TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

I first stumbled across agenda 21 in about 2008, and my first reaction was to dismiss what I was reading because I didn't believe that any government in Australia would take us down this road. Then I began to see a legislative pattern emerging in parliament which concerned me greatly, and I also started to see the tenor of legislation that we were passing. I did air those concerns in parliament, and it was dismissed and ignored. The words agenda 21, ladies and gentlemen, were never meant to be spoken. And if they were, then, of course, it would be dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Because if people knew agenda 21 and what it stood for, there's plenty of information out there where they could actually learn what the end game was, and governments didn't want that to be known. My dad always said to me that people only lie for two reasons. One reason is because you're ashamed of what you're doing, and the second reason is that you don't want people to be warned just before you screw them. And I honestly believe that these secrets have been kept for both of those reasons. Ladies and gentlemen, the origins of the environmental movement as we see it began back in 1968 when the Club of Rome was formed. The Club of Rome has been described as a crisis think tank which specializes in crisis creation. The main purpose of this think tank was to formulate a crisis that would unite the world and condition us to the idea of global solutions to local problems. In a document called the first global revolution authored by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider on pages 104 and 105, it stated, in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers, of course, will be caused by human intervention that will require a global response. That's the origin of global warming, ladies and gentlemen. In 1975, Australia agreed to bring in a new economic order via the Lima Declaration on the second conference of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization. The outcome of this was, as I said, the Lima declaration which was a blueprint for the redeployment of tools, jobs, and manufacturing to the developing nations, leaving countries like Australia short of technology, a manufacturing base, and jobs. Blind Freddy can now see what the outcome of that has been for our country with their unworkable trade and tariffs agreements hand in hand with this that have followed as a matter of course. This has now become a reality with around 90% of our agriculture and manufacturing just gone. Australia signed the Lima declaration in 1975 and hundreds of others with the support of all major political players, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating, Houston, Howard, Rudd, the democrats, the greens, and even the Nationals. It has been put to me that all of these treaties were the foundation for the rollout of agenda 21. And it seems that Australia has been moved around the global chessboard, and our so called leaders were either complicit or naive to the long term consequences. And now we're almost at checkmate. Sorry. In 1992, former president of The United States George Bush senior said, effective execution of agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of human society unlike anything the world has ever experienced. A major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action will be integrated into individual and collective decision making at every level. Cutting through the code, I want everyone here tonight not familiar with agenda 21 to consider what the words profound reorientation of all human society and unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources actually means. For everyone here tonight not familiar with agenda 21, I would suggest that this is the beginning of your learning curve, not the end. In 1992, Morris Strong, secretary general of the UN Earth Summit and member of the Club of Rome said, it is clear the current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, ownership of motor vehicles, small electrical appliances, home and workplace air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable. Put those statements together with the previous one, and it must become clear that agenda 21 is about controlling every aspect of our lives, how we eat, what we eat, how much we eat, how we move around, food production, the amount of food, and where we even live. Dixie Ray, former Washington state governor and assistant secretary for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs stated, agenda 21 seeks to establish a mechanism for transferring the wealth from citizens to the third world. Fear of environmental crisis would be used to create a world government and UN central direction. From a report in the September Habitat One Conference, land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument

My mother used to say that even in terrible situations, there is always some good that can come out of it if you search for it. We are currently at a crucial point in the world economy, which only happens every few generations. During a recent secure meeting, a top military official mentioned that between 1919 and 1946, around 60 million people died. However, we managed to establish a more peaceful world order since then. Now, things are shifting again, and a new world order is emerging. It is our responsibility to lead and unite the rest of the free world in this endeavor.

We are at an inflection point in the world economy and globally. This occurs every few generations. In a recent secure meeting, a top military official mentioned that between 1900 and 1946, 60 million people died. However, since then, we have established a more stable liberal world order. Now, things are shifting again, and a new world order is emerging. It is crucial for us to take the lead and unite the free world in this endeavor.

Our darkest days are ahead of us, and now is the time for a new world order. We need to clap for this shift and embrace a financial world order. This alternative vision suggests that ordinary people are too small-minded to govern themselves. Progress can only happen when individuals surrender their rights to a powerful sovereign. We are here to develop the great narrative that shapes the future. To do this, we must imagine, design, and execute the future.

We are experiencing accelerating change unlike any other time in history. Predicting the future was always difficult, but now it's impossible. In the past, basic skills like farming or hunting were always relevant, but now we don't know what to teach young people for the future.

There is a call for a new world order with varying characteristics worldwide. Addressing population growth's negative impact on ecosystems is crucial, with the United Nations playing a key role in finding solutions. Controlling a million people was once easier than killing them, but now it's the opposite. Translation: A new world order is needed with different characteristics globally. The UN must help stabilize world population amidst environmental concerns. In the past, controlling people was simpler than killing them, but now it's the opposite.

We have the opportunity to create a new world order for ourselves and future generations. It's not a crisis, but a necessary step. This new world order is important and should be pursued. It's a chance for the president of the United States to use this disaster to establish a new world order, a phrase his father used once before. We often talk about the need for a new world order.

The speaker discusses the shift from Western dominance to a more polycentric world, highlighting the decline of the West and the rise of non-Western economies. They criticize the negative impacts of American imperialism, citing examples like Libya and Syria. The speaker emphasizes the dangers of nuclear conflict and stresses the importance of preventing war. They advocate for a more balanced, polycentric world order to avoid catastrophic outcomes.

There is talk of a new world order, with various leaders mentioning it. The Clinton administration is considering its foreign policy in relation to this new world order. George Bush has also mentioned it, emphasizing its importance. The idea of a new world order is seen as significant and there is a belief that we have the opportunity to shape it. This new world order is expected to be different from what we are used to.

According to the speaker, the presented information signals the end of human-dominated history, not the end of history itself. In five years, a technology will exist capable of independent decision-making and idea creation. This is unprecedented because previous technologies, from stone knives to nuclear bombs, could not make decisions independently. For example, President Truman, not the atom bomb, decided to drop the bomb on Hiroshima. Furthermore, past technologies only replicated human ideas, disseminating music, poems, and novels written by humans. Now, technology can generate entirely new ideas on a scale beyond human capabilities.

"For the first time in history, foreign policy has become global." "Communications are instantaneous and there exist problems which are genuinely not national like environment, nuclear proliferation and simulations." "So in this sense, we are living in a new world and a new world order will emerge." "The only question is whether it will arise out of intellectual and moral insight and by design or whether it will be forced on mankind by a series of catastrophes." "That's the challenge of our period and it makes it, to my mind, one of the most exciting periods in which anybody can live."

The moment of truth is approaching as the previous world order fades away. We are witnessing a fundamental clash of principles that will shape international relations in the future. This conflict goes beyond power struggles and geopolitical influence; it will determine whether we can create a world that fosters development and resolves contradictions through mutual respect for cultures and civilizations, without coercion or force. The outcome will be crucial for our collective future.

As a kid, nuclear war was the big fear. Now, a highly infectious virus is the greatest global catastrophe risk. An epidemic, whether natural or intentional, is the most likely cause of over ten million deaths in the coming decades. We are not ready for the next epidemic, and it's surprising how little preparedness there is. To prepare, we need to run simulations, like germ games instead of war games, to identify our weaknesses. If we start now, we can be ready.

For the first time in history, policy has become global. Communications are instantaneous, and there exist problems which are genuinely not national like environment, nuclear proliferation, and simulations. So in this sense, we are living in a new world and a new world order will emerge. The only question is whether it will arise out of intellectual and moral insight and by design or whether it will be forced on mankind by a series of catastrophes. That's the challenge of our period and it makes it, to my mind, one of the most exciting periods in which anybody can live.

A computer at MIT, sponsored by the Club of Rome, analyzed the direction of our world and concluded that society is nearing the end of a 2000-year development. Prosperity leads to disruption, requiring a reevaluation of global social and political situations. Economic growth always leads to a crisis, and controlling everything, including industrial production, prevents crises but assumes we stop getting richer. Reorienting our activities and attitudes globally is the biggest task mankind has faced. It's important to have a global perspective, limit having more than two children, and avoid local patriotism. The speaker believes a revolution is necessary and should be planned.

The speaker suggests that we are in a transition between old and new orders. They question how we can retain positive aspects from the old order while avoiding a chaotic new world order. Another speaker views it as a transition of eras rather than orders, but acknowledges that the international order built after 1945 will evolve. They emphasize that we are entering a new era and have the opportunity to shape it. The core principles and institutions of the existing order will be adapted to address current challenges.

Speaker 0 is asked by Alicia about what’s at stake in the November election. He answers that 'Everything. Like, everything is at stake, and I'm really not being, facetious about that.' He adds, 'To be real, what's at stake is whether or not a new world order is able to take root and grow.' The speaker frames the election as carrying existential consequences, hinging on whether a 'new world order' can take root and grow. The remarks convey a sense of urgency about the outcome and link it to the potential inception of a new global framework. The dialogue centers on the scope of political consequences and global order.

For the first time, policy is global due to instantaneous communication and non-national problems like the environment and nuclear proliferation. A new world order will emerge, either through intellectual and moral insight and design, or forced upon mankind by catastrophes. This challenge makes our period an exciting one to live in.

There is talk of a new world order, with various leaders mentioning it. The Clinton administration is focused on establishing their foreign policy and shaping this new world order. It is seen as a big idea and an opportunity for change. The world we know is evolving, and there is a chance for us, especially the younger generation, to lead in shaping this new world order.