you presume I’m ignoring “Guest”. Another troll lashes out.

        • Tuna Ghost

          They’re all trolls, Camron.

          All of them.

          Every.

          Single.

          One.

    • Jonas Planck

      It’s also interesting how you willfully ignore the sordid history of energy barons and presume their goodwill, against all available evidence, without even the benefit of any flowery rhetoric! Makes me wonder why… but unlike you, I have the capacity for thought, so I can actually EXPRESS those doubts using words. And I will do so right now, because it amuses me to run circles around you.
      There are two possibilities that first spring to mind… one, that you are being paid to do it, because public relations is a multi-billion dollar industry, and men who cannot earn trust because they are unworthy of trust must attempt to BUY trust using tools like you. Mind you, they aren’t very good at it, and neither are you, but I don’t judge a man solely on his ineptitude, after all, you might just be practicing, since you clearly aren’t ready for the big leagues yet.
      The other possibility is that you suffer from that mental condition I mentioned a few days ago in another thread… acute chronic Orwellian doublethink. To someone suffering from this disorder, there is no objectivity, there is only agenda. Everything MUST fit with the underlying premise that you and any group you belong to are inherently good and incapable of doing wrong, making mistakes, or even being fooled or mistaken about anything. This deep seated emotional need to be 100% right all of the time requires you to deliberately forget things, to adjust your philosophy, to reverse your beliefs, to revise history, and basically to abandon your ideology over and over again in order to conform to that illusion of perfection you think you possess. To an observer, this makes you appear as if you’re out of your tiny little mind. But to YOU, all the contradictions and reversals and blatant hypocrisy make perfect sense, because you believe that your perfection means that the same rules that apply to everyone else don’t apply to you. Rather than convincing others of your perfection, this has the opposite effect, revealing to observers that you are in fact a deeply damaged individual who should not be trusted with any power.
      I have to point out that I’m just wondering aloud here, and that I’m not saying any of these things in absolute certainty. Normally, I don’t HAVE to say that, because it goes without saying among sane men. However, you’ve already demonstrated that you’re so slow witted you won’t be able to figure that out, so I have to expressly TELL you in order for you to get it.

      • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

        Maybe he got a chip installed that protects him from the fnords?

      • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        Which energy barons did I ever endorse anywhere? You can’t seem to argue a point to save your life and know you indulge in strawman attacks. Show me where I said anything like that. You can’t, because I didn’t.

        • Jonas Planck

          You refused to make any point, or state any stance, or choose any side, or express any opinion of your own, so I’m pretty much free to indulge any idea about you that pops into my head. Sure, most of those ideas are bound to be straw men, since you’re too scared to reveal any of your actual opinions to anyone… Until you actually express what you think, the only thing anybody has to go on is conjecture. If you propagate media that serves the objectives of energy barons, then it doesn’t matter if you SAY you endorse them or not. Words are cheap, but actions show what your true character is. All I’m doing is taking the clues you leave, and trying to fit the puzzle together based on those clues.
          I must be getting close to solving it, too, since you’re already on the verge of denying that you have allegiances or biases of any kind at all. That’s usually a sign that a liar just got caught lying.

        • Echar Lailoken

          Appeal to Ignorance

      • ersatz

        those energy barons, along with many other corporate/banker interests have owned the federal government for years…so realistically,as a direct result of that dynamic…any type of land grabs via eminent domain that’d be initiated by our government,even while citing ‘sustainable’ protocols as the rationale..are more than likely,in the end,going to be done to suit the vested interest of said energy barons.

        • https://twitter.com/anti_euclidean ÿ

          Big Religion™ begat
          Big Economics™ begat
          Big Politics™ begat
          Big Profits™

          This is not an either/or duality. It is the essence of non-euclidean.

        • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

          Ersatz you make far too much sense for the average commenter here.

          • Echar Lailoken

            Hasty Generalization

        • Echar Lailoken

          Slippery Slope

          • Andrew

            I think it’s an Appeal to Motive.

          • ersatz

            yeah..an appeal to motive..right.

            meanwhile,the un and the nuclear energy barons surely think that ‘climate change’ can be addressed with even more environmentally safe nuclear power.

            ‘UN supports nuclear power’

            http://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsun-supports-nuclear-power

            ‘UN agency endorses post-Fukushima ‘action plan’

            http://www.globalenergyworld.com/news/1793/

            i mean really…you just look at fukushima and the people there in the area are still ‘sustaining’ life there afterwards..so, i’d imagine they’d also agree with the un and the nuke energy barons that nuke energy is the way to go.

            also..also.. those 20,000 ugandans that were violently forced out of their villages, and had their houses burned down by a company, as a result of them signing up for the un’s clean air program…

            yeah..well,i’m sure the people probably wanted to leave anyway,to support the un’s initiatives.

            ————
            ‘In Scramble for Land, Group Says, Company Pushed Ugandans Out’

            http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/world/africa/in-scramble-for-land-oxfam-says-ugandans-were-pushed-out.html

            “According to the company’s proposal to join a United Nations clean-air program, the settlers living in this area left in a “peaceful” and “voluntary” manner.”

            People here remember it quite differently.

            “I heard people being beaten, so I ran outside,” said Emmanuel Cyicyima, 33. “The houses were being burnt down.”

  • Jonas Planck

    Now here’s an interesting conundrum… To an objective mind that considers things like rape, starvation, murder, and land-grabbing to be undesirable things that shouldn’t be done, it would stand to reason that some sort of effort should be undertaken to STOP those things from happening. And yet here we are arguing that a treatise written ostensibly for the purpose of condemning those things is actually ENABLING them somehow. Would it not make more sense for you to just insist that rape and starvation and murder are no big deal, and everyone should just live with it? After all, the core of the premise is that saying these things are bad or saying that action should be taken to prevent them is actually what CAUSES it! If you say you want to stop rape, then obviously, you’re trying to gain power over everyone, and you will inevitably abuse that power and use it to rape people, won’t you?
    So what authority is there that is above reproach? Who is this theoretical authority that is capable of bringing justice to the world without abusing its authority and doing all those bad things themselves? Obviously not the U.N. … so who? The U.S. government? Blackwater mercenaries, perhaps? Oil companies?
    Or are you suggesting that no action whatsoever should be taken to prevent bad things from happening? If that’s the case, why would you complain about bad things, since you obviously don’t care if they happen?

    • ersatz

      surely i think you find that ‘conundrum’ you concocted much more intriguing than i do..and unfortunately you’ve made it quite apparent that you cannot even admit the undeniable hypocrisy of the un offering any type of advice about anything,when they often cannot even address the disturbing documented abuses committed by their own troops along with the most recent charges of causing the cholera outbreak in haiti that they’d refused to compensate victims for…and instead the fuckers invoked legal immunity.

      ——— an excerpt from a guardian article from 2/21/2013

      ‘UN will not compensate Haiti cholera victims, Ban Ki-moon tells president’

      World body invokes legal immunity to rebuff claims despite studies identifying UN peacekeepers as source of the outbreak

      ”The UN has taken the rare step of invoking its legal immunity to rebuff claims for compensation from 5,000 victims of the Haiti cholera epidemic, the worst outbreak of the disease in modern times and widely believed to have been caused by UN peacekeepers importing the infection into the country.”

      ————-

      yet scattered within your fucking meandering word salad above,lies the inane rationale that any type of un involvement is better than nothing…and at least they’re being proactive,by even offering to help…tho sure..even if that includes the risk of innocent victims being raped and abused or killed by cholera,courtesy of said un peacekeepers.

      you’d offered a ‘conundrum’ instead of directly addressing such problematic internal corruption and blatant hypocrisy displayed consistently by the un’s actions.

      • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        @ted_heistman:disqus you should probably read all of this and reconsider being such an easy cheerleader for clandestine tyranny. Wash your ideological lenses out yourself and do your homework.

  • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire
  • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire
  • Apathesis

    I can’t be bothered to read 351 pages or boring legalese.

    How scary can the UN be, really?

21