Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 3:17 pm
Whatever you think of Agenda 21--or whatever it's called right now-- I thought this was interesting. I will continue to add to it as I get the time.
Targeted Individuals vs the state of Grease
From [de]ontic [noumenal- possessing the character of real rather than phenomenal existence] social constructivism to [de]ontological sociocybernetics: communitarian ethos and its “other” in the context of a multi-participant, multi-act attempted murder case of indirect perpetration in the context of the “third realm” and freemansonry as organized institutional/private alliances and power mechanisms
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1……………………………………………………………………… p12
1.1 Why agenda 21 as a blueprint for societal engineering and a new communitarian ethos throughmandating inclusion in social networks constitutes a silently legitimating platform or animus socii for targeting activities? Agenda 21 as a blueprint for microsocial engineering is embedded in a discourse of clouded, highly abstract and not at all “actionable” language. The case for “open system dynamics” masking a crypto-totalitarian agenda favoring the dystopian feedback loophyperreal ecosystem fabricated and imposed on targets
1.2 Agenda 21 is discriminatory regarding social groupings and the demopsychographic profile of participants
1.3 Agenda 21 promotes conspiratorial attempts at redistribution of wealth through the formation of “secret microsocial committees” that constitute “informal referenda” against “pragmatically overloaded adhocratic rules” and is violating of all sorts of local criminal laws, such as violation of the right to privacy and freedom of movement, illicit break-ins in targets’ property and causing property damage, while promoting psychological warfare and covert operations
1.4 Agenda 21: the cultivation of a new communitarian ethos and the indirect legitimation of transgression of the right to privacy
1.5 An agenda for depopulation
1.6 Agenda 21 as a blueprint for indoctrination on communitarian ideals
1.7 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT or ANOTHER UTOPIAN VISION?
1.8 IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN THROUGH SOCIAL PYRAMIDS- BOTTOM-UP SOCIAL REENGINEERING
1.9 The historical evolution of the new communitarian ethos
1.10 Microsocial engineering through Local Agenda 21: open system dynamics or groupings of pragmatically driven individuals legitimating their redistribution of wealth interests under a“communitarian cloak”? Consensus masks ubiquitous psychological mechanisms operative ingroup decision making (see chapter 3)
1.11 The New Age vs “Old system” rhetoric: simply a matter of redistribution of power and indirectlegitimation for “multiparticipant, multiact perpetration” in the context of organized power mechanisms (see chapter 4) against an emergent discursive dominant paradigm
1.12 Agenda 21 not by accident contains as part of the project's descriptor the first degree of freemasonry (that is 21)
CHAPTER 2……………………………………………………………………… p45
2.1 Introduction: Targeting- the new silent massacreWhat is targeting and why is it a new phenomenon (or at least an old phenomenon in new clothing)of silent massacre/premeditated murder?
2.2 The phenomenology of the torture situation2.3 Methods of targeting : the case for a new form of sociocybernetic terrorism
2.3.1 Classical conditioning
2.3.4 Gang Stalking
2.3.5 Break-ins & Property damage & petty thefts
2.3.6 Buzzsaw2.3.7 Framings2.3.8 Sabotage & Vandalism
2.3.9 Mail interference
2.3.11 Collisions & Cut-offs
2.3.12 Blocking, Swarming & Space invasion
2.3.14 Convoys of vehicles
2.3.17 Noise campaigns
2.3.18 Food tamperring
2.3.19 Sensitivity Programs
2.3.20 Street theater
2.3.21 Electromagnetic weapons: the technological enablers of the slow-kill method
2.4 Usual mode of treatment of targeting allegations on behalf of institutional mechanisms agents and the silent (psychic, discursive, pragmatic) complicity or a complicit multi-referential signifying system: The ontic and the ontological facets, the multiple referential planes, the “signifying regimes” [see chapters 3 and 4] , the latent/background assumptions operative in each referential plane assignifying attractor between linguistic/protosemiotic/corporeal signs and their respective signifieds [see chapter 3]- An instance of circulalry demarcated predespositional causality [κυκλικάοριοθετημένη προδιαθετική αιτιότητα] or the [de]ontic reinscription of minor premises in a social constructivist/sociocybernetic paradigm of [de]ontological major premises as latent conditionals of multiple signifying regimes [From Parmenides’ virtuously circular truth to a pragmatically overloaded web of Husserlian noemata as cunningly interwoven minor premises against the background of a collective intentionality]
2.5 The psychological effects of the targeting sociocybernetic mechanism and why/how the reported symptoms often match the diagnostic criteria of DSM (chance or premeditated“institutional cover-up” of the true causal mechanism that is responsible for generating these effects?)- Another typical instance of discursively complicit cover-up and semantic/pragmatic aleatoric bifurcation of a phenomenon in ever multiplying signifying regimes [see chapter 3]
2.6 A Peircian analysis of how the aforementioned conditioning tactics self-referentially and through the employed sociocybernetic mechanisms model their effects: the pragmatics of sociocybernetic conditioning
2.7 The creation of an institutionally sanctioned exclusionary mechanism. How an abductive stratagem crystallizes in an institutional practice through social constructivism and sociocybernetics: further notes on discursive complicity- a functionalist paradigm as apologetic for systemic dysfunctions or sedation as a way of coping with targeting : it’s a win-win situation for everyone butthe target
2.8 The ontological issue with the notion of the psyche : empirical fact, fact of reason or of epistemological reification against the background of economic interests?
2.9 The legal issues with psychiatric diagnosis: violating freedom of speech for the sake of reducing complexity? For whom?
2.11 Reasons for targeting – the case for multilayered motives [cf. chapters 3 and 4]
2.12 Who participates in targeting activities? – the case for a multiparticipant, multiact crime with composite multiple causality
2.13 How do direct perpetrators communicate and how is communication facilitated by satellite audiovisual surveillance? – C.Roxin’s functional platform as animus auctoris (cf chapter 4)
2.14 What is the organizational structure between direct and indirect perpetrators and how recordings of incidents on behalf of institutional agents act in complicity to the incidents?
CHAPTER 3 The epistemological/ontological/pragmatic framework for making sense of targeting in the context of the new communitarian ethos enforced throughagenda 21…………………………………………………………………………. p170
3.1 Habermas theory of pragmatics of social interaction: Community of rational/disinterested or irrational/interested agents and by implication of social networks as constellations of social agents?Talking non-sense may be of limited truth, but of amplified relational validity
3.2 Social representations as a mechanism for fabricating and filtering information about targeted individuals: between epistemological fallacies and lay discourse perceptual inertia lies the silent legitimation of information as the outcome of social networks members decision making
3.3 Social representations or cognitive/interpretive schemata in action: Accounting for the blindspots in Habermas’ theory of the pragmatics of social interaction by demonstrating how fabricated“social contexts”, “social situations” , “scripts” and “social episodes” shape the hyperreal world of atarget
3.4 How does ethnomethodology and Conversation/Discourse analysis aid in further elucidating the discourse of targeted individuals whereupon an ontologically coherent lifeworld is imprinted?
3.5 Conversation/discourse analysis in action: Unearthing the experiential building blocks and the ontologically coherent nature of “open systems” targeting lifeworld in the context of agenda 21social networking
3.6 The implication of agenda 21 as a platform for effecting sociocybernetic solidarity on a global scale
3.7 Conversion as a change in one’s universe of discourse and the legal issue of freedom of willand responsibility (at least for the direct perpetrators) in the context of indoctrination and coercive persuasion
3.8 Agenda 21 and Viral Marketing techniques: A NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENT of pyramidically interdependent formal and informal social networks spreading virally through indoctrination techniques?
The legal framework of targeting: A case of premeditated, multiparticipant,multiact murder attempt of indirect perpetration in the context of organizedmechanisms of power and institutional/private alliances (agenda 21/thirdrealm) and freemasonry ………………………………………………………………………. p287
4.1 Reasons why the silent massacre phenomenon should be typified as an exceptional form of criminal activity in dogmatgic penal law: the analogy with the typified chapter on “Duel” in the Greekcriminal law (Chapter IZ of the Particular Part of the Greek Criminal Law)
4.2 Main findings from chapter 3 and their relationship to the justification for using the proposedlegal framework : targeting experiential categories as argumentative third terms and their usefulness in the interpretation and application of dogmatic law concepts
4.3 The “informal” and “formal” judiciary aspects of the silent massacre phenomenon as regards separate criminal activities and the ontologically coherent nature of their plenum
4.4 My allegations regarding individual instances of the ontologically coherent plenum of the attempted premeditated murder against me
4.5 What are the apodeictic conditionals for premeditated attempted murder?
4.6 The beginning of the act of attempted premeditated murder as silent massacre (with yet overt and demonstrable objective facets) against me and why it constitutes a multi-act crime with multiple perpetrators
4.7 Why my case constitues an attempt at multi-act premeditated murder with multiple perpetrators?
4.8 Why the multiple acts of perpetration as above cited are not isolated, hence not falling under the umbrella of simple participation?
4.9 Why this is not a case of acting in parallel with others while not being motivated necessarily by the same cause?
4.10 Is it a case of complicity in the context of indirect perpetration carried out through organized mechanisms of power? Whose dolus and who is animus auctoris and who is animus socii?
4.10.2 What is the difference between closed and open system dynamics?
4.11 Legal precedents in criminal activties perpetrated in the context of organized power mechanims (in closed systems) and further elaboration of terms based on precedents
4.12 In a nutshell: Subjective and objective conditionals / Actus reus and mens rea that must be met in order to determine the existence of indirect perpetration in the exceptional case of the silent massacre phenomenon in the context of organized power mechanisms and against the background of the secret societies of agenda 21 and freemasonry
4.13 Intermezzo: Notes on legal argumentation and evidentiary methodological rationale
4.13.1 The necessity of using the silent massacre 10 third terms as nodes iin legal syllogistic chains
4.13.2 What are the limits between subjectivism and objective facts and between admissible and inadmissible evidentiary materials?
4.13.3 Justification of judiciary decisions: need for applying greater emphasis than usual on particular evidentiary materials as against general evidentiary typologies in order to avoid impressions management propagandist techniques and the complicity of the judiciary in the very methods that favor targeting as silent massacre (even though formally the judiciary is covered for not providing detailed argumentation as to which specific parts of the evidentiary materials and witness testimonies led to the formation of specific premises)- TRUTH OR AXIOLOGICALJUDGMENTS CONDITIONED BY A COLLECTIVE INTENTIONALITY AS A SUM OF DOXICPOSITINGS?
4.14 Bringing it all together: Formalizing and subsuming under dogmatic criminal law clauses mycase of premeditated attempted murder with the aid of Wigmore’s diagrams
4.15 Summary / conclusions and Demand for compensation………………………….… p464
In chapter 1 I provide an exposition of why agenda 21 as a blueprint for societal engineering and a new communitarian ethos through mandating inclusion in social networks constitutes a silently legitimating platform or animus socii for targeting activities and draw parallels on a nominal and structural level with freemasonry.
In Chapter 2 Ι provide a definition of targeting , alongside the usual methods employed in targeting activities, the reasons for targeting, who participates in targeting activities, the organizational structure of targeting groups and the usual mode of treatment of targeting allegations on behalf of institutional authorities.
In Chapter 3 I provide the epistemological framework and the requisiste methodology for making sense of the targeting phenomenon as silent massacre against the background of social networks and the new communitarian ethos of agenda 21 by drawing on the social theory pesrpectives of pragmatics of social interaction, cultural pragmatics, ethnomethodology, conversation analysis and discourse analysis, sociocybernetics, the Christological paradigm and the sociology of coercion/indoctrination while demonstrating their usefulness for understanding individual acts of perpetration as “social episodes” upon “preplanned scripts” in the context of a fabricated ontologically coherent empirical reality.
In Chapter 4 I provide the legal framework wherein the targeting phenomenon must be approached as multiact, multiparticipant premeditated attempted murder with the involvement of “third realm”public/private alliances and freemasonry. By drawing on Claus Roxin’s theory of indirect perpetration in organized power mechanisms, I point to the individual clauses of Greek criminal law and Human Rights Statute clauses that have been violated by individual acts of perpetration against me and justify why the silent massacre phenomenon is not a simple case of coperpetration, joint criminal enterprise and offshoot theories of participation in a criminal activity, but a composite crime with a composite causal pattern, including multiple remote and efficient causes and one causa finalis, viz the completion of the premeditated attempted murder. Additionally the learnings from chapters 2 and 3 are combined with the legal framework and a demonstration is provided as to why the individual acts of perpetration pertinent to my case must be subsumed under the premeditated attempted murder clause, as well as which articles of the Human Rights Statute have been violated. Last, but not least, I conclude with my demand for compensation.
In this case I seek to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that I have been victmized for over four years with targeting activities, involving land-based and electromagnetic harassment, with view to proving a premeditated murder attempt against me.
I will abide by the dogmatic tenets of legal truth finding, while engaging in interpretive exercises where necessary in order to clarify which legal clauses (encompassing Greek Criminal law,International Criminal law and European Human Rights Law) are more pertinent both to individualacts of perpetration, as well as to the “ontologically coherent plenum” of targeting activities. At the same time, I will point out why certain omissions in formal law may be silently legitimating acts of perpetration under the umbrella of targeting.
The arguments and facts backing up my case involve both ad hominem and ad humanitatem facets. Ad hominem insofar as individual perpetrators are involved in discrete spatio temporally situated acts of perpetration and ad humanitatem insofar as institutional mechanisms are involved as enablers or as “perpetrators behind the individual perpetrators”, to use a familiar term coined by Claus Roxin, whose applied theory of indirect perpetration and relationship of dominance over individual perpetration acts in the context of organized power mechanisms will be employed in the process of grounding the particularities of this relatively new phenomenon involving a system of multi-agent perpetrators, in dogmatic law.
In the course of establishing the validity of my claims as empirical minor premises of which the contents of legal causes as major premises are predicated I shall provide sufficient information alongside both the subjective [mens rea] and objective aspects [actus reus] of the individual criminal activities and shall justify why they constitute a chain of events leading up to a premeditated murder attempt. In parallel, I will point out why certain aspects of the evidentiary rationale rest neither with inductive (that is building the argument bottom-up starting with the plausibility of inferring the validity of linking emprical facts with legal clauses) nor with deductive(that is starting with the assumption of a given legal clause and working backwards in order to unearth the relevant empirical facts that validate the relevant clause), but with abductive reasoning(that is by eliminating other plausible explanations of the causal nexus between empirical facts and their consequences),while reducing to absurdity claims to the opposite by allusion to precedentsand to omissions
Complementary to the above I will provide a robust, valid and reliable epistemological perspective in order to make sense of an ontologically coherent plenum of individual and necessarily interconnected acts of direct perpetration and the provision of sufficient evidence about my“lifeworld" in the context of targeting (coined against the background of the popular approaches of
phenomenology and ethnomethodology, as will be illustrated in Chapter 3), while pointing to systemic aspects of institutional discursive and psychic complicity, favoring targeting activities.
One of the primary reasons why this uncommon , exceptional criminal activity of multiple composite causality, alternating perpetrators and their clear relationship to a system of indirect perpetration has not been brought to the attention of the judiciary authorities to such an extent as and with equivalent to the intensity and frequency to the torture cases themselves , which yet are informally reported and vindicated on a daily basis in countless informal associations blogs and individual torture cases consists largely in the fact that it has not yet been engraved in public mores as a despicable act meriting outcry. On the contrary, as it will be demonstrated in due course, the silent massacre phenomenon is part and parcel of a new communitarian ethos that has been informally instituted across the globe over the last 20 years, as a way of affirming communitarian bonds through the formation of a projective relationships with Others upon whom the vices ,repressed wishes and all sorts of often implicit and deeply laden mechanisms of desire, demand and repression that have always been actively operative in a collective unconscious and occasionally surface as pathological phenomena of everydayness are transferred either symbolically or in a tactile manner to targets.
In essence the phenomenon is not new, but novel in its rendition. The collective pathology underpinning and enabling it has been lucidly described by various scholars in the fields of psychoanalysis, cultural and social anthropology (Freud, Lacan, Moscovici, Lewin to name a few) What is different at this historical juncture is the technologies available for carrying out these practices (eg surveillance mechanisms enabled through technologies such as Haarp and Echelon) and the advanced procedures for coordinating social actors towards their accomplishment (eg secret services directed sociocybernetic mechanisms). What is called for, in order to render this phenomenon descriptively valid and perhaps prescriptively valid in the context of dogmatic criminal law, is an epistemological, methodological and ontological framework for putting these practices in perspective, thus enabling a judiciary committee to recognize them as such by subsuming allegations under the correct legal clauses , while recognizing their ontologically coherent nature, as against seemingly discreet and unrelated activities that violatespecific clauses of local and international criminal law.
Attempts have already been made by targeted individuals at synthesizing their experiences under particular experiential categories in an attempt to descriptively encapsulate their lived reality or “lifeworld”. What is still lacking in the already vast literature, mainly consisting of individual stories and sparse allegations on the particular instances of the silent massacre phenomenon, is a set of interpretive principles that would enhance sense making and would enable outsiders to recognize the implications of this phenomenon both for the individuals concerned as well as for what is revealed through these actions about the members of the community that is carrying them out.Based on the extensive review of numerous targeted individuals’ allegations, also matching my individual case, of which a selective portion is cited in chapter 3 as the groundwork for building bpttom-up with the employment of discourse analysis the interpretive framework supporting the dogmatic law apodeictic principles of mens rea and actus reus, a set of “targeting conditionals” or third terms is provided in chapter 4.
The epistemological framework provided in chapter 3 acts as an enabler in meeting the principle of nullum crimen sine lege insofar as in order to make sense of why this multi-perpetrator, multi-act crime, involving organized institutional mechanisms and private/public sectors’ agents cooperation,we have to synthesize individual acts of perpetration under a coherent epistemological platform and then to subsume them under the relevant clauses of criminal law. The targeting conditionals or interpretive third terms essentially provide nodes in syllogistic chains for enhancing the validity of the legal inferences drawn in chapter 4 and the subsumption of individual activities and the plenum of these activities under the equivalent clauses of criminal law and the Human Rights Statute.
In summary, I hereby allege that there is a new phenomenon of psychosomatic torture termed the silent massacre and that I have been a target of overt and identifiable acts of perpetration and covert, less perfectly evidenced acts of perpetration over the course of the past four years, resulting in serious aggravations with regard to my moral integrity, my professional and personal life and my future prospects. The silent massacre phenomenon constitutes a case of premeditated attempted murder though a multi-stage process spanning a prolonged time period and involving multiple accomplices, while the indirect responsibility or the relationship of domination over the acts of perpetration , in Roxin’s terms, rests with institutional agencies and in particular secret services that control the involved technologies and the flow of information regarding targeted individuals, whose agents seek to legitimate a state within state with concomitant attempts at redistributing resources and power among them and the legitimation of their decisions at enforcing slow kill methods by complicitly taking on board members of distinctive communities, also involving agenda 21 and freemasonry as “secret societies within society.
“A series of paradigmatic shifts have resulted in social networking as the primary source of power; knowledge as once the domain of privileged access gave way to information as privileged access to processing technologies, the popularization of and easy access to which gave place to social networks as the only domain where access is by default controllable”
1.1 Why agenda 21 as a blueprint for societal engineering and a new communitarian ethos through mandating inclusion in social networks constitutes a silently legitimating platform or animus socii for targeting activities? Agenda 21 as a blueprint for microsocial engineering is embedded in a discourse of clouded, highly abstract and not at all“actionable” language. The case for “open system dynamics” masking a crypto-totalitarian agenda favoring the dystopian feedback loop hyperreal ecosystem fabricated and imposed on targets
Agenda 21 as a macro/micro societal engineering paradigm emerged in the 1992 UN RIODeclaration as a means for attaining “global sustainable development”.
Since its inception and upon its application in various parts of the golbe, civilian organizations emerged (such as Project Freedom against agenda 21, The North American alliance against agenda 21) making severe allegations against the program as being uncpnstitutionally binding in terms of compulsory social engineering, while masking attempts at redistribution of wealth and land among its participants or “change agents”. Indeed, as it will be demonstrated, not only this is the very aim of the agenda, as a reading between the lines will confirm, but striking case studies, such as its application in Oregon (US), constitute realizations of this hidden agenda beyond any reasonable doubt. .
The notion of sustainability is systemic and does not apply to concrete individuals that constitute the very foundation for the application of legal responsibility. Its mandating participation in undefinable and informal social groupings with fluid boundaries demonstrates its communitarian outlook, which is unconstitutional. No laws mandate participation in informal social groupings.
Moreover, there is no “prescriptive” literature suggesting that participation in informal social groupings by necessity promotes greater welfare for individuals. Hence, the mandatory aspect of participation in informal social groupings constitutes an ungrounded mandate, which is purely pragmatically driven as will be illustrated in due course. The emphasis on “localizing” the mandate makes things even worse as it assumes that geographical proximity among social actors is a defining demographic variable in the formation of informal social groupings Personally, I don’t wish to enter in any informal relationship with geographically proximate “actors” and I am perfectly entitled not to do so
Thus, passages such as “Activities that will contribute to the integrated promotion of sustainable development and environmental protection cover a variety of sectoral interventions involving a range of actors from local to global and are essential at every level, especially the community and local levels. Enabling actions will be necessary at the national and international level, taking full account of regional and subregional conditions to support a locally driven and country specific approach. In general design,the programme should:
a.Focus on the empowerment of local and community groups through the principle of delegating authority,accountability and resources to the most appropriate level to ensure that the programme will be geographically and ecologically specific
b.Contain immediate measures to enable those groups to alleviate poverty and to develop sustainability
c.Contain a long term strategy aimed at establishing the best possible conditions for sustainable local, regional and national development between various population groups. It should assist the most disadvantaged groups-in particular women, children and youth within those groups- and refugees. The groups will include poor smallholders, pastoralists, artisans, fishing communities,landless people, indigenous communities, migrants and the urban informal sector
(Section 3.5 of the UN Conference on Environment & Development, Rio de Janeiro 1992)
”not only are unconstitutional but the very social groupings designated as “change agents” by default have an interest in redistribution of land and wealth.
So, sustainability by definition concerns particular groups [mostly underprivileged] at the expense[by implication] of property holders who may be also advancing in their careers. Not only the mandate is highly selective, but, in the context of both my targeting case and other similar cases,the multiple perpetrators participating in the targeting activities consist in couriers, women(especially in the workplace) , immigrants, designated in the agenda as “change agents” and persons from all walks of life.
Not only there is a clear and beyond any reasonable doubt causal relationship between the programmatic declarations of agenda 21 and the individuals/groups that participate in the targeting activities, but also with the very mode of carrying out these activities, that is covertly and through participation in social networks, as attested by the concerted mode of operation in targeting activities.
In particular (referring to the above quote which is as exemplary as any passage from this and similar agenda 21 declarations) “focus on local groups by delegating authority, accountability and resources” clearly states and DELEGATES DECISION MAKING POWER AND AUTHORITY to members of such informal groups. In short, they are empowered to take action for alleviating their hardships through targeting others! The latter conclusion is by necessity inferred as no ways whereby their position may be alleviated is explicitly stated save for a generic and in abstractococeived MEMBERSHIP IN INFORMAL SOCIAL GROUPINGS. A reasonable person might ask,are these members going to generate extra money out of nothing simply by being informally related in an informal grouping? Or is the decision making AUTHORITY granted to these members by default legitimating them through informal referenda to make decisions about others’ lives, not to mention the natural feelings of envy and remorse for more privileged groups that naturally emergein making decisions about others who constitute their goal or TARGET? It doesn’t take an existential phenomenological account to reliably discern that insofar as one’s horizon of possibilities is by default dependent on others’ horizons and it is precisely at the juncture of conflicting interests that some possibilities materialize at the expense of others, then granting authority to informal and underprivileged groups members essentially legitimates intentional actions geared towards the attainment of redistribution of wealth against the background of adhocratic rules developed in the context of informal social groupings and hidden referenda. Not only this manner of MANDATED social organization contravenes fundamental human rights (in its formal exposition), but in essence and by implication it legitimates members of informal social groupings to engage in illegal activities with view to ameliorating their position. It is no accident that this mode of social reengineering,bottom up and through the formation of informal social groupings has been coupled with an exclusionary lingo and a pragmatic language as a “form of life” in Wittgenstein’s terms with view to masking the pragmatic decisions that are made during informal referenda against pseudo moral adhocratic rules aiming at redistributing property and tangible/intangible assets among them
Additionally, directives such as “raising awareness of demographic and sustainable development interactions” not only are ill-founded, insofar as DEMOGRAPHICS (and here I am speaking as professional) are in various instances not overdetermining over psychographics and lifestyle, but restrictive and deterministic about the potential for forming relationships with others, asthey reduce interaction to demographic variables. There is no legitimacy in mandating of a civilianto interact informally with particular age groups, nationalities, genders or geographical locations.This is completely unconstitutional.
Certainly it is of no wonder that 10 years down the line since the initial RIO programmatic declarations, no STRICT MEASUREMENTS had been determined as to how microsocial bonding through participation in these informal social constellations may be accounted for:“Thin et al highlight four key themes within socially sustainable development:
a.Social justice (equal opportunity and the achievement of human rights)
b.Solidarity: empathy, cooperation and associational life
c.Participation : opportunity for everyone to play a meaningful part in development
d.Security: livelihood security and safety from physical threats”
So, what has been attained by this microsocial reengineering project is the drafting of a highly abstract (in terms of sustainability principles) blueprint, which upon declaration and with the assistance of social scientists spread virally through “uknown to the concerned civilians” change agents on a microsocial level, as suggested in the above quoted paper which attempts to gauge quantitative indices as measurement tools of sustainaibility progress, which again is unconstitutional as it restricts flow of movement and goods to a LOCAL paradigm, over determined by an assumption of GEOGRAPHICAL PROXIMITY as defining variable for the choice of significant others and social interaction and moreover, THEIR AUTHORITY to confer judgments about proximally situated social actors. .
As demonstrated the agenda 21 blueprint delegates by implication and through an uncritical assumption of regulatory hypotheses as first principles (eg geographical proximity, underprivileged groups as focal members determining sustainability), authority to social actors from all walks of life to conspire with informal group peers for carrying out targeting activities against others. This is the pragmatic perspective that will be qualified by the even more cogent ontological perspective inchapter 3,
1.2 Agenda 21 is discriminatory regarding social groupings and the demopsychographic profile of participants
Hints about the essentially discriminating aspect of agenda 21 regarding the typologies of social actors suggested as key stakeholders in [a fuzzily, and rather hazily] conceived sustainable development were made in the previous section.
In this section I will illustrate that argument from universals is essentially laden with fallacies
The key universal category concerns gender. As is well-known in market research literature, gender is just one among many psychodemographic variables that make up the profile of social actors It is defining in certain aspects, but definitely not defining in others. Claiming an overarchnig determining relationship across a logical set of instances where it may potentially apply as a qualifying difference constitutes by definition a fallacy as there is no empirical theory suggesting that all actions are carried out differentially on a gender basis. Moreover, inversing an intuitive proposition about relatively higher instances of gender based inequality in income distribution ,which must be further qualified by sector and industry, into a universally applying principle of social action is fallacious, as it amounts to claiming that X are less privileged overall than S, but X are more privileged in sector P than S, therefore all X should become overprivileged over S in all instances. For example, in the professional practice of marketing, advertising and marketing research, women hold more positions than men, and I have experienced conspiratorial attempts at exclusion from my profession mainly from women.therefore, for me, the universal principle and explicit mandate throughout all agenda 21 documents to employ women as primary agents for social reengineering under the auspices of agenda 21 has resulted in an evidently criminal act against me, consisting in ongoing conspiratorial attempts at job exclusion, which is corroborated by my current status of long term unemployment. Thus , not only, as demonstrated, arguing from universals constitutes a logical fallacy embedded in the very heart of a universally binding document, but in my particular case it constitutes a causally necessary legitimation for illegal conspiratorial acts against “pursuing one’s happiness” and career objective, which are grounded both in domestic criminal law and the European Statute of Human Rights. As you may gather from my attached resume, which illustrates my professional and academic path, my focus has always rested with an ongoing engagement to the achievement of an Aristotelian eudaimonia by continuously cultivating the necessary virtues and skills necessary for achieving goal oriented actions. Yet, thanks to the “informal social groupings” and the “adhocratic referenda”LEGITIMATED by an unsustainable (for me) abstract blueprint, my goals have been brought to a standstill and evidently through the participation of multiple social agents whose profile converges with the MEMBERS’ profile that are WANTED for participation in agenda 21 INFORMAL SOCIAL GROUPINGS
The very crux of the argument in this section is that (i) argument from universals –in this case- is fallacious, hence there is nothing in principle legitimating a sub-species to act as driver for social reengineering, which reengineering is in itself unconstitutional (and the same apparently would apply to men in toto) (ii) it is UNDER THE AUSPICES of agenda 21 that that certain demographically demarcated social groups legitimately engage in conspiratorial attempts at job and social exclusion (which is corroborated by the exact opposite phenomenon I had experienced prior to the popularization and diffusion of the agenda in Greece- for example, I have more positive professional references from women compared to men, if someone wished to draw a conclusion of causal necessity from this point, while, needless to say I never demonstrated, not even had a latent negative predisposition against women in the workplace) (iii) my targeting (in terms of methods,participants, and reasons for targeting) has been facilitated by agenda 21, therefore, agenda 21 is the “Ideological motivator” (even under a cloak of pseudo open system dynamics) behind perpetrating activities or the MACHINE, to use Claus Roxin’s metaphor..
The above claims are evidently backed by allegations on behalf of professional colleagues and particular, clear and distinct incidents demonstrating that participants fit the profile of agenda 21’sSOCIAL ACTORS.
1.3 Agenda 21 promotes conspiratorial attempts at redistribution of wealth through the formation of “secret microsocial committees” that constitute “informal referenda” against“pragmatically overloaded adhocratic rules” and is violating of all sorts of local criminal laws, such as violation of the right to privacy and freedom of movement, illicit break-ins in targets’ property and causing property damage, while promoting psychological warfare and covert operations
It is by virtue of the non-concretized and highly abstract character of the programmatic declarations(as regards how specific acts cohere with a sustainability agenda) , the already proved senseless and “non-signifying” and “unrealistic” use of meta epistemologically abstract and epistemologically void terms such as “sustainability, the fallacy of arguing from universals as a springboard of meaningful and goal oriented action that the complicitly interested and pragmatically drivencharacter of the agenda (as will be further qualified in chapter 3) acts as a “psychic motivator” for individual social actors who form informal groupings with view to attaining their individual and collective agendas. Also, it is by virtue of the compulsory and clearly mandated PARTICIPATION that non-participants are by default placed in a weak spot, which gives rise or animates the decision for engaging in targeting activities. Therefore, the mandate for participation is tantamount to aviolation of the right to not participate, and by implication the far reaching materalization of the participatory mechanism in a “co-evolving communities paradigm” legitimates members to exert violence on non participants. CLEARLY, VICTIMIZATION IS A LEGITIMATE ACT IN THE CONTEXT OF AGENDA 21.
1.4 Agenda 21: the cultivation of a new communitarian ethos and the indirect legitimation of transgression of the right to privacy
If sustainability really just meant a benign way of healing the planet from corporate poisoning, it would not include so many mandatory principles that govern civilians’ lives. There is nothing benign about Sustainable Development to civilians. SD is a set of global community laws that supplant individual liberty, formally maintained within national, state and local property and privacy laws.
Secondly, communitarian laws always "balance" the rights of the individual against the community;therefore SD only protects a selectively delineated notion of community. Every nation in the world is experiencing a "wrenching transformation" of national laws into compliance with international SD indircetly legitimated principles
What kind of system puts monitors on garbage trucks so that the trucks can scan our garbage cans in order to spot the cans that have recyclable items in the wrong cans? What kind of a system establishes neighborhood groups who monitor their neighbors for SD compliance and report infractions of new community biased regulations? What kind of a system puts RFID trackers in garments and Retinal Scans in Driver's Licenses? What kind of a system builds a huge database of every one's most private and personal information?
1.5 An agenda for depopulation
The “internationally binding SD principles” would limit not only the size of the world population but also housing, production, consumption, parenting, communication, and religious expression.Its alarming resemblance to the former USSR Constitution implies far greater restrictions than those specifically stated in the Habitat Agenda. Since many specifics were detailed at previous UN conferences, it cannot be fully understood outside the context of the progressive plan for global governance as outlined in all the documents
Traditional beliefs simply don’t fit the UN vision for 21st Century communities. To find moreuniversal values, Habitat leaders convened a day-long “Dialogue” on the meaning of Solidarity at the elegant Ciragan Palace in Istanbul. The official list of 21 panel members included former Jerusalem mayor Teddy Kollek, historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr, and Maurice Strong who led the1992 UN conference on environment.
“I have gathered leaders with tremendous wisdom and prestige,” began Habitat Secretary-General Wally N’Dow. “They are bringing the spiritual dimension (???)-the only ingredient that can bind societies together.” He had chosen an American moderator who would add credibility to the discussion: Robert MacNeil (of MacNeil-Lehrer), “one of the spiritual lights of the media industry today.”
This hand-picked “interfaith group” left little doubt that solidarity meant a universal shift to the new globalist-New Age paradigm (or world-view). “Change your whole way of thinking,because the new order of the spirit is confronting and challenging you,” said Millard Fuller,President of Habitat for Humanity.
“Citizenship for the next century is learning to live together,” said Federico Mayor, Director General of UNESCO. “The 21st Century city will be a city of social solidarity…. We have to redefine the words… [and write a new] social contract.”
“We should stop bemoaning the growth of cities,” added Dr. Ismail Serageldin, Vice President of The World Bank. “It’s going to happen and it’s a good thing, because cities are the vectors of social change and transformation. Let’s just make sure that social change and transformation are going inthe right direction.” Later he added, “The media must act as part of the education process that counters individualism” or the very foundation on which formal law is grounded
1.6 Agenda 21 as a blueprint for indoctrination on communitarian ideals
The heart of lifelong education would be spiritual training. ????? “What’s needed is an interfaith center in every city of the globe,” said James Morton, dean of the Episcopal Cathedral of St. Johnthe Divine, who organized the panel. “The new interfaith centers will honor the rituals of every…faith tradition: Islam, Hinduism, Jain, Christian and provide opportunity for sacred expressionsneeded to bind the people of the planet into a viable, meaningful, and sustainable solidarity.”
1.7 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT or ANOTHER UTOPIAN VISION?
The guiding principle of the new universal education system is “sustainable development.” People everywhere must be taught “facts” about environmental “risks” that are sensational enough to scare them into compliance. They must be persuaded to accept unthinkable limits on consumption,land use, transportation, and family size. Everyone must protect resources for future generations, say UN leaders, but they agree that the real meaning of sustainability is based on theE’s: Environment, Economy, and Equity, which point to a redistribution of the world’s resources-money, energy, water, and people-in order to create global equality.???? Judging from the social groups to which the agenda appeals and the lack of any mention as to HOW the seextra funds allowing for less inequalities in distribution of income it is clearly a case of legitimating less privileged socioeconimic groups in targeting others for the sake of redistribution of wealth (well, the funds must be generated somehow)
History has shown the emptiness of these promises. Long ago the Communist Manifestoannounced a proletarian revolution which would empower the poor by redistributing wealth.Everyone would be equal. Men and women alike would join the socialist workforce, and children would be trained by the state, which materialized in a state formation. All but the leaders became equally poor , and all the children were indoctrinated with an anti-Christian socialist philosophy. Morally and economically, the masses sank to the level of the lowest common denominator
1.8 IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN THROUGH SOCIAL PYRAMIDS- BOTTOM-UP SOCIAL REENGINEERING
The US Network for Habitat II is one of a myriad of national and international UN organizationscommitted to carry out the UN plan in local communities. “The Network is a forum for making surepeople are heard,” explained one of its leaders. “Its role is to tie together the messages from all sixUN conferences into practical action.”
The resemblances to the “People’s Government” that characterized the local “soviets” in the former USSR are striking.
Lenin knew he couldn’t win through representative democracy, so he organized local assemblies called Soviets. Linked through a national federation of Soviets,each local Soviet was ruled by the uneducated proletariat, the “raw material to be molded by an audacious leader” skilled in the use of propaganda. Private merchants, landlords, and priests were excluded from leadership. The chosen elites were supervised and disciplined by ruler sat a higher level. Few dared complain. As Andrei Vishinsky wrote in The Law of the Soviet State,“There can be no place for freedom of speech, press, and so on for the foes of socialism
• The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, the Habitat II action plan based on Agenda 21, theenvironmental program negotiated at the 1992 UN World Conference on Environment and Development.
• Sustainable America: A New Consensus, a report by The President’s Council for Sustainable Development.
The striking similarities amongst these plans consist in the following buzzwords or concepts:partnerships, consensus, lifelong learning, baselines or benchmarks, monitoring, assessment, data gathering, systemic change, system thinking, social development, etc. All stress the need to measure, assess, and monitor progress- THE CASE FOR SELF-LEGITIMATED CO-EVOLVING COMMUNITIES AT THE EXPENSE OF INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS
All are designed to bypass traditional government and govern people through a form of “citizens” or “grassroots participation” which the Encyclopedia Britannica refers to as“totalitarian democracy” and Communist leaders have called “People’s Government.”
1.9 The historical evolution of the new communitarian ethos
From New York to Rio (1992)
A heat wave and an extended period of drought the last few years of the decade gave credence toa coordinated media campaign of global environmental disaster. The Union of Concerned Scientists published a “Warning to Humanity” which said: “A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.”The annual “State of the Planet” report, issued by the World Watch Institute, predicted progressively worsening environmental disasters. And the mainstream media joined the campaign to convince the world that the planet was on the brink of collapse
•Charles Alexander, Time magazine: “As the science editor at Time, I would freely admitthat on this issue [the environment] we have crossed the boundary from news reporting toadvocacy;”
•Barbara Pyle, CNN environmental director: “l do have an ax to grind . . . . l want to be thelittle subversive person in television;”
•Dianne Dumanoski, Boston Globe environmental reporter: “There is no such thing asobjective reporting . . . I’ve become even more crafty about finding the voices to say thethings I think are true. That is my subversive mission;”
•Bernard Goldberg, CBS 48 Hours: “We in the press like to say we’re honest brokers of information, and it’s just not true. The press does have an agenda.
To this mix of extravagant propaganda, then-Senator Al Gore added his best-selling book, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. Like Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring thirty years earlier,what Gore’s book lacked in scientific accuracy was more than compensated for by an abundance of emotion. He called for a tax on fossil fuels. He called for a “global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over say, a twenty-five year period.”And he called for the reorganization of society:
“I have come to believe that we must take bold and unequivocal action: we must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization . . . . Adopting a central organizing principle — one agreed to voluntarily — means embarking on an all out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, every treaty and alliance, every tactic and strategy, every plan and course of action — to use. In short every means to halt the destruction of the environment and to preserve and nurture our ecological system
Despite significant, legitimate objections from the scientific community, which were ignored by the media and ridiculed by environmental organizations, the public perception of impending environmental disaster was successfully blamed on exploding human population; human-caused global warming; and human-caused loss of biological diversity. The stage was set for the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) scheduled to be held in Rio de Janeiro in1992. No previous UN conference had ever received such planning and promotion. Maurice Strong was named to head the conference, which was dubbed “Earth Summit II.” He had chaired the first“Earth Summit” in 1972 and had participated in every environmental commission and conference since. (Strong became Chairman of the Board of WRI in 1994). To guide the agenda for the conference, UNEP and its NGO partners published two major documents: Caring for the Earth,(1991 via UNEP/IUCN/WWF), and Global Biodiversity Strategy, (1992 via UNEP/IUCN/WWF/WRI). These documents contained the material from which the revolutionary UNCED documents would be produced.
The NGO community, coordinated through the IUCN and the WRI publication Networking, used the igc.apc.org computer networks extensively to funnel information to and from the UNCED agenda planners, and to plan the NGO Forum. UNCED provided an opportunity for the NGOs to perfect the lobbying process. With the blessings of and assistance from the UNEP, the NGOs scheduled a“Forum” the week immediately preceding the official conference. Nearly 8,000 NGOs were officially certified to participate in the UNCED Forum, and another 4,000 NGOs were observers, swelling the total attendance at UNCED to more than 40,000 people — the largest environmental gathering the world has ever known. UNCED may be recorded in history as the most significant event the world has ever known; it was the watershed event that began the final march to global governance.
Agenda 21, the underlying conference document, was a distillation of the UNEP/IUCN/WWF/WRI documents. It consisted of 294 pages and 115 specific program recommendations. Agenda 21 was further distilled into another document called The Rio Declaration which was a succinct statement of 27 principles on which the recommendations were based, and which would guide the global environmental agenda. Two major international treaties had also been prepared for presentation UNCED: the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on BiologicalDiversity.
In the summer of 1992, President George Bush faced a difficult reelection campaign. He expressed little interest in the Rio conference and was savagely ridiculed by then-Senator Al Gore and his own EPA Administrator, William Reilly, who publicly urged Bush to attend. Bush relented and was one of more than 100 heads of state that adopted the UNCED documents. Bush, however, did not sign the Convention on Biological Diversity due to ambiguities relating to the transfer of technology. He told the conference audience:
“Our efforts to protect biodiversity itself will exceed the requirements of the treaty. But that proposed agreement threatens to retard biotechnology and undermine the protection of ideas, . . . it is never easy to stand alone on principle, but sometimes leadership requires that you do. And now is such a time.
Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration are not binding documents. They are “soft law” documents which are the foundation for future binding documents such as the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity. These two treaties contained important new features that are not present in the hundreds of other international treaties that the U.S. has ratified. These treaties do not allow any reservations or exceptions. Other treaties provide for parties to specify particular reservations or exceptions to which they are not bound. The UNCED treaties require all-or-nothing participation. The UNCED treaties created a “Conference of the Parties” (COP) which is a permanent body of delegates which has the authority to adopt“protocols,” or regulations, through which to implement and administer the treaty. The UNCED treaties were non-specific. The treaties were actually a list of goals and objectives; the COP was created to develop the protocols necessary to achieve the objectives — after the treaties had been ratified.
The Framework Convention on Climate Change, for example, binds participating nations to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000; the COP develops the protocols necessary to achieve that goal, and the member nations are legally obligated to comply.The Convention on Biological Diversity requires the creation of “a system of protected areas.” The COP will adopt protocols to define what is an acceptable system of protected areas long after the treaty has been ratified. The binding treaties are written in language that appears to pursue environmental objectives: however, the principles upon which the treaties are based (The Rio Declaration) are in fact a refined re-statement of the principles for social change developed by the various socialist-dominated commission of the 1980s.