Carbon Fascism, Where it Came From – Part I of II

This is part one of two in a series on local planning organizations, federal funding and Agenda 2030 in Alaska

Metropolitan Planning Organizations.  Seemingly benign, painfully boring.  With so much on the plates of Americans today, where would one find days of precious time reading the boring details to unravel the history of how we got here?  Instead, we took a deep dive and summarized the key functions and process of the unelected bodies that wield incredible power over the implementation of the Agenda 2030 global goals.

First, consider how important it is to the globalists to achieve the 17 Sustainable Development Goals.  In 2019, the World Economic Forum entered into a strategic partnership with the United Nations with the number one goal of financing the 2030 Agenda.  “Mobilize systems and accelerate finance flows toward the 2030 Agenda and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, taking forward solutions to increase long-term SDG investments.”

A few key events got us to this point today.  In the interest of time, we will start with the early 1990s.

June 29, 1993 - Executive Order 12852 – Bill Clinton’s President's Council on Sustainable Development was established.  The Council was made up of not more than 25 members from the public and private sectors who represented industrial, environmental, governmental and not-for-profit organizations with experience relating to matters of sustainable development.

One of the primary mandates of the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) was to lay the groundwork for Agenda 2021, for the United States to fulfill its role in the biodiversity, global warming, and other accords negotiated at the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit, which was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.  The goals of Agenda 21 were a “non-binding action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development.”

There were three phases of the council’s work:

During the first phase of council's work, from June 1993 through March 1996, the President charged the council to:

-        draft recommendations on a national action strategy on sustainable development;

-        create and implement an awards programs honoring achievements toward sustainable development; and

-        conduct outreach to educate the American public on the importance of sustainable development.

To draft the national action strategy, the PCSD formed eight task forces, created opportunities for public input into their draft documents, and held meetings throughout the country. Seven policy task forces involved 500 additional participants and held more than 50 public meetings and hundreds of informal meetings around the country over a 24-month period. The task forces focused on the following topic areas:

-        Eco-efficiency

-        Energy and Transportation

-        Population and Consumption

-        Public Linkage, Dialogue, and Education

-        Sustainable Agriculture

-        Sustainable Communities

-        Natural Resources

In addition to meetings held in Washington, DC, the Council met in four cities throughout the country: Seattle, Washington; Chicago, Illinois; Chattanooga, Tennessee; and San Francisco, California. Each of these meetings drew between 200 and 500 persons, and more than 5000 persons have followed the council's work through its newsletters, announcements, and public comment surveys.

In March 1996, the Council released to the public and transmitted to the President its first report, Sustainable America: A New Consensus for Prosperity, Opportunity, and A Healthy Environment for the Future. The 186-page report represents a remarkable consensus of all members of the council. Two and a half years of inquiry, observation and discussion produced unanimous agreement on:

-        A vision statement and fundamental beliefs on sustainable development;

-        Recommended changes in business, community institutions, individuals, and all levels of government that must occur to achieve sustainable development;

-        Ten goals and indicators of sustainable development; and

-        Scores of wide-ranging recommendations and actions to implement them.

-        Taken as a whole, this report attempts to define sustainable development and recommends how to move the nation toward achieving it

Second Phase: May 1996 through January 1997

Upon receiving the council's report, Sustainable America, on March 7, 1996, the President thanked the council for their efforts that culminated in the report's completion, asked them to continue their work to promote sustainable development domestically, and to report on progress made through December, 1996. (See page 15 for the President's formal announcement on March 7, 1996.) He specifically asked the council to:

-        spend the rest of 1996 working on first steps to implement recommendations in the report;

-        support the creation of the Joint Center for Sustainable Communities, a project of the National Association of Counties and the U.S. Conference of Mayors; and

-        work with Vice President Al Gore who will lead efforts within the Administration to support sustainable development.

To work on implementing recommendations in the report, the council created three task forces:

-        Innovative Local, State, and Regional Approaches Task Force (with working groups on: Joint Center for Sustainable Communities, Metropolitan Approaches, and Pacific Northwest Regional Council on Sustainable Development);

-        New National Opportunities Task Force (with working groups on: Eco-Industrial Parks, Extended Product Responsibility, and Lessons Learned from Collaborative Approaches); and an

-        International Leadership Task Force.

Vice President Al Gore created an Interagency Sustainable Development Working Group to begin coordination with federal agencies to promote and support sustainable development.  In addition, many federal agency staff participated in one of three federal working groups on: Education for Sustainability, Materials and Energy Flows, and Sustainable Development Indicators.

In January 1997, the council issued its second report, Building on Consensus: A Progress Report on Sustainable America and transmitted it to the President.

Third Phase: 1997 through June 1999

On April 25, 1997, a revised charter was signed extending the council for two more years, through June 1999.  President Clinton asked the council to continue to forge consensus on policy; demonstrate implementation of policy; conduct outreach and constituency building; and evaluate and report on progress.

In the policy arena, the council advised the President on:

-        the next steps in building the new environmental management system for the 21st century;

-        the domestic implementation of policy options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, without debating the science of global warming;

-        policies and approaches that promote sustainable communities, in particular, multi-jurisdictional and community cooperation in metropolitan and rural areas; and

-        policies that foster U.S. leadership in sustainable development internationally.

The revised charter also directed the council to ensure that social equity issues are fully integrated into all of its efforts, and to develop appropriate linkages with the ongoing federal working groups on "Education for Sustainability," "Sustainable Development Indicators," and "Materials and Energy Flows."

The council met on April 29, 1997 to establish a new organizational structure and discuss options for how they will balance their activities and develop a workplan to carry out the next phase of work. They established four task forces, one for each of the policy areas prioritized by the Administration. They are the Climate Task Force, Environmental Management Task Force, International Task Force, and Metropolitan and Rural Strategies Task Force.

In parallel to the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, another Executive Order was launched.  September 11, 1993 – Executive Order 12862 – The National Partnership for Reinventing Government (NPR), originally the National Performance Review, was the Clinton-Gore Administration's interagency task force to reform and streamline the way the federal government works.  It was the eleventh federal reform effort in the twentieth century. 

The goal of this government reform was to drive down accountabilities to a lower level – debureaucratization, decentralization, privatization – devolution.  Devolution is “the statutory delegation of powers from the central government of a sovereign state to govern at a subnational level, such as a regional or local level.  It is a form of administrative decentralization. Devolved territories have the power to make legislation relevant to the area, thus granting them a higher level of autonomy.” 

Sounds like a great idea right?  To those who believed the government was too big – (99.999% of the population), it was brilliant - how could anyone throw shade at the prospect of streamlining and reducing government and pushing policy decisions down locally at the lowest level? 

They didn’t, or at least not many people did.

In 1998, well before the full effects of the initiative were realized or even implemented, Richard Kearney of East Carolina University and Steven Hays of University of South Carolina went completely against the grain and wrote a white paper warning of the potential implications.  In Reinventing Government, The New Public Management and Civil Service System in International Perspective – The Danger of Throwing the Baby Out with The Bathwater, they quote other research articles stating “In many respects, reinventing government represents a “paradigm shift” of major proportions, and possibly one of the most important historical developments in public administration will occur during our own lifetimes. 

In the white paper, the writers talk in great deal about how leading up to the Reinventing Government initiative, there was a prolonged and targeted attack on everything to do with bureaucracy – and this was not isolated to the United States.  The writers point to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund as the chief promulgators of the idea to “Reinvent” government: “The International Monetary Fund was particularly interested in encouraging the spread of deregulation, privatization, and other market mechanisms along with the substantial downsizing of the government bureaucracy and the dramatic reduction of government wage bills.  This new orthodoxy of development administration became the price of admission of the theatre of international aid.”

Since the globalists now had nearly unanimous consent within the programmed people that there was a problem - who better than the government to help?  Classic psyop.  This would be the “how” this was all achieved.

The writers assess “If we assume the worst, then reinventing government as political ideology suggests the disempowerment of public employees and the career civil service.  Privatization, debureaucratization, and decentralization reduce the size and scope of government; managerialism makes public servants more like corporate workers (a goal that, admittedly, resonates with much of the public) and reinstates the politics/administration dichotomy.  When central government is downsized and load shedding shifts government activities to the private or non-profit sectors, public employees and organizations that represent them lose numbers, standing influence, and power.  Since nature abhors a vacuum, others will step in to fill the void.  Legislative bodies do not appear to be the net recipients of power.  Rather, reinventing government needs to strengthen the hand of private sector forces, and to cause reallocations of power from legislative to executive branches.”

And strengthen the hand of private sector forces, cause reallocations of power from legislative to executive branches they most certainly did.

Most damning of all is the prediction “If one takes into account existing maldistribution of wealth, and the incapacity of political officials to tackle fundamental problems directly, privatization raises the specter of further increasing societal inequalities.  There is a related fear that by transferring “the national productive apparatus to the same internal privilege groups,  … along with the foreign concerns that have the management and capital to them over,” reinventing government will transform the state into “the midwife of the new colonialism”

It is worth mentioning that at the time the paper was written, the Reinventing Government scheme was not deduced a pure failure – “In all fairness it must be noted that the reinventing government movement has chalked up some impressive achievements, many of which have been reported in the scholarly and professional literature.” These days, “scholarly and professional literature” amounts to precisely squat, but I digress.

President Clinton’s National Partnership for Reinventing Government was so impressive, that it was recognized by the United Nations as global program known as “The Global Forum” in 1999.  It is known as one of the most significant global events to address government reinvention.  It has been adopted by the Governments of multiple countries, including Brazil, Italy, Mexico, and Morocco. 

As the saying goes – the same ones who sell the panic sell the cure.  Reinventing government allowed for the most powerful corporations, NGOs, private equity companies, non-profits to help design and manufacture every modern crisis we’ve faced, only to follow up with the remedy to what ails us as a society to increase the globalist control apparatus – exponentially.  Look no further than the Covid 19 pandemic as the perfect example for that.  Who funds all of this?  We do.  As consumers, what choice do you have other than to pull up to the pump and buy gas from Chevron, BP or Exxon?  Who can resist the convenience of Amazon?  10 companies control most of the food we buy. Apple iPhone - surveillance, convenience, connectivity, control you NEED to function in today’s society – shut up and take my money.  Big banks, investing YOUR pensions and retirement to achieve the global goals, and as long as your business conforms to the agenda, BlackRock will grant you a hefty loan.  Who profits off of the wars?  Reference Carlyle Group and how they made all of their money and continue to gobble up companies at breakneck speed - namely defense contractors.  How much did Halliburton rake in at the behest of ex CEO and Vice President Dick Cheney?  Who do these large corporations and private equity companies praise their allegiance to?  The United Nations and World Economic Forum.  The “stakeholders” are no longer the customers.  They know we need them; we are their useful pawns - funding our own demise without a care in the world. 

These ideas were not borne overnight.  It is worth a brief look back to 1974 – Richard N. Gardner, Special Advisor to the United Nations 1992 Earth Summit, Trilateral Commission member, Richard wrote some very interesting things about what we were going to endure to achieve the global goals.  In Gardner’s book, The Hard Road to World Order, he stated "In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down.  It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."

And most fitting for the occasion - "Thus, while we will not see "world government" in the old-fashioned sense of a single all-embracing global authority, key elements of planetary planning and planetary management will come about on those very specific problems where the facts of interdependence force nations, in their enlightened self-interest, to abandon unilateral decision-making in favor of multilateral processes."  - Richard Gardner.

All that to say:  One major objective of the Agenda 21 initiative is that every local government should draw its own local Agenda 21.  That would be the “why” behind all of the meticulously planned and organized “prework” that was required.  That end run around national sovereignty that Gardner was talking about, cannot be achieved unless sovereignty is eroded piece by piece.  The President’s Council on Sustainable Development defined the mission, Reinventing Government enabled it.

What better way to control people than by remodeling the layout and scope of transit in their city and what it means for them to get from point A to point B?  MPOs (Metropolitan Planning Organizations) are the mechanisms to administer regulations and funding from the federal and state programs. This funding used to go directly to the cities but “duties as assigned” by the globalists have delegated the handling of this to the MPO in order to enforce and advance Agenda 21, now Agenda 2030 which, from all indications, is not the same “voluntary” program Agenda 21 supposedly once was.  MPOs are not government organizations.  They do not have policing powers; they hold no regulatory authority and no direct taxation power – other than using our own printed federal dollars against us.  President Obama gave us the FAST Act, which authorizes each state to receive a lump sum of money representing the sum of its projects – The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) states that “funding is set aside for the State’s Metropolitan Planning program…. This money is then weaponized against the citizens at the whims of the administration, or most accurately, the agenda, as recently demonstrated in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, AKA the Green New Deal that Republicans scoffed at and said would never pass. 

In a rather short period of time, we have gone from upending the accountability within our elected government to achieve devolution, to laying the groundwork to fulfill the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.  Today, we’ve entered warp speed on the implementation of the Agenda 2030 goals. In part II, we will cover how this affects us in Alaska with the latest round of printed dollars that are being dangled in front of our MPOs to usher in more global goals - this very moment.

Yuval Harari says it best - “Governments and corporations will soon know you better than you know yourself.  Belief in the idea of ‘free will’ has become dangerous.”

We are asking you to “stay dangerous my friends.”   

This is part one of two in a series on local planning organizations, federal funding and Agenda 2030 implementation in Alaska.

*Call to action - please read part II

For obvious reasons,

Anon