(d) Programmes
to promote the reduction of the heavy workload of women and girl
children at home and outside through the establishment of more and affordable
nurseries and kindergartens by Governments, local authorities, employers and
other relevant organizations and the sharing of household tasks by men and women
on an equal basis, and to promote the provision of environmentally sound
technologies which have been designed, developed and improved in consultation
with women, accessible and clean water, an efficient fuel supply and adequate
sanitation facilities;
(f) Programmes to support and strengthen equal employment opportunities and
equitable remuneration for women in the formal and informal sectors with
adequate economic, political and social support systems and services, including
child care, particularly day-care facilities and parental leave, and equal
access to credit, land and other natural resources;
children at home and outside through the establishment of more and affordable
nurseries and kindergartens by Governments, local authorities, employers and
other relevant organizations and the sharing of household tasks by men and women
on an equal basis, and to promote the provision of environmentally sound
technologies which have been designed, developed and improved in consultation
with women, accessible and clean water, an efficient fuel supply and adequate
sanitation facilities;
(f) Programmes to support and strengthen equal employment opportunities and
equitable remuneration for women in the formal and informal sectors with
adequate economic, political and social support systems and services, including
child care, particularly day-care facilities and parental leave, and equal
access to credit, land and other natural resources;
The
excerpt is found in Agenda 21, signed in 1992 by 178 countries; the document
describes in 40 chapters the eventual regulation of every aspect of human
behavior and economic activity once Agenda 21 is completely implemented around
the globe, making the United Nations and its global governance cabal the
ultimate authority.
The
two directives may be necessary in third world countries and nations ruled by
totalitarian regimes that discriminate and abuse women, but are definitely not necessary
in developed countries where women and children are protected by laws and the government’s
welfare system.
It
is not necessary to have further government intrusion in child care and equal
pay for women. The government already controls Head Start, k-12 education, with
not so stellar results in many states, while liberal professors complete the
socialist indoctrination at the university level. We already have laws that
prohibit employment discrimination based on gender.
Just
how much control do we need or want, and how much are the global governors
willing to inject into the various societies around the planet?
Jack
Doyle revealed that a new health service program in the U.K. called Everyone
Counts will force general practitioners to disclose confidential records to NHS
(National Health Service) involving weight, cholesterol, BMI (body mass index),
family health history, pulse rate, alcohol consumption, and smoking status. The
biggest data grab so far, the invasion of privacy will become permanent even
though officials have insisted that it will be deleted after analysis. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272166/Big-brother-log-drinking-habits-waist-size.html)
Once
Obamacare is fully implemented in the U.S., previous confidential data between
patient and doctor will become part of the government’s data base to be used as
they see fit.
But
the control does not stop here. When we shop in grocery stores, our buying habits
have been compiled and sold to the Department of Agriculture and other third
parties. The data can be stored and synchronized with the new health care cards
issued by the health care exchanges of Obamacare.
How
far of a stretch will it be to have special food purchase cards that must be
used anytime groceries are purchased? Could such cards prevent you from buying
alcohol or certain fattening foods, based on your specific health care
information? If you don’t comply, you may have to consult a doctor in order to change
your eating, drinking, smoking, or whatever unhealthy habits you may have.
The
New York City government is already meddling in the people’s sodium intake and the
size of beverages purchased. Portion size and food offerings have already been changed
in schools across the country and in some restaurants. That is not to say that
we should not be eating healthy food and drinking in moderation, however, why
should the government be the nanny that dictates what we eat or drink?
If
you think the idea far-fetched, consider this. The World Economic Forum 2013 in
Davos, Switzerland, recognized obesity as a danger to human health and discussed
how to deal with or tax those who are obese.
Fifty
global risks were assessed by 1,000 omniscient experts from industry,
government and academia, who were “polled on how they expect 50 global risks to
play out over the next ten years. The results were compiled into an analysis of
three major risk areas, Testing Economic and Environmental Resilience, Digital
Wildfires in a Hyperconnected World, and the Dangers of Hubris on Human
Health.” The Davos report also included a chapter on “X Factors,” concerns
identified by experts with unknown consequences. Although these consequences
are not known, it did not stop experts from speculating and scaring low
information humans into preventive compliance. (http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-risks)
Our
consumption of meds may be affected as international efforts are underway to
curtail use of antibiotics through government regulatory control. Global
monitoring of antibiotic-resistant bacteria spread is recommended. “Significant
reduction in antibiotic use can be achieved in human medicine.”
Davos
experts recommended the use of public-private partnerships, partnerships
promoted by U.N. Agenda 21, to incentivize the development of new antibiotics. Knowledge
must be shared freely between academia, private companies, and government regulators.
GlaxoSmithKline
(GSK) and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation developed the “open-lab” research
concept in which patented monopolies and secrecy would no longer exist if
innovation is to be achieved. This flies in the face of capitalist beliefs that
ideas, entrepreneurship, and individual hard work are rewarded. Instead, the
Foundation advocates that ideas and research should be given away from
inception for the public good. It is easier to promote such generosity when you
already have amassed so many billions, you cannot possibly spend them in a
lifetime.
Davos
conference also reported that humans do not understand the risks from
satellites. Disruptions can be catastrophic in telephone service, financial
markets, Internet, banking, data centers, energy delivery via Smart Grid, TV
industry, weather predictions, emergency rescue, peacekeeping, and military
operations. The risks are identified as the three main “black swan” events:
-
Satellites
targeted in a conflict between states
-
Strong
geomagnetic storms
-
Collisions
with space debris
The
solution offered by the experts is more control – the “critical space-based
infrastructure” (satellites et al) must be managed sustainably – sustainability
is bedrock mantra of U.N. Agenda 21 control.
The
top five global risks by likelihood identified by Davos experts were:
-
Severe
income disparity
-
Chronic
fiscal imbalances
-
Rising
greenhouse gas emissions
-
Water
supply crises
-
Mismanagement
of population ageing
The
top five global risks by impact identified by Davos experts were:
-
Major
systemic financial failure
-
Water
supply crises
-
Chronic
fiscal imbalances
-
Food
shortage crises
-
Diffusion
of weapons of mass destruction (p. 10)
The
most interesting part of the Davos report is the chapter on “X Factors”
developed with the editors of Nature, the leading science journal, which
analyzes five “emerging game-changers:”
(p.
12)
-
Runaway
climate change (postulating that we have possibly passed the point of no
return, causing the planet’s atmosphere to go into the “inhospitable state” (I
know global warming/climate change has been debunked voluminously by science,
it appears that it does not matter to these people’s agenda)
-
Significant
cognitive enhancement (if athletes take drugs to enhance their abilities, why
not in daily life and particularly in “neural enhancement of combat troops”)
-
Rogue
deployment of geo-engineering (technology that manipulates the climate is
acceptable as long as a state or private individuals do not use it
unilaterally)
-
Costs
of living longer (prolonging life through palliative care is expensive and
“could be a struggle;” the report does not propose the alternative but it is
easy to read between the lines)
-
Discovery
of alien life (proof of life in the universe might profoundly affect the human
belief system psychologically)
Another interesting section of the Davos report deals with Digital Wildfire in a Hyperconnected World - Benefits and Risks of the Social Media as part of the Internet. Three examples illustrated a response from a disgruntled customer incident, a defamation of character incident, and “an affront to religious sensitivities” story.
“The existence on YouTube of a video entitled “Innocence of Muslims”, uploaded by a private individual in the United States, sparked riots across the Middle East. These riots are estimated to have claimed more than 50 lives.” (http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2013/risk-case-1/digital-wildfires-in-a-hyperconnected-world/#/view/fn-12)
Although it has been documented that the riots in the Middle East were not sparked by a video, the Davos report included this fallacy.
The experts seem to have misgivings about the fact that millions of individuals have the freedom to broadcast widely across the globe when prior to the Internet age only a handful of elite organizations had the capacity to broadcast extensively, and this “reality has challenging implications.”
The Davos report also mentions the concepts of “Astroturfing”, Satire, “Trolling,” and Attribution Difficulties. Nancy Pelosi did use the term “astroturfing” when referring to the Tea Party rallies.
Because the report considers social media as one of the greatest risks, a “global digital ethos” is recommended in light of the fact that governments are debating how “existing laws which limit freedom of speech, for reasons such as incitement of violence or panic, might also be applied to online activities.” The globalist experts are not worried that the freedom of speech would be curtailed, they are worried how it would be enforced and who would be trusted to enforce it. Additionally, low education users are “much less knowledgeable than editors of traditional media outlets about laws relating to issues such as libel and defamation,” posing further problems.
It will be a very sad day when the Internet will be controlled to the point that all information will come from the alphabet soup networks that are now a self-appointed propaganda arm of the perennial presidential campaign. In a hyper connected world, the globalists want to shape the information culture to their desired designs, and to govern the digital media.
No comments:
Post a Comment