NWS Nieuws & Achtergronden
Discussieer hier diepgaander over de actualiteiten.
Hetzelfde doen ze in China en Rusland ook. Alleen gaat dan het Westerse journaille op zoek naar 'de buitenlanders' (dus de mensen die door het bewind en de Han-Chinezen als buitenlanders worden gezien) om te laten zien hoe slecht het wel niet in China is. Boehoequote:Dat heet er in masseren... en is bedoeld om niet over de oevers van weerstand te gaan, door de weerstand voorzichting te verleggen.
Ik wil er niet te lichtzinnig over doen maar in de moderne rijke dictaturen China en Rusland heb je ook een moderne middenklasse die het regime te vriend moet houden. Is een beetje vergelijkbaar met hier: voor vrijheidsbeperkingen gaan ze niet de straat op, wel als er geen eten meer is.
En ja, ook daar wordt er er 'gemasseerd' zoals je het noemt.
Echt, de toegepaste technieken verschillen in essentie niet heel veel. Je kunt alleen discuseren over 'de mate waarin'.
Deuger, Woke & Gutmensch
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
Natuurlijk is het verschil niet enorm, we zijn allemaal mensen en dus functioneren we in essentie gelijk.quote:Op zondag 20 juli 2008 09:57 schreef Klopkoek het volgende:
Echt, de toegepaste technieken verschillen in essentie niet heel veel. Je kunt alleen discuseren over 'de mate waarin'.
Doe maar gewoon, dan doe je al dom genoeg
[quote]Op donderdag 15 januari 2009 11:22 schreef EchtGaaf het volgende:
Ik blijf vinden dat het werk van een CEO zwaar wordt ondergewaardeerd.
[quote]Op donderdag 15 januari 2009 11:22 schreef EchtGaaf het volgende:
Ik blijf vinden dat het werk van een CEO zwaar wordt ondergewaardeerd.
Toch heeft dit weer met overheid van doen. Wat doen bedijven aan vrijheidsbeperkende zaken BUITEN de overheid om.quote:Op zaterdag 19 juli 2008 18:45 schreef Klopkoek het volgende:
Goed artikel over de invloed van bedrijven op onze vrijheidsbeperking:
http://www.rollingstone.c(...)inas_allseeing_eye/2
Ze doen er niet alleen aan mee om geld te verdienen, nee, er zit zelfs een lange termijn visie achter.
Dat is wat anders dan corporatisme.
Bedrijven vergroten keuzemogelijkheden middels goederen en diensten waar vraag naar is.
Als er geen mobile telefoon is kan je er ook niet voor kiezen er een aan te schaffen.
It is important to distinguish between a stupid person and a shit head. A stupid person simply can't process the information , a shit head is intelligent but his mind is full of garbage.
Het is een schijnvertoning om de bevolking rustig te houden .. zoals de oude romeinen al zeiden, panem et circensesquote:Op zaterdag 19 juli 2008 14:18 schreef Space-Chinees het volgende:
Wie trekken er in Nederland of in Amerika eigenlijk aan de touwtjes? Is het de president of parlement? Of is het de Bank? Is politiek maar een schijnvertoning voor economie?
pleased to meet you
Met de aankomende politiestaat en controle van de overheid waar we in Nederland naar toegaan is het niet zo moeilijk voor te stellen hoe het in Nederland zou zijn in een dictateur. Zeker omdat de overheid voor iedereen alles wil gaan bepalen
Experience is what you get when you don't get what you wanted
Take my advice ... I don't use it anyway...
Een goede Fok! Search
Een goede Fok! Search
Take my advice ... I don't use it anyway...
Een goede Fok! Search
Een goede Fok! Search
Dat lijkt mij niet juist. Het is de gemiddelde burger die lukraak allerlei dingen wil die, als men er iets langer over na zou denken, zeer schadelijk zou zijn voor een vrije samenleving.quote:Op zondag 20 juli 2008 12:47 schreef Martijn_77 het volgende:
Met de aankomende politiestaat en controle van de overheid waar we in Nederland naar toegaan is het niet zo moeilijk voor te stellen hoe het in Nederland zou zijn in een dictateur. Zeker omdat de overheid voor iedereen alles wil gaan bepalen
Niet als persoonlijke aanval bedoeld (je kwam er later gelukkig op terug), maar zo vond jij zelf bijvoorbeeld een goed plan om het ne bis in idem af te schaffen, ofwel, dat het OM keer op keer dezelfde persoon kon aanklagen.
Het zijn dat soort kleine stapjes, die met goedkeuring of juist onder druk van een schreeuwende minderheid genomen wordt, wat niet altijd even gezond is voor een vrije samenleving.
Wat er tegen gedaan zou worden zou ik niet kunnen weten. Iedereen informeren lijkt me een onbegonnen taak, en daarnaast beschouw ik mijzelf ook niet als 'een geinformeerde burger'. Ook ik ben maar een kleine pion in het spel. Het beste, lijkt mij, om in het geheel maar gewoon het individu (de minderheid) te beschermen tegen de wil van de meerderheid die soms schuimbekkend roept dat democratie betekent dat de meerderheid altijd gelijk heeft.
Bovenstaande tekst = C C 3.0 NL BY-NC-ND - quotes inkorten uitgezonderd.
Ik kwam een artikeltje tegen over de ontwikkelingen met betrekking tot duurzame ontwikkeling in de VS. Agenda 21 wordt wereldwijd geìmplementeerd, dus ook in Nederland.
Sustainable Development: The Root of All Our Problems
More Articles
January 25, 2008
By Tom DeWeese
In his book, Earth in the Balance, Al Gore warned that a "wrenching transformation" must take place to lead America away from the "horrors of the Industrial Revolution." The process to do that is called Sustainable Development and its’ roots can be traced back to a UN policy document called Agenda 21, adopted at the UN’s Earth Summit in 1992.
Sustainable Development calls for changing the very infrastructure of the nation, away from private ownership and control of property to nothing short of central planning of the entire economy – often referred to as top-down control. Truly, Sustainable Development is designed to change our way of life.
Many are now finding non-elected regional governments and governing councils enforcing policy and regulations. As these policies are implemented, locally-elected officials are actually losing power and decision-making ability in their own communities. Most decisions are now being made behind the scenes in non-elected "sustainability councils" armed with truckloads of federal regulations, guidelines, and grant money.
In fact, a recent study reported that elected city councils and commissioners have lost approximately 10% of their legislative power during the past 10 years, while, through the consensus process, the power of private groups called Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) has increased by as much as 300%. It is a wrenching transformation, indeed.
The Three Es
According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social, and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity.
The Sustainablists insist that society be transformed into feudal-like governance by making Nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society. As such, every societal decision would first be questioned as to how it might effect the environment. To achieve this, Sustainablist policy focuses on three components; land use, education, and population control and reduction.
The Sustainable Development logo used in most literature on the subject contains three connecting circles labeled Social Equity; Economic Prosperity; and Ecological Integrity (known commonly as the 3 Es).
Social Equity
Sustainable Development’s Social Equity plank is based on a demand for something called "social justice." It should be noted that the first person to coin the phrase "social justice" was Karl Marx. Today, the phrase is used throughout Sustainablist literature. The Sustainablist system is based on the principle that individuals must give up selfish wants for the needs of the common good, or the "community." How does this differ from Communism?
This is the same policy behind the push to eliminate our nation’s borders to allow the "migration" of those from other nations into the United States to share our individually-created wealth and our taxpayers-paid government social programs. Say the Sustainablists, "Justice and efficiency go hand in hand." "Borders," they say, "are unjust."
Under the Sustainablist system, private property is an evil that is used simply to create wealth for a few. So too, is business ownership. Instead, "every worker/person will be a direct capital owner." Property and businesses are to be kept in the name of the owner, keeping them responsible for taxes and other expenses, however control is in the hands of the "community."
Economic Prosperity
Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based on one overriding premise: that the wealth of the world was made at the expense of the poor. It dictates that, if the conditions of the poor are to be improved, wealth must first be taken from the rich. Consequently, Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based not on private enterprise but on public/private partnerships.
In order to give themselves an advantage over competition, some businesses -- particularly large corporations – now find a great advantage in dealing directly with government, actively lobbying for legislation that will inundate smaller companies with regulations that they cannot possibly comply with or even keep up with. This government/big corporation back-scratching has always been a dangerous practice because economic power should be a positive check on government power, and vice versa. If the two should ever become combined, control of such massive power can lead only to tyranny. One of the best examples of this was the Italian model in the first half of the Twentieth Century under Mussolini’s Fascism.
Together, select business leaders who have agreed to help government impose Sustainablist green positions in their business policies, and officials at all levels of government are indeed merging the power of the economy with the force of government in Public/Private Partnerships on the local, state and federal levels.
As a result, Sustainable Development policy is redefining free trade to mean centralized global trade "freely" crossing (or eliminating) national borders. It definitely does not mean people and companies trading freely with each other. Its real effect is to redistribute American manufacturing, wealth, and jobs out of our borders and to lock away American natural resources. After the regulations have been put in place, literally destroying whole industries, new "green" industries created with federal grants bring newfound wealth to the "partners." This is what Sustainablists refer to as economic prosperity.
Ecological Integrity
"Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual and material) where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living creatures are considered equal. Therefore the natural way is the right way and human activities should be molded along nature’s rhythms." from the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty presented at the 1992 UN Earth Summit.
This quote lays down the ground rules for the entire Sustainable Development agenda. It says humans are nothing special – just one strand in the nature of things or, put another way, humans are simply biological resources. Sustainablist policy is to oversee any issue in which man reacts with nature –which, of course, is literally everything. And because the environment always comes first, there must be great restrictions over private property ownership and control. This is necessary, Sustainablists say, because humans only defile nature. In fact, the report from the 1976 UN Habitat I conference said: "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 principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributes to social injustice."
Under Sustainable Development there can be no concern over individual rights – as we must all sacrifice for the sake of the environment. Individual human wants, needs, and desires are to be conformed to the views and dictates of social planners. The UN’s Commission on Global Governance said in its 1995 report: "Human activity…combined with unprecedented increases in human numbers…are impinging on the planet’s basic life support system. Action must be taken now to control the human activities that produce these risks"
Under Sustainable Development there can be no limited government, as advocated by our Founding Fathers, because, we are told, the real or perceived environmental crisis is too great. Maurice Strong, Chairman of the 1992 UN Earth Summit said: "A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally-damaging consumption patterns. The shift will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations."
The politically based environmental movement provides Sustainablists camouflage as they work to transform the American systems of government, justice, and economics. It is a masterful mixture of socialism (with its top down control of the tools of the economy) and fascism (where property is owned in name only – with no control). Sustainable Development is the worst of both the left and the right. It is not liberal, nor is it conservative. It is a new kind of tyranny that, if not stopped, will surely lead us to a new Dark Ages of pain and misery yet unknown to mankind.
Sustainable Development: The Root of All Our Problems
More Articles
January 25, 2008
By Tom DeWeese
In his book, Earth in the Balance, Al Gore warned that a "wrenching transformation" must take place to lead America away from the "horrors of the Industrial Revolution." The process to do that is called Sustainable Development and its’ roots can be traced back to a UN policy document called Agenda 21, adopted at the UN’s Earth Summit in 1992.
Sustainable Development calls for changing the very infrastructure of the nation, away from private ownership and control of property to nothing short of central planning of the entire economy – often referred to as top-down control. Truly, Sustainable Development is designed to change our way of life.
Many are now finding non-elected regional governments and governing councils enforcing policy and regulations. As these policies are implemented, locally-elected officials are actually losing power and decision-making ability in their own communities. Most decisions are now being made behind the scenes in non-elected "sustainability councils" armed with truckloads of federal regulations, guidelines, and grant money.
In fact, a recent study reported that elected city councils and commissioners have lost approximately 10% of their legislative power during the past 10 years, while, through the consensus process, the power of private groups called Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) has increased by as much as 300%. It is a wrenching transformation, indeed.
The Three Es
According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social, and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity.
The Sustainablists insist that society be transformed into feudal-like governance by making Nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society. As such, every societal decision would first be questioned as to how it might effect the environment. To achieve this, Sustainablist policy focuses on three components; land use, education, and population control and reduction.
The Sustainable Development logo used in most literature on the subject contains three connecting circles labeled Social Equity; Economic Prosperity; and Ecological Integrity (known commonly as the 3 Es).
Social Equity
Sustainable Development’s Social Equity plank is based on a demand for something called "social justice." It should be noted that the first person to coin the phrase "social justice" was Karl Marx. Today, the phrase is used throughout Sustainablist literature. The Sustainablist system is based on the principle that individuals must give up selfish wants for the needs of the common good, or the "community." How does this differ from Communism?
This is the same policy behind the push to eliminate our nation’s borders to allow the "migration" of those from other nations into the United States to share our individually-created wealth and our taxpayers-paid government social programs. Say the Sustainablists, "Justice and efficiency go hand in hand." "Borders," they say, "are unjust."
Under the Sustainablist system, private property is an evil that is used simply to create wealth for a few. So too, is business ownership. Instead, "every worker/person will be a direct capital owner." Property and businesses are to be kept in the name of the owner, keeping them responsible for taxes and other expenses, however control is in the hands of the "community."
Economic Prosperity
Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based on one overriding premise: that the wealth of the world was made at the expense of the poor. It dictates that, if the conditions of the poor are to be improved, wealth must first be taken from the rich. Consequently, Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based not on private enterprise but on public/private partnerships.
In order to give themselves an advantage over competition, some businesses -- particularly large corporations – now find a great advantage in dealing directly with government, actively lobbying for legislation that will inundate smaller companies with regulations that they cannot possibly comply with or even keep up with. This government/big corporation back-scratching has always been a dangerous practice because economic power should be a positive check on government power, and vice versa. If the two should ever become combined, control of such massive power can lead only to tyranny. One of the best examples of this was the Italian model in the first half of the Twentieth Century under Mussolini’s Fascism.
Together, select business leaders who have agreed to help government impose Sustainablist green positions in their business policies, and officials at all levels of government are indeed merging the power of the economy with the force of government in Public/Private Partnerships on the local, state and federal levels.
As a result, Sustainable Development policy is redefining free trade to mean centralized global trade "freely" crossing (or eliminating) national borders. It definitely does not mean people and companies trading freely with each other. Its real effect is to redistribute American manufacturing, wealth, and jobs out of our borders and to lock away American natural resources. After the regulations have been put in place, literally destroying whole industries, new "green" industries created with federal grants bring newfound wealth to the "partners." This is what Sustainablists refer to as economic prosperity.
Ecological Integrity
"Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual and material) where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living creatures are considered equal. Therefore the natural way is the right way and human activities should be molded along nature’s rhythms." from the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty presented at the 1992 UN Earth Summit.
This quote lays down the ground rules for the entire Sustainable Development agenda. It says humans are nothing special – just one strand in the nature of things or, put another way, humans are simply biological resources. Sustainablist policy is to oversee any issue in which man reacts with nature –which, of course, is literally everything. And because the environment always comes first, there must be great restrictions over private property ownership and control. This is necessary, Sustainablists say, because humans only defile nature. In fact, the report from the 1976 UN Habitat I conference said: "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 principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributes to social injustice."
Under Sustainable Development there can be no concern over individual rights – as we must all sacrifice for the sake of the environment. Individual human wants, needs, and desires are to be conformed to the views and dictates of social planners. The UN’s Commission on Global Governance said in its 1995 report: "Human activity…combined with unprecedented increases in human numbers…are impinging on the planet’s basic life support system. Action must be taken now to control the human activities that produce these risks"
Under Sustainable Development there can be no limited government, as advocated by our Founding Fathers, because, we are told, the real or perceived environmental crisis is too great. Maurice Strong, Chairman of the 1992 UN Earth Summit said: "A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally-damaging consumption patterns. The shift will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations."
The politically based environmental movement provides Sustainablists camouflage as they work to transform the American systems of government, justice, and economics. It is a masterful mixture of socialism (with its top down control of the tools of the economy) and fascism (where property is owned in name only – with no control). Sustainable Development is the worst of both the left and the right. It is not liberal, nor is it conservative. It is a new kind of tyranny that, if not stopped, will surely lead us to a new Dark Ages of pain and misery yet unknown to mankind.
Ik maak mij er anders best wel zorgen om. Er komen steeds meer regels. En dat niet alleen , er zijn veel meer mogelijkheden om mensen in de gaten te houden. Je mobieltje is altijd traceerbaar, er staan camera's langs de snelwegen en in stadscentra en als straks de kilometerheffing en de OV-chipkaart zijn ingevoerd kunnen ze helemaal nagaan waar we op dat moment uithangen.quote:Op vrijdag 18 juli 2008 22:08 schreef Alicey het volgende:
Aan de andere kant denk ik wel dat afglijden naar een maatschappij zonder vrijheid wel mogelijk is, zolang het maar geleidelijk genoeg gaat. Je merkt het al met anti-terrorisme-wetgeving of iets als identificatieplicht. Het is een kleine inperking van vrijheden, maar inmiddels is dat allemaal redelijk geaccepteerd (waarin ik zelf ook meega). Ik weet niet waar ik zou afhaken wanneer zoiets ongezonde vormen begint aan te nemen. Wellicht wel te laat..
Inderdaad. Als je de Stasi, de Gestapo en weet ik wat je nog meer had of hebt in het hedendaagse Nederland rond zou laten lopen kunnen ze hun geluk niet op. Al dat soort dingen waar men vroeger schande over sprak zijn nu bijna normaal. Zoals iemand het al noemde, de weerstandsgrens wordt steeds net een beetje meer verlegd.quote:Op zondag 20 juli 2008 16:57 schreef RealZeus het volgende:
[..]
Ik maak mij er anders best wel zorgen om. Er komen steeds meer regels. En dat niet alleen , er zijn veel meer mogelijkheden om mensen in de gaten te houden. Je mobieltje is altijd traceerbaar, er staan camera's langs de snelwegen en in stadscentra en als straks de kilometerheffing en de OV-chipkaart zijn ingevoerd kunnen ze helemaal nagaan waar we op dat moment uithangen.
What Would Goku Do
|
|
