A new article up at Forbes “Earth’s Future Forbidden Zones?” begins with all manner of coming world doom:
Science fiction is rife with planetary ‘forbidden zones’ — whole regions of a planet that have become virtually uninhabitable due to changes in climate; politics; nuclear, chemical or biological warfare; pollution; technology gone amok; or something even more exotic.
The concept of forbidden zones is not new. Agenda 21 has a similar concept laid out to protect the planet from the people. For those unfamiliar with United Nations Agenda 21 ‘sustainable development’ plan, writer and anti-Agenda 21 activist Rosa Koire describes it as this:
In a nutshell, the plan calls for governments to take control of all land use and not leave any of the decision making in the hands of private property owners. It is assumed that people are not good stewards of their land and the government will do a better job if they are in control. Individual rights in general are to give way to the needs of communities as determined by the governing body. Another program, called the Wildlands Project, spells out how most of the land is to be set aside for non-humans.
The Wildlands Project came out of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity the year before Agenda 21 was adopted at the 1992 U.N. Rio Summit. Here’s a map illustrating the Wildlands Project’s goal for America:
See all those red spots? Under this project, those places would be considered ‘forbidden zones’ and you wouldn’t be able to go there. Period. Even the yellow areas are “highly regulated use,” so if and when authorities gave you permission to go there, it likely would not be very often and you definitely would not be living there. In fact, only the green areas would be for “normal use” by people.
While some argue that activists are wrong to link the U.N. Wildlands Project to U.N. Agenda 21, chapter 15 of the initial Agenda 21 document [PDF] from the 1992 Rio Summit is titled “Conservation of Biological Diversity” begins with this:
The objectives and activities in this chapter of Agenda 21 are intended to improve the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of biological resources, as well as to support the Convention on Biological Diversity. [emphasis added]
‘Sustainability’ is one of the key buzzwords Agenda 21 uses to justify this huge takeover and consolidation, not just of populations, but of power.
Worrying about the fate of the Earth, Forbes contributor Bruce Dorminey decided to consult Laurence C. Smith, author of the 2010 book The World in 2050: Four Forces Shaping Civilization’s Northern Future. Smith’s response has to do with anthropogenic global warming and population alarmism:
Smith notes that the four global forces of demographics — natural resource demand, globalization and climate change often work in tandem to exacerbate what would otherwise be regional problems into global ones.
Let the scaremongering begin. The description for The World in 2050 starts with this:
The world’s population is exploding, wild species are vanishing, our environment is degrading, and the costs of resources from oil to water are going nowhere but up. So what kind of world are we leaving for our children and grandchildren?
Interesting considering that A) the data does not support an “exploding population” but a world where overall population growth is actually on a downward trend and the world population is set to rise a little more before leveling off and going back down;
B) some wild species vanish and are thought extinct but are found later simply because they inhabit remote areas and the Earth is a really big place, not to mention with the advent of genetically modified food, humanity’s pesticide use has skyrocketed 73 million pounds (and these pesticides are continuously being linked to animal and insect deaths, such as colony collapse disorder in honeybees);
C) the environment is being harmed far worse by megacorporations spewing all these nasty chemicals into it than by cow farts; and
D) the costs of resources are ultimately controlled by a limited elite few that like to bring on the artificial scarcity to push a globalism agenda and rake in the profits while doing it.
Quite a few of those elites are members of the oil baron Rockefeller clan, the family behind the creation of the United Nations. Writer Gary Allen, of None Dare Call it Conspiracy fame also wrote the 1976 book The Rockefeller File. In his book, Allen discusses that while the Rockefeller philanthropic hand was doling out cash to all manner of “green” environmental efforts on one side, the other hand was creating artificial oil shortages that led to the 1973 oil crisis which would essentially force the U.S. to be dependent (thus globally interdependent) on foreign oil (which the family also profited generously off of, as they essentially controlled those foreign oil markets as well).
While ‘energy independence’ was a big buzzword back in the ’70s, the real aim behind the scenes was referred to as ‘Project Interdependence’. Allen explains:
The created crises in energy, food and population are straw men, set up by the Insiders so they can be knocked down — and a ‘New World Order’ can be established. Yes, crises are the great federator.
Just a few years before Allen wrote that, neo-Malthusian global think tank Club of Rome, which not only deals with supposed limits to population but a population’s relationship to hypothetically limited resources and consumption, wroteLimits to Growth. The report, “predicted that economic growth could not continue indefinitely because of the limited availability of natural resources, particularly oil” and its authors ask, “Is the future of the world system bound to be growth and then collapse into a dismal, depleted existence?” before answering, “Only if we make the initial assumption that our present way of doing things will not change.”
Curiously (or tellingly), the year before Agenda 21 was being adopted, Club of Rome published The First Global Revolution, stating:
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. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples… All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself. [emphasis added]
It is further interesting that the writer, Laurence Smith, who Forbes interviewed, chose the year 2050 as the end date in his book; that’s the same year for the Rockefeller Foundation-funded, Agenda 21-based America 2050, the plan to double population in 11 dense, tightly controlled urban megaregions across the U.S.
Smith, by the way, just so happened to receive a Bellagio residency from the Rockefeller Foundation back in 2007.
The phrase ‘Future Earth’ has also been called out as a ‘rebranding‘ of Agenda 21 now that ‘sustainable development’ has been conclusively outed as the Agenda 21 propaganda talking point it really is.
So the title of the Forbes article “Earth’s Future (as in, ‘Future Earth’) Forbidden Zones” pretty much says it all. But the climate change scare machine is nothing new on our path to global government (sometimes referred to as global governance, same thing).
If we look at where we are today, the only thing that has really changed is that we have computers now, and thus, the propaganda has gotten a lot more high tech — the message, that people better get in line with a world government program to save the Earth, remains the same.