Ryze - Business Networking Get a Coderbuddy developer now
www.coderbuddy.com

"I Highly Recommend Them" - Magnitude.io CEO; US timezone; affordable rates; Silicon Valley leadership
Get your software built!
Buy Ethereum and Bitcoin
Get started with Cryptocurrency investing
Home Invite Friends Networks Friends classifieds
Home

Apply for Membership

About Ryze


Innovation Network
Previous Topic | Next Topic | Topics
The Innovation Network Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts
Ignacy Sachs - Incremental ImplementationViews: 371
Dec 15, 2009 5:48 amIgnacy Sachs - Incremental Implementation#

Ron Sam
Shocking 1991 UN Policy Paper Describes the Exact Purpose and Trajectory of Current Copenhagen Treaty
Published on 12-10-2009

By Jurriaan Maessen

"The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization - unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster"

Richard Sandbrook, Closing the Circle: Democratization and Development in Africa, Zed Books limited, London, 2000.

A 1991 policy paper prepared for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) by self-described 'ecosocioeconomist' professor

http://www.unhistory.org/CD/images/interviewees/Sachs.jpg

Ignacy Sachs outlines a strategy for the transfer of wealth in name of the environment to be implemented in the course of 35 to 40 years. As it turns out, it is a visionary paper describing phase by phase the road to world dictatorship. As the professor states in the paper:

"To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span."

In his paper "The Next 40 Years: Transition Strategies to the Virtuous Green Path: North/South/East/Global", Sachs accurately describes not only the intended time-span to bring about a global society, but also what steps should be taken to ensure "population stabilization":

"In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient."

In the first part of the (in retrospect) bizarrely accurate description of the years to come, Sachs points out redistribution of wealth is the only viable path towards population stabilization and- as he calls it- a "virtuous green world". The professor:

"The way out from the double bind of poverty and environmental disruption calls for a fairly long period of more economic growth to sustain the transition strategies towards the virtuous green path of what has been called in Stockholm ecodevelopement and has since changed its name in Anglo-Saxon countries to sustainable development."

"(...) a fair degree of agreement seems to exist, therefore, about the ideal development path to be followed so long as we do not manage to stabilize the world population and, at the same time, sharply reduce the inequalities prevailing today."

"The bolder the steps taken in the near future", Sachs asserts, "the shorter will be the time span that separates us from a steady state. Radical solutions must address to the roots of the problem and not to its symptoms. Theoretically, the transition could be made shorter by measures of redistribution of assets and income."

Sachs points to the political difficulties of such proposals being implemented (because free humanity tends to distrust any national government let alone transnational government to redistribute its well-earned wealth). He therefore proposes these measures to be implemented gradually, following a meticulously planned strategy:

"The pragmatic prospect is one of transition extending itself over several decades."

In the second sub-chapter "The Five Dimensions of Ecodevelopment", professor Sachs sums up the main dimensions of this carefully outlined move to make Agenda 21 a very real future prospect. The first dimension he touches upon is "Social Sustainability":

"The aim is to build a civilization of being within greater equity in asset and income distribution, so as to improve substantially the entitlements of the broad masses of population and of reduce the gap in standards of living between the have and the have nots."

This of course means, reducing the standards of living in "The North" (U.S., Europe) and upgrading those of the developing nations ("The South and The East"). This would have to be realized through what Sachs calls "Economic Sustainability": "made possible by a more efficient allocation and management of resources and a steady flow of public and private investment."

The third dimension described by the professor is "Ecological Sustainability" which, among other things, limits "the consumption of fossile fuels and other easily depletable or environmentally harmful products, substituting them by renewable and/or plentiful and environmentally friendly resources, reducing the volume of pollutants by means of energy and resource conservation and recycling and, last but not least, promoting self-constraint in material consumption on part of the rich countries and of the privileged social strata all over the world;"

In order to make this happen Sachs stresses the need of "defining the rules for adequate environmental protection, designing the institutional machinery and choosing the mix of economic, legal and administrative instruments necessary for the implementation of environmental policies."

Dimension 4: "Spatial Sustainability":

"directed at achieving a more balanced rural-urban configuration and a better territorial distribution of human settlements and economic activities (...)".

The fifth and last dimension described in the UN policy paper is "Cultural Sustainability": "looking for the endogenous roots of the modernization processes, seeking change within cultural continuity, translating the normative concept of ecodevelopment into a plurality of local, ecosystem-specific, culture-specific and site-specific solutions."

But to realize such a dramatic new direction for the world, Sachs once again stresses the importance of incremental implementation. A matter of boiling the frog slowly as opposed to throwing the poor animal into a boiling-hot cooking pan:

"Even if we know where we want to get, the operational question is how do we proceed to put humankind on the virtuous path of genuine development, socially responsible and in harmony with nature. It is submitted that UNCED 92 should give considerable attention to the formulation of transition strategies that could become the central piece of the Agenda 21."

This is the word- Agenda 21: the UN strategy for redistributing the wealth accumulated by the "North" in order to create a completely "balanced" world society- under auspices of the United Nations of course and the private central banks controlling it. This can only come about by destroying the middle-class. A sudden redistribution and industrialization would not do- for the middle-class would undoubtedly rise in defiance against it. Therefore, Sachs argues for an incremental and carefully planned dissolution of the middle-class phase by phase:

"To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span. The retooling of industries, even in periods of rapid growth, requires ten to twenty years. The restructuration and the expansion of the infrastructures requires several decades and this is a crucially important sector from the point of view of environment."

Then Sachs plunges into his most shocking statement:

"However, the single most important reason to consider the transition strategies over a minimum of thirty-five to forty years stems from the non-linearity of these strategies; they should be devised as a succession of changing priorities over time. A good illustration is provided by the population transition. In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient."

Sachs argues that "an accelerated programme of social and economic development of the rural areas should be the outmost priority in the first phase of a realistic population stabilization scheme."

Who or what is to coordinate all this, according to Sachs, and how exactly is the UN to take control?

"The solutions", says Sachs, "can vary in terms of their boldness and take the form of global, multilateral or bilateral arrangements." These arrangements should as far as Sachs is concerned ensure "at least partially the automacity of financial transfers by some form of fiscal mechanisms, be it a small income tax or an array of indirect taxes on goods and services whose production and consumption has significant environmental impacts."

Over time, gradually, these taxes should increase:

"Starting the operation with a one per ten thousand tax and increasing it so as to reach one per thousand in ten to twenty years seems a fairly realistic proposal, the more so that the scheme creates an interesting market for the private enterprises involved in R and D."

Reading all this, the question as to what entity should take charge is not difficult to answer. Sachs:

"In order to generate maximum synergies between the national strategies and global action, the United Nations should create a forum for the periodical discussion and evaluation of these strategies and a research, monitoring and flexible planning facility to put them in a global perspective.(...). The forum should have a fair representation of all the main actors involved: governments, parliaments, citizen movements and the business world. Given its importance, it should be lifted from specialized agencies to a central place in the UN system."

The "fair representation" Sachs is talking about is of course only a pretext to get everybody on board. As the recently surfaced "Danish Text" clearly illustrates, the IMF and World Bank will always have final say in the construction of any international system.

Series of events/actions related to above.

Monckton's Warning About Copenhagen Executive Agreement

This is an excerpt of a video of Lord Christopher Monckton broadcasting from Copenhagen for an Americans for Prosperity event on December 9, 2009. Concerned citizens should immediately contact the White House at 202-456-1111 and tell President Obama NOT to sign the Copenhagen Agreement.

COPENHAGEN, December 9, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a brief video released on the Internet, Lord Christopher Monkton is seen giving a speech today in Copenhagen warning that President Obama will try to use his Executive Authority to sign an agreement, rather than a treaty, to commit the United States to undertake measures against climate change that will seriously damage the freedoms and prosperity of America.

Monkton states, "President Obama is going to come here (Copenhagen) and sign the Copenhagen Agreement." He says it's no longer being called a treaty specifically because US Senators "know they can't get a treaty through the US Senate." Monkton continues explaining, "so, President Obama is going to sign this agreement by his executive authority and he will then put it through both houses of Congress by a vote of simple majority."   Full Story


Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda


Oppose Cap and Trade Policies

Sign the Petition

Private Reply to Ron Sam

Dec 15, 2009 1:45 pmre: Ignacy Sachs - Incremental Implementation#

Ed and Yvonne Servis
YIKES!!

Private Reply to Ed and Yvonne Servis

Dec 15, 2009 2:22 pmre: Ignacy Sachs - Incremental Implementation still doomed to failure#

Ken Hilving
Reagan thought the same thing, although his threat was an outside invader that threatened all humanity.

Meanwhile, a quick review of history shows just how fleeting any "uniting" issue is. Three generations of communism failed to hold the former Soviet Union together and the individual pieces were quick to divide, despite huge efforts to homogenize the population through purges, forced indoctrination, and massive relocations. China has failed to shed ethnic identities despite an additional generation of effort. Iraq battled Iran, and battled internally over both ethnic identity and "flavor" of common religion. Color alone has proven insufficient for unity in African nations. Europe struggles to think of themselves as one entity rather than a collection of independent states. Neither India or Pakistan has succeeded in changing local affiliations into a single national identity. Canada is unable to assimilate its parts into a common vision. The United States are anything but united on almost any issue.

Of course, the standard response to all of this failure is "outside" agitation. IF ONLY these alliances could operate for a couple of generations without interference from outsiders, surely a new generation could grow up with a sense of common unity and purpose.

Seems to me that the only time individuals are willing to put all of their own interests aside for a common cause is when it is perceived as a matter of immediate survival. Even prisons fail to maintain a cohesive identity of guards or cons, despite the level of control applied to either.

Feel free to show me where I am wrong. Show me one example of long term success at unity, or even at governing. Show me one unified group with more than one member.

Private Reply to Ken Hilving

Dec 15, 2009 5:28 pmre: re: Ignacy Sachs - Incremental Implementation still doomed to failure#

Thomas Holford
> Feel free to show me where I am wrong.

OK. How about the following:

> Reagan thought the same thing, . . .

Ken! Ken! Ken!

This is a seriously reality-detached assertion.

Otherwise, the rest of you posting is contains a lot that is true.



T. Holford

Private Reply to Thomas Holford

Dec 15, 2009 10:25 pmre: re: Ignacy Sachs - Incremental Implementation still doomed to failure#

Ron Sam
re:
Feel free to show me where I am wrong. Show me one example of long term success at unity, or even at governing. Show me one unified group with more than one member.

The Mafia or Mafioso.

Private Reply to Ron Sam

Dec 15, 2009 10:39 pmre: re: re: Ignacy Sachs - Incremental Implementation still works ...#

Ron Sam
I was thinking that Incremental Implementation
is still practiced by the Mafia, right?

They have familial disputes that go on for generations, and like the Kennedy's one by one they all go and there is no one left to regenerate the genes, well that's the theory.... of mafia revenge.

Private Reply to Ron Sam

Dec 15, 2009 11:30 pmre: re: re: re: Ignacy Sachs - Incremental Implementation still works ...#

Ken Hilving
So success comes with, for, and to the last man standing?

A group of one. :-)

Private Reply to Ken Hilving

Dec 18, 2009 10:29 pmre: re: re: re: re: Ignacy Sachs - Incremental Implementation COP15 Politicization#

Ron Sam

Sarah Palin on the politicization of the Copenhagen climate conference

By Sarah Palin
Wednesday, December 9, 2009

With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.

"Climate-gate," as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle -- the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse.

The e-mails reveal that leading climate "experts" deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What's more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.

This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I've always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of "climate change impacts" was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska's economy and the nation's, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development.

Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits -- not pursuing a political agenda. That's not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate -- far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska's communities and infrastructure.

But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen -- which actually allow them to increase their emissions -- President Obama's proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign). That's not exactly what most Americans are hoping for these days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress's cap-and-tax legislation, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people.

In fact, we're not the only nation whose people are questioning climate change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax program. Meanwhile, Australia's Parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow suit, particularly as the climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold.

In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to "restore science to its rightful place." But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a "deal." Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats' cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs -- particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen.

The writer was the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president and governor of Alaska from 2006 to 2009.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/08/AR2009120803402.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Private Reply to Ron Sam

Previous Topic | Next Topic | Topics

Back to Innovation Network





Ryze Admin - Support   |   About Ryze



Ryze Android preview app

Testing Gets Real: blog on A/B testing, building businesses with feedback loops, by Adrian Scott

© Ryze Limited. Ryze is a trademark of Ryze Limited.  Terms of Service, including the Privacy Policy