“Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty” – The Communist Manifesto
Yep, radical feminism and radial environmentalism have been the two greatest destroyers of our culture and heritage. — jtl, 419
The original intention in writing this analysis was simply to discover the reason that the role of women seemed to be such a vital part of United Nations Agenda 21. As one connection led to another, I found myself with a massive amount of information, all of which important, and necessary, to explain what is happening in terms of the manipulation of women in today’s society. This is my attempt to condense all of that information into a reasonably short overview. The reader should understand that there is much more to this story, and can follow any of the many links, and sources, provided in this analysis, if they want to learn more.
Upon my first complete reading of United Nations Agenda 21, the UN’s plan for the world for the 21 century, I noticed how nearly every chapter of the Agenda curiously emphasized the necessary role of women in the implementation of the plan. Of course, implying that women play a major role in society is not, in itself, odd in any way, however the manner in which these ideas are presented, I did find questionable. Aside from recommending governments implement strategies to increase the amount of women in positions of “decision makers, planners, managers, scientists and technical advisers”, the agenda also wants to have influence in people’s lives at home by looking to “promote the reduction of the heavy workload of women and girl children at home”, and, somehow, influence “the sharing of household tasks by men and women on an equal basis.” Reducing the number of children that women have was another concept continuously discussed as a matter of importance in the Agenda. (Sidenote: For more information on the actual Agenda 21 document, I highly recommend reading my article A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 – United Nations Program of Action)
At first, I just kept the Agenda’s emphasis on women as a mental note, as there were seemingly more important aspects of Agenda 21 to discuss, and analyze. However, as I began to read more UN books, and documents, an anti-men/pro-women agenda seemed to emerge. For example, in the children’s version of Agenda 21, Rescue Mission: Planet Earth , a book promoted by the United Nations, former executive of the United Nations Population Fund, Dr. Nafis Sadik, is asked the question “There’s a lot in Agenda 21 about women playing a critical role in population, but aren’t men usually the problem?”, and her response was:
“Yes – there’s a lot of male authority but not much male responsibility in relation to child bearing. Men are not burdened with the problem of giving birth, they tend to exploit children -sending them to work instead of investing in their education. What can children do? They should challenge their parents not to have any more children until they can look after them properly.” [emphasis added]
Aside from the blatant, and in my opinion, unjustified, attack on men, the idea that children are being exploited by their family reminded me of a quote from the Communist Manifesto:
“Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty” – The Communist Manifesto
These type of quotes, and concepts, compelled me to re-examine Agenda 21, and find a possible origin to these ideas. The full Agenda 21 document, in book form, is 351 pages, however Agenda 21 is much more complex than just what is written in this action plan, due to the fact that there are numerous other resolutions referenced, and recommended, for further implementation. One such resolution that is recommended for implementation is the Nairobi Forward-looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women report. When I decided to look into, and read, this report from Nairobi, I discovered a feminist agenda, with dubious objectives. (For a greater understanding of the objectives discussed in the Nairobi report, read my article A Critical Summary of the Nairobi Forward-looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women)
In the following examination, I will be making connections with this Agenda 21-related report, and current events that are taking place, as well as the people, and organizations, causing these events to take place.
It must be concluded that the type of feminism being pushed by the United Nations, through reports like the one in Nairobi, is of a collectivist nature, indeed resembling more the Communist Manifesto, than any philosophy based on liberty, and freedom. The UN/Communist association is an important one, and helps to further explain the role that Feminism is playing in today’s society.
The connection between Collectivism, and more specifically Communism, with the United Nations, is very easily made, and some researchers, such as G. Edward Griffin, in his book “The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations“, have provided much evidence to validate this association. One example to show this connection is the story of Alger Hiss. In 1944, while serving as a member of the U.S. State Department, Hiss helped establish the United Nations. Interestingly, an ambassador from the Soviet Union personally recommended that Hiss be appointed temporary Secretary General of the U.N. This piece of information is interesting because Alger Hiss was later convicted of being a Soviet spy. Therefore, from the beginning of it’s establishment, the United Nations has had dubious connections to Communism. This association with Communism has never appeared to cease, and even in the children’s edition of Agenda 21, published in 1994, an opening quote by the former General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and former leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, is used to promote the United Nation agenda. These are just two examples showing the Communist/UN connection, and while much more evidence can be provided, for the sake of brevity, we will move further with this analysis of the Feminism connection with all of this.
Let us get back to the Nairobi report, and conference, held by the United Nations, in the year 1985, an event which will be referenced throughout this analysis, because of it’s importance in the Feminist movement. According to the United Nations, many people refer to this conference in Nairobi, Kenya, as “the birth of global feminism”. Before discussing the details of the Nairobi report, and connecting them to current events, a brief discussion of just one of the participants of the UN Nairobi conference, Betty Friedan, will help make the connection between Feminism-Communism-United Nations, even more clear.
Betty Friedan was a leading figure in the women’s movement, and her 1963 book, The Feminine Mystique, is often credited with sparking the second wave of American feminism in the 20th century. Friedan was the founder of, and involved with, many of the leading women’s organizations of her time. Friedan also has many questionable ties to Communism/Marxism. Daniel Horrowitz, a history professor at Smith College, a college that Friedan once attended, wrote a biography on Friedan titled “Betty Friedan and the Making of “The Feminine Mystique“, where Horrowitz “not only overturns conventional ideas about “second wave” feminism but also reveals long submerged links to its past.” I have yet to read this book, though other researchers often cite this book in their criticism of Betty Friedan, and her connections with Communism. One such researcher, Henry Makow, PH.D., cites Horrowitz’s book to prove that “Friedan dropped out of grad school to become a reporter for a Communist news service.” Another researcher, David Horrowitz (no relation to Daniel Horrowitz) says “Horowitz’s biography makes clear, Friedan, from her college days and until her mid-thirties, was a Stalinist marxist (or a camp follower thereof), the political intimate of leaders of America’s Cold War fifth column, and for a time even the lover of a young communist physicist working on atomic bomb projects with J. Robert Oppenheimer.”
Friedan was also involved with the promotion of the Congress of American Women in 1946, an organization that was accused of being a communist front organization by the House Un-American Activities Committee and was forced to register as a “subversive” organization.
Understanding this influence of Karl Marx, and Communism, on the Feminist movement in America, will help explain the actions of the United Nations, Agenda 21, and related agendas taking place in today’s society, which are meant to influence women. These connections to collectivism will be pointed out sporadically throughout this analysis.
As revealed in many United Nations documents, and programs, population control is to play a major role in the development of the “new international economic order”. In an effort to reduce the population, the Nairobi report recommends that governments allow people access to “all medically approved and appropriate methods of family planning”, regardless if their country has laws against certain methods, such as abortion.
Though obviously alluded to, abortion is not specifically mentioned in the Agenda 21 program, and this is because of pressure the United Nations receives on their position of population reduction. Shridath Ramphal, of the Commission on Global Governance, explains, on page 32 of Rescue Mission, why, in his opinion, “Agenda 21, Chapter 5, on population is very weak”:
“It happened because very powerful lobbies did not allow the Summit to talk about the population. There was a coming together of views of the Vatican with the anti-abortion lobby in the US and some other developed countries who did not want to talk about the other side of population which is consumption.” [emphasis added]
Abortion has been a controversial topic in the feminist movement. The aforementioned creator of second wave feminism, Betty Friedan, was a supporter of the concept that abortion is a woman’s choice, and even helped found the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL). Friedan, later in life though, began to criticize the feminist movement for it’s continued heavy focus on abortion. Interestingly, Friedan, in many instances, including in her 1976 book It Changed My Life: Writings on the Women’s Movement, alluded to her belief that the women’s movement began to get infiltrated by government agencies, like the CIA, or FBI, a belief that brings us to a women named Gloria Steinem.
Gloria Steinem, who at one point identified as a Marxist, began to become viewed as the new leader of the women’s movement in the late 1960’s and 1970’s, which eventually led to a popular rivalry between her and Betty Friedan. As previously mentioned Friedan began to criticize the direction that the women’s movement was going in, and certain tactics that were being used. Some writers say this criticism was the result of jealousy, but it must be remembered that Friedan stated her belief that there was significant infiltration of the women’s movement, by government agencies. This fact is important because the connection between Gloria Steinem and the CIA has been well documented, and even admitted to by Steinem.
Steinem was an early supporter of abortion, or “reproductive freedom” (a term she coined), and openly talks about the abortion that she had. To promote abortion, Steinem has gone as far as participating in the “I Had An Abortion” project, posing with a big smile, and a t-shirt that had the expression “I Had An Abortion” (picture below).
Housewives Are Bad
One concept that can be found being propagated by the United Nations, through Agenda 21, and other programs, that also plays into the goal of population control, is the idea that for women to have significance in society, they need to have a job, and not be caught up with the notion of raising a family.
Furthering this idea that housewives are bad, the Nairobi report states that “there is no physiological basis for regarding the household and family as essentially the domain of women”, and says that there is a “need for women to work”.
Relating this UN Feminist agenda back to Communist philosophy, the co-author of The Communist Manifesto, Frederick Engels, had written about his belief that for women to be free, they should be working, and not focused on the family. In his 1884 essay, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, Engels wrote:
“The emancipation of women becomes possible only when women are enabled to take part in production on a large, social scale, and when domestic duties require their attention only to a minor degree.”
Your Children Are Not Yours
Allowing children to grow up being heavily influenced by their family, is dangerous to the people, and organizations, pushing Agenda 21/Feminism/Collectivism. Lessons being taught at home may differ from the ideals that the state would like the children indoctrinated to. This is why the family unit is constantly being attacked by these organizations, as they push policies that give the state more control over your children.
Like the other ideals expressed in this analysis, the idea that the family structure is detrimental to society is a concept expressed in The Communist Manifesto. The Manifesto calls for the “abolition of the family”, and looks to “replace home education with social [education]”.
As a researcher will come to notice, and as will be pointed out in this analysis, the Feminist movement often associates with the movement for gay rights, or gay liberation, which is another philosophy which tends to view the family unit as oppressive. As an example, an organization calling itself the Gay Liberation Front released a manifesto in the 1970’s, which had this to say about the family:
“The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society, the family. consisting of the man in charge, a slave as his wife, and their children on whom they force themselves as the ideal models. The very form of the family works against homosexuality.”
Collectivist philosophies, such as Communism, and National Socialism under Hitler, seem to require the ownership of children, for the purposes of indoctrinating them into the anti-family philosophy. Adolf Hitler is to have famously stated:
When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already…. What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”
(Sidenote: Many people are under the false assumption that Communism, and National Socialism (Nazism) are two completely different ideologies. To gain a greater understanding of how these two philosophies are actually very similar, an interesting documentary to watch is The Soviet Story, which discusses the intimate connection between Communism of the Soviet Union, and National Socialism of Germany, showing the similarity in ideals, rhetoric, and propaganda.)
Under UN Agenda 21, parents will be forced to allow their children to be raised communally, by “society”. The Nairobi report states:
“Concerted action should be directed towards the establishment of a system of sharing parental responsibilities by women and men in the family and by society. To this end, priority should be given to the provision of a social infrastructure that will enable society to share these responsibilities with families and, simultaneously, to bring about changes in social attitudes so that new or modified gender roles will be accepted, promoted and become exercisable.” [emphasis added]
A former Assistant Secretary for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Mary Jo Bane, expressed her beliefs back in 1977, about how families were a threat to children, and should be taken from parents and communally raised:
“What happens to children depends not only what happens in the homes, but what happens in the outside world…We really don’t know how to raise children. If we want to talk about equality of opportunity for children, then the fact that children are raised in the families means there’s no equality. It’s a dilemma. In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.”
The current U.S. federal administration, under President Obama, is following this concept of keeping children away from families, and is attempting to launch programs that would “educate” your children, from birth! Before discussing these programs, it should be noted that Obama signed Executive Order 13506, establishing a White House Council on Women and Girls, in 2009, which claims will “provide a coordinated Federal response to issues that have a distinct impact on the lives of women and girls.” (The establishment of a high level government council, dedicated to women’s issues, is also a recommendation of the Nairobi report [Para. 57])
Continuing with the concept of the family having less impact in the raising of children, one person who is listed as a regular attendee of the White House Council on Women and Girls, Arne Duncan, US Secretary of Education, addressed a conference at UNESCO, where he discussed the federal policy of training children from the cradle to their career:
“The North Star guiding the alignment of our cradle-to-career education agenda is President Obama’s goal that America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. That goal can only be achieved by creating a strong cradle-to-career continuum that starts with early childhood learning and extends all the way to college and careers.”
Another federal official in the Obama administration, and regular attendee of the White House Council on Woman and Girls, Kathleen Sebelius, who served as Secretary of Health and Human Services, also promulgates this concept, and includes the idea of having government officials make home visits to “help” parents :
“There still needs to be greater understanding that what the president has put on the table is really a birth to five proposal. Recognizing that you can’t start at four year olds, we really need to start at birth. So there will be an enhancement of home visiting, which we know is an evidence based strategy, that helps parents be good parents.”
The federal government is also using television media channels to further their agenda. There are many dubious connections between the federal government and the various forms of mainstream media outlets, including the incredible fact that the President of CBS News, David Rhodes, is the brother of Ben Rhodes, President Obama’s deputy national security adviser. In an effort to keep this analysis focused, I will only briefly connect the federal government to one media outlet, MSNBC, before showing how the news channel is pushing the collectivization of children.
It is not a secret that MSNBC promotes a left-wing agenda, which they refer to as ‘progressive’, and clearly take the side of the Democratic party, but what needs to be understood is the direct connections between MSNBC and the Democrat Obama administration, currently in the White House. The parent company to MSNBC is General Electric, a company that received direct funding from the ‘banker bailout’ that occurred in 2008, under Obama. In another questionable instance, the White House was accused of using taxpayer money to purchase advertising time during MSNBC shows, to promote their “green jobs” agenda. Finally, the testimony of former MSNBC show host Cenk Uygur, clearly shows the suspicious connection between the Democratic establishment in power, and MSNBC, to be more intricate than just financial.
Uygur was being interviewed by Joe Rogan, in May of this year, where he discussed, among many things, the reasons for his departure from MSNBC. Uygur explains how he was expected to base his reporting on partisanship, in favor of the Democrat party:
“When I was at MSNBC, as I found out, it turns out, they were Team Democrat, and it’s one thing to be Conservative, or to be Progressive, I think that’s totally fine. The Nation is a Progressive magazine, that’s who they are, right. We’re Progressive, that’s who we are, but we’re not on Team Democrat. So if a Democrat is not doing something Progressive, we’re gonna call him out. To me, that’s like obvious. I had trouble comprehending that other people didn’t think that way. To them, ‘who cares what your ideas are man. Your principles? What are you talking about. No, no, no. This is team Democrat, and you stay on this team’. So I don’t know if you ever heard the story but the reason that I left MSNBC is that I got a speech from the head of the network, Phil Griffin, who said ‘hey look man, I’d love to be an outsider, outsiders wear leather jackets, they ride motorcycles, they’re super cool but’…*laughing*..I’m like oh I didn’t know that, Ive never ridden a motorcycle, motorcycles kind of scare me…he said ‘But this is NBC, we’re insiders, and I was just in Washington, they’re not happy with your tone, and we’re the establishment here, and you gotta start acting like it.”
Now that it is understood that MSNBC is not an unbiased news agency attempting to give you the truth, but instead a propaganda mouthpiece for the Democrat party, the views and opinions of the channel can be put into proper perspective. In 2013, a host for MSNBC, Melissa Harris-Perry, recorded a promotional video for the channel, where she propagated the idea that children do not belong to their parents, using the same ideology described in the Nairobi report, that society, or communities, and not parents, should raise children. In the promo, Harris-Perry criticizes the view in American society where parents “always had kind of a private notion of children: your kid is yours and totally your responsibility”, and continues “we haven’t had a very collective notion of ‘these are our children”. Taking this idea even further, Harris-Perry states her belief that your children do not belong to you:
“So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities…Once it’s everybody’s responsibility and not just the household’s, then we start making better investments.”
(Melissa Harris-Perry in MSNBC promotional video)
Women In Charge
As previously mentioned, the UN has a goal to increase the number of women “involved as decision makers, planners, managers, scientists and technical advisers in the design, development and implementation of policies and programmes” of Agenda 21. Various United Nations programs are working to implement this change. One small example of how this works can be seen by the initiative “For Girls In Science“, created by the L’Oreal company, to get more girls to become scientists. The L’Oreal company has a history of teaming up with the United Nations, to promote women in science. Of course, encouraging women to be scientists is not bad, however these gender-based policies seem to be being carried out to the extreme, to the point of, what appears to be, discrimination against men.
The United Nations, and it’s affiliates, appear to be promoting the idea that men are the cause of the majority of the problems in society, and many of the problems would be solved if men just got out of way. In the introduction to this analysis it was pointed out how the former executive of the United Nations Population Fund, Dr. Nafis Sadik stated her belief that men are usually the cause of problems with the family, burdening the women with pregnancy, and exploiting the children.
The concept that men are the problem is being spread in the political realm as well. Billionaire Ted Turner, who is a major player in the UN arena, even donating $1-Billion to the United Nations Foundation, last year stated his belief that “men be barred from political office”. Here is the full quote:
“Well, I came up with the idea at least 20 years ago that we needed more women in politics. It would take a different turn. And I suggested that men be barred from political office. They could do everything else, be president of universities, business leaders, but they just couldn’t serve in any elected position for 100 years.”
In a related idea, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, US Congress woman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, recently stated her belief that an all women decision making team in congress, would be more effective than our current system. Speaking on the government stalemate that occurred last year, Wasserman-Schultz stated:
“If we put all the women, Republican and Democrat, in the House together, the consensus from all of us is that we would get this done in a few hours”
Important to note, Wasserman-Schultz is a member of Planned Parenthood, an organization that has a history of working with the United Nations, and is mentioned at various times throughout this analysis.
The Nairobi report recommends examining the textbooks of all schools, public and private, in an effort “to eliminate all discriminatory gender stereotyping in education.” Influencing the minds of children, through lessons in public school, play a major role in the UN’s plan to push their agenda. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), is the branch responsible for promoting the educational objectives of the UN. The goal to strengthen the power, and improve the capacity, of UNESCO, is mentioned throughout Agenda 21. In Chapter 24 of Agenda 21, a chapter solely dedicated to the role that women are to play in the 21st century, titled “Global Action for Women Towards Sustainable and Equitable Development”, it states that the gender-based objectives of UNESCO have already begun to be implemented:
“conventions of…UNESCO have also been adopted to end gender-based discrimination and ensure women access to land and other resources, education and safe and equal employment.”
Various education-related entities, throughout the world, have been tasked with implementing the UNESCO objectives, in their respective countries. In the United States, the National Education Association (NEA), which is the largest labor union in the country, is a major group, which works with the United Nations, and UNESCO, attempting to insert the ideals of Agenda 21, into the school lessons of American children.
(For more information on the connections between NEA and UNESCO, including when, in 1946, the NEA celebrated the formation of UNESCO as “the culmination of a movement for the creation of an international agency of education”, and how the NEA Journal announced that “each member nation… has a duty to see to it that nothing in its curriculum… is contrary to UNESCO’s aims.”, visit this website.)
An admitted goal of Agenda 21, as evidenced by the the Nairobi report, is to have “traditional gender norms changed”, and the NEA is helping to influence changes in school lessons to conform to this objective.
One example of the gender based objectives pushed by the NEA occurred at the 2011 Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). The CSW is a United Nations organization that calls itself “the principal global intergovernmental body exclusively dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women.”
A women named Diane Schneider, representing the NEA, gave a presentation at a side event of the 2011 CSW conference, where she “emphasized the importance of Education as the only way to combat phobias”. This side event was hosted by The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA). Interestingly, the ILGA offers audio of all of the presentations given that day, at their website, except the one given by Diane Schneider of the NEA. This may be due to the controversy surrounding Schneider’s recommendations offered at this presentation. Luckily, the audio of Schneider’s presentation was saved and posted to YouTube, before the ILGA took it down.
In the presentation, Schneider, who is homosexual herself, criticizes previous forms of sex education, and believes future sex education should include terms such as “orgasm, oral sex, and masturbation.” Here are some more excerpts from the presentation, which encourage homosexuality, and attack the family structure:
“Gender identity expression, as well as sexual orientation, is a spectrum, and not a box that houses our being. We must teach our children at a very young age, that being male, female, or intersex, comes with the presence of genitalia, and no further expectations. That one needs to grow up and be their authentic self, free of societies gender expectations. The same could be true of our sexual orientation. Homophobia exists when those stuck in the binary box of strictly hetero, find themselves slipping out of that role that religion and family promote. When we as a society encourage a sense that it is normal to be attracted to a variety of people, and situations, will we then become to conquer homophobia. Once again, to be true, and authentic, about romantic relations, without fear, or sin, of wrong doing, could mark the beginning of the end of homophobia. As a co-chair of GLSEN, the Gay Lesbian Straight Edcuation Network, it is important to note, that there are support groups in schools, called Gay Straight Alliances, which serve to keep the education concerning sexual orientation and gender identity expression alive. Being an openly gay teacher in my school, for me, was safe, and created an even safer environment for my students…The question that needs to be addressed through education is how to combat heterosexism and gender conformity in our society. Once we put all our concerted efforts into more comprehensive education, and make topics such as ism’s , gender identity, and sexual orientation, a part of every middle school and high school students agenda, will we then begin to see a shift from misunderstanding, to a peaceful understanding and acceptance of differences.”
Another presenter at the same conference, Thomas Lambert, a Belgian representative to the United Nations, discussed “initiatives taken and supported to combat homophobia and transphobia in schools”, including the distribution of an educational packet, to pupils as young as kindergarten, titled “Martin Has Two Mommas”, which helps explain same-sex couples to children. Lambert described another initiative being implemented in Belgium called “Open Book”, which is a checklist provided to school text book editors, to make sure their texts conform to the agenda.
The Population Council, an organization that receives financial and collegial support from the United Nations, also hosted a side event at the CSW conference, and teaming up with The International Planned Parenthood Federation introduced their new strategy titled It’s All One Curriculum: Guidelines and Activities for a Unified Approach to Sexuality, Gender, HIV, and Human Rights Education. The stated goal of this strategy, which lists UNESCO as a contributing partner, is to “develop the capacity of young people to enjoy — and advocate for their rights to — dignity, equality, and responsible, satisfying, and healthy sexual lives.” [emphasis added] This curriculum promotes homosexuality, and abortion, encourages sex between youths, and even suggests giving lessons on female clitoris stimulation to young men.
Interesting to note, United States President Barack Obama, while speaking at a Planned Parenthood associated conference, stated his belief that teaching sexual education to kindergartners is “the right thing to do”.
An obvious goal of the United Nations is to implement a world government, and children will be indoctrinated, through UN influenced education programs, into believing that a world government will be beneficial, and none the less, inevitable.
Dr. Dennis Cuddy, a former senior associate with the U.S. Department of Education in Washington, has written extensively on the involvement of the NEA, UN, and other organizations, in attempting to indoctrinate children through school lessons, into the one world government agenda. In one article, Dr. Cuddy quotes a passage from an NEA Journal from 1946, written by Joy Elmer Morgan (editor of NEA JOURNAL from 1921 to 1955), which states:
“In the struggle to establish an adequate world government, the teacher…can do much to prepare the hearts and minds of children for global understanding and cooperation…. At the very top of the agencies which will assure the coming of world government must stand the school, the teacher, and the organized profession.”
In the book Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations, published in 1964, author G. Edward Griffin quotes from Volume 5 of a UNESCO publication titled Toward World Understanding:
“The kindergarten or infant school has a significant part to play in the child’s education. Not only can it correct many of the errors of home training, but it can also prepare the child for membership in the world society.”
This one-world government agenda is discussed throughout many UN documents, including in the aforementioned children’s edition of Agenda 21, Rescue Mission: Planet Earth, where it is openly stated that “we need a new way of governing the whole planet.” (To learn more about the children’s edition of Agenda 21, read my analysis Children’s Edition of United Nations Agenda 21: Blatant Anti-Human Propaganda)
This world government can only come about if national sovereignty, or decision making power, is replaced with the sovereignty of a world government. One of the tactics described in Agenda 21, to implement this world government, is to erase traditional borders and boundaries, which will cause the democratically-elected governments of those areas to cease having any control, or decision making power. Interesting to note, the erasing of the traditional borders which separate countries is another Agenda 21 concept that resembles the Communist Manifesto:
“The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality” – The Communist Manifesto
In the report from the Nairobi Forward-looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women conference, the goal of global governance is described as “the establishment of a new international economic order”, which, according to the report, is to be “founded on equity, sovereign equality, interdependence and common interest.”
The Rockefeller Connection
Tracing the origins of Agenda 21 will eventually lead to the wealthiest, most powerful, families, and organizations, in the world. The United Nations is their attempt at global domination, and Agenda 21 appears to be their current blueprint. The tedious task of connecting, and detailing, the originators of this plan for a global system of governance cannot be effectively accomplished in this analysis, though a brief overview of one of these families, the Rockefellers, and their connection, is needed to understand how this system of control is being set-up.
Taxation laws in early twentieth century America caused the wealthy elite to put their money into tax-exempt foundations. Well funded tax exempt foundations, including many associated with the Rockefellers, are heavily involved in the implementation of Agenda 21, and having a basic understanding of these foundations will help explain many of today’s events.
Former Georgetown professor, and noted historian, Carroll Quigley, in his voluminous book on history, Tragedy and Hope, briefly discusses the history of these foundations, which he says “involves the organization of tax-exempt fortunes of international financiers into foundations to be used for educational, scientific, ‘and other public purposes’:
“In spite of the great influence of this “Wall Street” alignment, an influence great enough to merit the name of the “American Establishment,” this group could not control the Federal government, and, in consequence, had to adjust to a good many government actions thoroughly distasteful to the group. The chief of these were in taxation law, beginning with the graduated income tax in 1913, but culminating, above all else, in the inheritance tax. These tax laws drove the great private fortunes dominated by Wall Street into tax-exempt foundations, which became a major link in the Establishment network between Wall Street, the Ivy League, and the Federal government”
In the early 1950’s, the United States House of Representatives created a special committee to investigate these tax-free foundations, after allegations that some of the major foundations were engaging in activities considered to be subversive to the United States. The committee uncovered surprising information, connecting groups like the Rockefeller, and Ford, Foundations with the funding of anti-American, and collectivist, organizations, and literature. For more information regarding the findings of this committee, I suggest reading the book “Foundations: Their Power and Influence” by Rene Wormser. Wormser was actually a part of the congressional committee commissioned to investigate the great tax-exempt foundations, and wrote “Foundations” to document some of the findings of the committee. In the book, Wormser also discusses how there was much resistance from various groups, and individuals, to the committees investigation, even including pressure from the White House to “kill the committee”.
Carrol Quigley also documents, in Tragedy and Hope, how the wealthy elite worked to silence the investigation, and mentions Wormser’s book:
“The Eighty-third Congress in July 1953 set up a Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations with Representative B. Carrol Reece, of Tennessee, as chairman. It soon became clear that people of immense wealth would be unhappy if the investigation went too far and that the “most respected” newspapers in the country, closely allied with these men of wealth, would not get excited enough about any relevations to make the publicity worth while, in terms of votes or campaign contributions. An interesting report showing the Left-wing associations of the interlocking nexus of tax-exempt foundations was issued in 1954 rather quietly. Four years later, the Reece committee’s general counsel, Rene A. Wormser, wrote a shocked, but not shocking, book on the subject called Foundations: Their Power and Influence.” (pg. 955)
The Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) is another tax-exempt foundation that is mentioned in the book Foundations. In a previous article titled, Agenda 21: The Rockefellers Are Building Human Settlement Zones In Connecticut, it was pointed out how the RBF was directly involved in the creation of the Agenda 21 plan, and how they are funding smaller tax-exempt foundations in various states, including Connecticut, to further the implementation of Agenda 21. The Rockefellers have been involved with funding nearly all of the Agenda 21 related objectives discussed in this analysis.
John D. Rockefeller Jr. was heavily involved in the funding of Margaret Sanger’s first clinic. Margaret Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which later became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, an organization that gives awards to their branches with the most abortions. Margaret Sanger was also vital in the creation of the first “birth control” pill. The Rockefeller family “continued to make donations to Sanger’s causes in future decades, but generally made them anonymously to avoid public exposure of the family name, and to protect family member Nelson Rockefeller’s political career since openly advocating birth control could have led to the Catholic Church opposing him politically.” (Side note: This same Nelson Rockefeller helped set up the United Nations World, a magazine devoted to the support of the UN, according to Carroll Quigley, on page 941 of Tragedy and Hope.)
Getting Women in the Workplace
In 1970, U.S. President Richard Nixon signed a bill creating a commission “to examine the growth of our population and the impact it will have upon the American future”, and announced that John D. Rockefeller 3rd had accepted the commission’s chairmanship. This commission was later referred to as “The Rockefeller Commission”. One of the stated goals of the commission was to create a “stationary population”, or a population that doesn’t grow, by creating “social policy to recognize and to facilitate the trend toward smaller families by making it possible for women to choose attractive roles in place of or supplementary to motherhood.”
To further show how the Rockefellers have been involved with getting women out of the home, away from the family, and into the work force, let us examine the testimony of Aaron Russo. Russo was a famous movie producer, who eventually ran for Governor of Nevada. In an interview with Alex Jones, Russo explains how he was befriended by Nick Rockefeller, around the time he was running for Governor. Russo claims that Rockefeller explained to him the future plans for a one world government, RFID chips, and much more. Russo also details how Nick explained the Rockefellers funding the women’s liberation movement in order to break up the family, and more easily indoctrinate the children:
Well, one of the things he told me was that — he was at the house one night and we were talking and he started laughing, he said:
“Aaron, what do you think ‘women’s liberation’ was about?”
And I said — I had pretty conventional thinking about it at that point — I said I think it’s about women having the right to work, getting equal pay with men, just like they won the right to vote.
And he started to laugh and he said: “You’re an idiot.”
And I said: Why am I an idiot?
He said: “Let me tell you what that was about. We, the Rockefellers, funded that. We funded Women’s Lib. And we’re the ones who got it all over the newspapers and televisions — The Rockefeller Foundation.”
And he says: “You want to know why? There were two primary reasons.” And one reason was: we couldn’t tax half the population, before Women’s Lib. And the second reason was: now we get the kids in school at an early age. We can indoctrinate the kids how to think. So that it breaks up the family. Your kids start looking at the state as the family. As the school, as the officials as their family, not as the parents teaching them.
And so, those are the two primary reasons for Women’s Lib, which I thought up to that point was a noble thing. When I saw their intentions behind it, where they were coming from when they created it, the thought of it, I saw the evil behind what I thought was a noble venture.
(Aaron Russo interview with Alex Jones discussing his relationship with Nick Rockefeller)
Previously mentioned groups likes UNESCO, and the NEA, who are trying to push for more explicit sexual education in school, are following a pattern that was laid out during the sexual liberation movement of the mid twentieth century, which the Rockefeller’s had a lot to do with. One of the people most credited with starting the sexual liberation movement was a man named Dr. Kinsey. Dr. Kinsey has been an extremely controversial figure for his ‘scientific’ studies on sex, including his support for the idea that children are sexual from the time of birth, which was used in his writings to promote pedophilia. The Rockefeller Foundation was a major financial supporter of the work of Dr. Kinsey. For more information on the influence of Dr. Kinsey, his Rockefeller connections, his support of pedophiles, his influence on sex education, and much more, watch the disturbingly intriguing documentary The Kinsey Syndrome.
At the time of the 1953 congressional investigation into tax-free foundations, Rene Wormser, when discussing the resistance the committee was running into while researching various topics, describes the intense opposition that the committee received when attempting to look into the research of Dr. Kinsey. This opposition came especially from Congressman Wayne Hays:
“Several lines of inquiry enraged Mr. Hays particularly. One, which disclosed his reluctance to permit freedom of inquiry, was a proposed study of the Kinsey reports. It was undoubtedly reported to him by Miss Lonergan that Dr. Ettinger had dug up some significant material about foundation support of the Kinsey projects. This brought Mr. Hays to a steaming rage, and he asked to see our entire Kinsey file. It was produced for him, and he angrily declared to Mr. Dodd that we were to go no further with this particular investigation, contending that every member of Congress would be against our doing so. Neither Mr. Dodd nor I could see any reason why Dr. Kinsey’s foundation-supported projects should not bear as much scrutiny as any other foundation operation. But Mr. Hays then introduced another element into the situation. Our appropriation for 1954 had, at the time, not yet been approved, and Mr. Hays stated emphatically to Mr. Dodd that he would oppose any further appropriation to our Committee unless the Kinsey investigation were dropped. His unreasoning opposition to any study of these projects was so great that he threatened to fight against the appropriation on the floor of the House.” – Foundations (pg. 351)
Interesting to note, Worsmer also says in Foundations that “the support of the Kinsey studies by The Rockefeller Foundation ended after the Reece Committee had illuminated the public regarding the origin of the funds used for this project.”
Let us take a quick look into how some of the ideas discussed in this analysis are reaching their way into local communities, specifically in the state of Connecticut.
As briefly alluded to previously in this analysis, Planned Parenthood is an organization that has played a major role in promoting the objectives of Agenda 21, including population control, and comprehensive sexual education for children. In Connecticut, Planned Parenthood has sponsored events which promote legislation in the state which would offer $1 million in incentive grants for school districts to offer increased comprehensive sex ed to teens.
On the leadership council of Planned Parenthood of Connecticut is a man named Robert J. Wyman. Wyman is a professor at Yale University, in New Haven, Connecticut, where he teaches “Yale’s only course on population issues: Global Problems of Population Growth.” Wyman is also on the program advisory board of an organization called the Population Media Center (PMC), which uses television, and radio, to influence “positive behavior change” in the area of population control. Other important members of the PMC include the previously mentioned Gloria Steinem, as well as Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb.
Another important organization to mention, which also has Robert Wyman on the board, is Connecticut NARAL. NARAL is an organization which promotes the right to abortion, as well as sex education in schools, and as previously mentioned, was founded by Betty Friedan. The Rockefeller Family fund is a financial contributor to NARAL.
It should be noted that the Girl Scouts of the United States of America (GSUSA), an organization that has branches in every state of the country, also has dubious connections to some of the people, and organizations, mentioned in this analysis. For instance, feminist Betty Friedan was on the board of the GSUSA for 12 years. In another example, Kathy Cloninger, former CEO of GSUSA, mentioned in an interview on NBC that GSUSA partners with Planned Parenthood “to bring information based sex education programs to girls”.
In a previous analysis titled Parents Beware: The United Nations Looking To Give Children of Connecticut Special “Rights”, it was detailed how another UN Agenda 21 program, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), is being propelled in the state. The UNCRC is more United Nations recommendations that would reduce the strength and structure of the family, and give more power to the state to intervene in the lives of children. This convention is being propagated in the state of Connecticut by legislators, judges, non-profit organizations, and more. Parents Beware… is an analysis that should be read to understand more of these connections.
The Feminist movement is being used by the United Nations to implement the recommendations of the Agenda 21 program. There is much more that can be added to this analysis, and a serious researcher should follow the links, and discover their own connections. The assumption should not be made that every self described Feminist, or Feminist group, supports the people, and concepts, mentioned in this report.
- A Critical Summary of the Nairobi Forward-looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women–August 22, 2014 (link)
- Agenda 21: The Rockefellers Are Building Human Settlement Zones In Connecticut– March 26, 2014 (link)
- Children’s Edition of United Nations Agenda 21: Blatant Anti-Human Propaganda– February 02, 2014 (link)
- Parents Beware: The United Nations Looking To Give Children of Connecticut Special “Rights”– December 28, 2013 (link)
- A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 – United Nations Program of Action– November 01, 2013 (link)
- Agenda 21 in Connecticut: The Tri-State Transportation Campaign– August 22, 2013 (link)
Murray N. Rothbard was the father of what some call Radical Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism which Hans-Hermann Hoppe described as “Rothbard’s unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.”
This book applies the principles of this “unified moral science” to environmental and natural resource management issues.
The book started out life as an assigned reading list for a university level course entitled Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View.
As I began to prepare to teach the course, I quickly saw that there was a plethora of textbooks suitable for universal level courses dealing with environmental and natural resource economics. The only problem was that they were all based in mainstream neo-classical (or Keynesian) theory. I could find no single collection of material comprising a comprehensive treatment of environmental and natural resource economics based on Austrian Economic Theory.
However, I was able to find a large number of essays, monographs, papers delivered at professional meetings and published from a multitude of sources. This book is the result. It is composed of a collection of research reports and essays by reputable scientists, economists, and legal experts as well as private property and free market activists.
The book is organized into seven parts: I. Environmentalism: The New State Religion; II. The New State Religion Debunked; III. Introduction to Environmental and Natural Resource Economics; IV. Interventionism: Law and Regulation; V. Pollution and Recycling; VI. Property Rights: Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain; and VII. Free Market Conservation. It also includes an elaborate Bibliography, References and Recommended Reading section including an extensive Annotated Bibliography of related and works on the subject.
The intellectual level of the individual works ranges from quite scholarly to informed editorial opinion.