Proposed "Green Annex" to the US Army Operations Order

Now that West Point has created Energy and Environmental Officers (or "E2Os"), it is time to introduce an Annex to the US Army Operations Order that addresses climate change, sustainable development, and other green issues during the conduct of military operations.  Here is my proposed "Annex W: Sustainable Development" to be completed by the Green Officer on the unit's staff (this is satire):

This is a hypothetical document and not an approved change to FM 5-0. It is being used to demonstrate the potential future of military operations under United Nations’ Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development related policies.

Cross-posted from Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

West Point's "Green" Officer

Our military is rapidly losing its way.  Somehow it believes that celebrating sodomy in the ranks will be beneficial to good order and discipline and that war is an equal opportunity employer.  How is going against the Law of Nature as established by our Creator a good thing?

Now we have the introduction of "green" officers at the United States Military Academy with the addition of "Brigade Energy and Environmental" officers and non-commissioned officers to cadet staffs:

"Cadets on the Brigade Energy and Environmental staff will introduce a new insignia to the Corps when they don their cadet uniforms this week. These cadet energy and environmental officers and noncommissioned officers, or E2Os, are tasked with leading the charge on initiatives related to recycling, energy and water conservation at the academy. 

The insignia has the chevrons customary to cadet rank. The three rockers below are designed as waves to signify energy and water. It has been decades since the last insignia has been approved for a cadet staff position, and the process took nearly a year before the rank received approval from the Brigade Tactical Department and the Commandant of Cadets." (from West Point Facebook page)

Here is their shoulder sleeve insignia:

This has the potential to become the new political officer who seeks sustainable development, fights climate change, and introduces United Nations' Agenda 21 to our military formations.  Agenda 21 can be described as "a mechanism by which nations can 'legitimately' centralize control of all resources (including people) in their nations in the name of combatting 'man-made climate change'" (source) and is a direct threat to the American form of government and the liberties of its citizenry.  We do not need the military actively supporting or enforcing it.

Frankly, any sort of conservation effort needs to be restricted to an additional duty for an officer and not elevated to an official staff position.  Perhaps our units can now have the S-21 (or G-21) added to their staffs and call him or her the "Agenda 21 Officer."

With the introduction of this "green" officer, our military can start forming the "First Earth Battalion" to fight for the future of our planet as envisioned by Lieutenant Colonel Jim Channon of "The Men Who Stare at Goats" fame:

"The earth battalion declares its primary allegiance to people and planet." (First Earth Battalion manual) 

"The First Earth Battalion is a banner under which the forces of good in the world can unite and find strength in spirit with others who share a common goal.  Warrior Monks are guardians of the good, guardians of humanity, nature and the planet..." (First Earth Battalion manual)

Perhaps one of the cadets who serve as a cadet energy and environmental officer (E2O) can be the unit's first commander.  They can utilize the proposed Green Annex to the US Army Operations Order to better carry out their mission.

Cross-posted from Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

What is Agenda 21?

Agenda 21 is a mechanism by which nations can "legitimately" centralize control of all resources (including people) in their nations in the name of combatting "man-made climate change."  It is a tool provided to them by the United Nations, an organization which will ultimately benefit from all worldly resources once they are collectivized on a global scale.

Agenda 21 is designed to dupe people into believing that this centralization of control (and their commensurate loss of control over their own lives and property) is necessary to save the planet.  It is a lie.

So people will either voluntarily give up their freedoms to "save the planet," or the government will use "saving the planet" as the excuse to take freedoms away from the people.

Collectivization in each nation is the first step.  Collectivization on a global government will be the next step.

In the process of all of this, the national leaders are protected and enriched, being part of the club of self-serving leaders called the United Nations.  Those leaders do not represent their people, they subjugate their people.  Agenda 21 is a means to the end of enslaving humans under a One World Government.

Agenda 21 and all schemes from the United Nations must be resisted.

Cross-posted from Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Understanding The Petrodollar

By reading G. Edward Griffin's "The Creature from Jekyll Island," you gain an excellent understanding of how our nation's monetary supply is controlled by a cartel of banks, which was not the intent of our Founders.  However, the book does not cover the current status of our currency as the Petrodollar.

When the Federal Reserve System was initially created, the dollar was backed by gold.  In 1944 at Bretton Woods, 44 nations of the world agreed to make the US Dollar the world's reserve currency.  During the 1960s, the United States spent more money than it had (Vietnam, the Great Society), and nations around the world began to trade in their US dollars for gold.  President Nixon stopped this in 1971 by abandoning the gold standard, transforming the US Dollar into pure fiat (and a floating) currency.  The United States then struck a deal with Saudi Arabia to defend their nation from attack in return for the Saudis agreeing to only sell their oil in US dollars.  Other oil producing nations signed onto the US Dollar soon afterwards, and the Petrodollar was born.

The United States' continued protection of the dominance of the "Petrodollar" system may best explain why the United States:

(1) Conducts operations in Mideast nations that have significance within the Petrodollar system.  Many times it is because they are not participating in that system.
(2) Maintains a military presence in the Middle East to enforce the Petrodollar system.
(3) Gives the Islamist ideology a pass.  Oil-rich Islamic nations can blackmail us to accept the extremes of their religion in our own country.  If we do not, they will reject the US Dollar as the only accepted currency for the oil trade.
(4) Defers to the United Nations on many issues, and is slowly enforcing UN agendas, such as Agenda 21, in America.  This may be because the rest of the world perceives that we are abusing our responsibility as the stewards of the world's reserve currency to our own advantage at the expense of others.  They therefore pressure on us to reduce our quality of life through veiled socialist schemes like Agenda 21, and our government is slowly complying--most likely to appease other governments.

I highly encourage you to read the following Follow the Money Daily article in four parts that explains the Petrodollar system:
Part 1 Preparing for the Collapse of the Petrodollar System
Part 2 The Rise of the Petrodollar System: "Dollars for Oil"
Part 3 The Petrodollar Wars: The Iraq Petrodollar Connection
Part 4 The War in Afghanistan and The New Great Game

--Against All Enemies

Connect to AAE
   Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Council on Foreign Relations Pushes End to US Sovereignty

Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society, explained that the goal of our enemies is the "gradual surrender of America sovereignty, piece by piece and step by step, to various international organizations."  Throughout my research the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) keeps coming up again and again as being one of the entities in America that is assisting in the accomplishment of that very goal.  The CFR, as indicated in the following article from The New American, has been very active in seeing that our sovereignty is slowly but steadily ceded to a world government, and should be considered an enemy of the Constitution and the American people.  Look upon the actions of all members of the CFR with great suspicion.

--Against All Enemies

CFR Pushes End to Sovereignty at UN's Doha Climate Summit
Written by  William F. Jasper
Link to article (The New American)

The UN Climate Summit in Doha, Qatar, (see here and here) is in its second week, headed for completion on Friday, December 7. Most analysts and observers expect little in the way of major developments or breakthrough agreements to come out of it. With the world economy in shambles, and nearly all national governments awash in debt, there is diminishing incentive for politicians to spend scarce public funds on the much-hyped hypothetical future “threats” posed by global warming — especially when there are very real, tangible issues demanding immediate attention and funding.

However, the climate change lobby is not rolling over and calling it quits; they have too much invested to back away now. A tabulation of funding in 2007 by Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, found that the climate alarmists had received over $50 billion since 1990. That was five years ago; naturally, the price tag has gone up considerably since then.

Most of this enormous funding avalanche came from governments, with the biggest chunk coming from the U.S. federal government. State governments have also been big funders, along with foreign national governments, the European Union, United Nations agencies, the World Bank, the big tax-exempt foundations, and major Wall Street banks and corporations. This money infusion has launched a huge climate industry, with universities, institutions, think tanks, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), professors, scientists, researchers, and activists all dependent on maintaining the flow of funds. The major banks and investors that have jumped on board the climate change wagon see a great deal of green to be made from the global sale of carbon credits. Trillions of dollars could change hands, but only if a carbon trading regime is forced on consumers by governments.

Foremost among the groups that have been driving the global warming alarm bandwagon is the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). There are many think tanks affecting national policies, but the CFR, long ranked as the premier brain trust, is still the most influential. The UN Climate Summit in Doha will carry the CFR imprint in many ways, as have virtually all previous global conferences. Representing the U.S. government in Doha is President Obama’s Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern. Stern, who was previously a White House assistant to President Bill Clinton, played a role in U.S. negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. He was selected as Climate Envoy by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Todd Stern is a longtime member of the CFR.

Stern’s boss, Hillary Clinton, has explicitly confirmed what critics of the CFR have often charged: that the Council unofficially runs the U.S. State Department, and has virtually taken control of the entire executive branch of the federal government, regardless of which party may occupy the White House. In a famous speech at the Council on Foreign Relations’ Washington, D.C., office in 2009, Secretary Clinton referred to the CFR’s Pratt House headquarters in New York City as the “mother ship” and said she had been there often. She was glad, she said, that the CFR’s new Washington headquarters is so close to the State Department, making it easier to be “told what we should be doing and how we should think.”

Here is the opening paragraph of her address, after being introduced by CFR President Richard Haass:

Thank you very much, Richard, and I am delighted to be here in these new headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.

(A video of Secretary Clinton's remarks may be viewed at the bottom of this page.)

CFR “Mother Ship” Guiding U.S. at Doha

So, what is the CFR telling Hillary Clinton and her lieutenants about "what they should be doing and how they should think" at the Doha Summit? We are not privy to any of the private consultations between Pratt House and Foggy Bottom, but there is plenty to go on from the public pronouncements of the CFR’s spokesmen and members.

In “A Transitional Climate Summit in Doha,” a November 28, 2012 CFR “Expert Brief” by Michael A. Levi, director of the council’s Program on Energy Security and Climate Change, we are told that global climate change “threatens intensifying damages primarily in the future but requires strong action to curb emissions now.” Levi warns that there are dire “reputational” consequences for U.S. failure to support a more robust and restrictive climate agenda:

If the United States is isolated in its stance on financial or process issues, then it will suffer internationally. To prevent that, U.S. strategy will need to focus as much on keeping partners like Europe and Japan on a similar page as it does on the substance of any outcome. The United States will also come under fire for failing to cut its emissions sufficiently.

Levi, who is the CFR’s top guru on climate change, is surely aware by now of the overwhelming evidence, including admissions by some of the top alarmists, that there has been no measurable global warming for the past 16 years, all of the media horror stories and Al Gore pronouncements about impending Climate Armageddon notwithstanding. And he must surely be aware that no evidence supports the contention that a government-forced reduction of emissions by the United States would have any impact whatsoever on global temperatures. However, the financial, social, and political costs would be horrendous. As critics point out, it is a prescription for “all pain and no gain” — except for the politically connected, who stand to gain immense wealth and power under the proposed UN global climate regime.

Levi ignores the steadily mounting evidence to promote the CFR’s ongoing globalist line. “International climate diplomacy provides the United States with opportunities to leverage domestic action for greater impact abroad,” says Levi. “But the United States still falls well short of what it must do at home to reduce its emissions to ever lower levels.”

The CFR’s Levi was also a lead voice in the “extreme weather” catastrophe choir claiming that the deaths and damage from Tropical Storm Sandy could be laid at the feet of human-caused global warming. In a November 5 column, “Hurricane Sandy and Climate Change: Three Things to Know,” Levi hymned a predictable refrain. "Increased human emissions of greenhouse gases are leading to more risk of dangerous weather extremes," he said. “Reducing this risk requires cutting U.S. and global greenhouse gas emissions.”

Levi and the CFR ignore completely the numerous climate experts, including many well-known alarmists who point out that not only did Sandy and other recent “extreme weather” have nothing to do with global warming, but that contrary to many recent media stories, there is no evidence of any increase in recent decades in either the number or magnitude of hurricanes and other extreme weather incidents.

Unburdened by any adherence to science and facts, the CFR pushes its same one-world agenda. “In Sandy’s aftermath,” says the CFR, we should work for “increasing global cooperation” on climate change. “At the international level, the United States should similarly seize on opportunities to work collaboratively with other countries on climate change challenges,” says Levi. Translated from global-speak: Exploit every possible tragedy and weather anomaly as an opportunity to establish, empower, and enrich the UN and related global institutions.

Do we exaggerate? You be the judge. In a July 5, 2012 CFR Issue Brief entitled, “The Global Climate Change Regime,” we are warned that “Climate change is one of the most significant threats facing the world today.” Anthropogenic global warming (AGW), says the CFR, threatens us all with “widespread disasters in the form of rising sea levels, violent and volatile weather patterns, desertification, famine, water shortages, and other secondary effects including conflict.”

Haass: World Government or Anarchy

What must we do to avert these calamities? Among other things, says the CFR, we must “create a global consensus regarding the creation of major greenhouse gas emissions targets and isolating intransigent countries.” What, exactly, the CFR means by targeting and isolating “intransigent” countries is not spelled out in that piece. But anyone who studies CFR programs, policies, and publications quickly realizes that the organization favors a world government — run by “wise men” and “eminent persons” such as themselves. And their envisioned world government — their new world order — does not contemplate tolerance for “intransigence” by sovereign nations. In fact, national sovereignty, according to the CFR, is the bane of world order.

CFR President Richard Haass (pictured above) says “states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.”

Keep reading (article continues)...

Video: Hillary Clinton admits that the Council on Foreign Relations dictates US policy


Link to this article at The New American

AAE Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com

AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Going Green, Hotel Style!

In my opinion, the "Going Green" option in hotels is reflective of the entire environmentalist movement.  Instead of "conserving the environment," what you are really doing is voluntarily accepting fewer services while paying the same amount of money.  Are you getting this?  "Going Green" means that you pay the same (or more, for the privilege of conserving), but get less.  The business gets the same amount of revenue from you, provides fewer services, and can say to the government that they are toeing the environmentalist line.  It is a win-win situation for them.

I have devised my own system for Going Green! in hotels, which is comprised of these four levels:

Level 0: The occupant takes no noticeable actions to "Go Green" and will reside in the Fourth Circle of Hell for Eternity.

Level 1: Decline housekeeping.  Reuse your towels and sheets, make your own bed and clean your own cups and glasses.

Level 2: Decline housekeeping and conserve amenities.  Instead of using the towels to dry off, use the hairdryer (which is powered by "green" energy).  To prevent the soiling of sheets, choose to sleep on the floor.  Drink water from your hand, not the glass.  Take showers that are no longer than three minutes.  If it's yellow, let it mellow; if it's brown, flush it down!

Level 3: Conserve the entire room by refusing the room key and sleeping outside.  The staff will kindly provide you with a cardboard shipping container to help keep off the cold and rain, and a biodegradable bag for your excrement.  Upon checking out, you will deposit your cardboard box in the recycling bin for the next customer to use.  If you select this level, you will receive triple rewards points since you are such a low-impact customer on the business...I mean the environment.  Gaia (Mother Earth) will look favorably upon your actions when your body returns to Her Bosom.

Are You Ready for "Peace?"

What follows is an analysis of the "Report from Iron Mountain," a study conducted in 1966 to determine how to prepare American society for disarmament ("peace").  This analysis was done prior to my reading Chapter 24 of "The Creature from Jekyll Island."

Introduction

I began my blog as an investigation into current events, because they seemed far outside the norm of what should be happening in the United State of America as established by our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  I sought to discover the motivation behind these events.  From my research, I have developed the hypothesis that world leaders are attempting to establish a "One World Government" to finally bring "peace" to the world.  Let me explain:

1. I believe that God, as revealed to us in the Bible, exists.
2. I believe that men have a natural tendency to seek power over other men.
3. I believe that men have a natural desire to attempt to solve humanity's problems (i.e. establish "peace"), without the assistance or acknowledgement of God, as this will make them god-like.
4. If you are going to establish "peace" on the planet, you will have a plan to do so.

I believe that I may have come across a seed crystal for just such a plan that focuses on transitioning a society from a state "war" to a state of "peace," potentially under a One World Government of some sort.  This plan is described in the "Report from Iron Mountain" which was written in 1966 by a group of 15 professionals who represented different fields and professions and were collectively referred to as the Special Study Group.  We are potentially seeing glimpses of the actions taken during such a transition today.

Whether or not anyone follows the recommendations of this Report verbatim, the thought process behind it is very similar to what is being done for Agenda 21 and other socialist movements.  The authors of the Report call for centralized control of the population, and acknowledge that "The elimination of war implies the inevitable elimination of national sovereignty and the traditional nation-state." (p. 36)  Interestingly enough, this is not at odds with general communist goals, as stated at the first World Congress in 1919:

The Comintern [Communist International] would work "by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State."  (source)

Before we continue, we must ask ourselves, what is "peace" (dictionary definition).  In the Report, it only means the absence of war between nations.  But there is an implication that is not stated.  With peace, generally something must be surrendered.  In Christianity, the individual surrenders to Christ.  In Islam, the society surrender to all the aspects of its totalitarian ideology.  So what do you surrender in a man-made peace?  I believe it is your liberties afforded you as an American citizen, because according to this report, to achieve peace, the population must be deceived and strictly controlled.  If you believe what the Lord has taught us, there will be no true peace until the return of our Savior.  Until then, any efforts by man to do likewise, especially through socialist methods, will end in utter failure, and most likely death (look back to transitions in Soviet Russia, Communist China, and Pol Pot in Cambodia).

The "Report from Iron Mountain" indicates that the following actions may be required in a transition to peace:

1. Deceiving the people of the United States
2. Maintaining centralized control of the population
3. Massive disarmament and the transition of the economy to another form
4. Creating fictitious alternate enemies (aliens, pollution, etc.)
5. Potentially implementing a modern form of slavery
6. Implementation of a eugenics program for population control
7. Implementation of a massive social welfare program

What the Report does not address:

1. God (ruled out from the beginning)
2. The People of the United States as being sovereign
3. The Constitution of the United States and the protection of individual liberties

In its Report, the Special Study Group (SSG) first looked at the current state of war and its functions within society, identified what is needed for transition to peace, and then made recommendations as to what substitutes could replace those functions provided by war.

The Functions of War (from pp. 59-60 of the Report)

1. Economic.  War has provided both ancient and modern societies with a dependable system for stabilizing and controlling national economies.
2. Political. The permanent possibility of war is the foundation for stable government; it supplies the basis for general acceptance of political authority. It has enabled societies to maintain necessary class distinctions, and it has ensured the subordination of the citizen to the state, by virtue of the residual war powers
inherent in the concept of nationhood.
3. Sociological.  War, through the medium of military institutions, has uniquely served societies, throughout the course of known history, as an indispensable controller of dangerous social dissidence and destructive
antisocial tendencies.... [T]he war system has provided the machinery through which the motivational forces governing human behavior have been translated into binding social allegiance. It has thus ensured the degree of social cohesion necessary to the viability of nations.
4. Ecological.  War has been the principal evolutionary device for maintaining a satisfactory ecological balance between gross human population and supplies available for its survival.
5. Cultural and Scientific. War-orientation has determined the basic standards of value in the creative arts, and has provided the fundamental motivational source of scientific and technological progress. The concepts that the arts express values independent of their own forms and that the successful pursuit of knowledge has intrinsic social value have long been accepted in modern societies; the development of the arts and sciences during this period has been corollary to the parallel development of weaponry.

Requirements for Transition to Peace (from p. 61 of the Report)

1. Economic.  An acceptable economic surrogate for the war system will require the expenditure of resources for completely nonproductive purposes at a level comparable to that of the military expenditures otherwise demanded by the size and complexity of each society. Such a substitute system of apparent "waste" must be of a nature that will permit it to remain independent of the normal supply-demand economy; it must be subject to arbitrary political control.
2. Political. A viable political substitute for war must posit a generalized external menace to each society of a nature and degree sufficient to require the organization and acceptance of political authority.
3. Sociological.  First, in the permanent absence of war, new institutions must be developed that will effectively control the socially destructive segments of societies. Second, for purposes of adapting the physical and psychological dynamics of human behavior to the needs of social organization, a credible substitute for war must generate an omnipresent and readily understood fear of personal destruction. This fear must be of a nature and degree sufficient to ensure adherence to societal values to the full extent that they are acknowledged to transcend the value of individual human life.
4. Ecological.  A substitute for war in its function as the uniquely human system of population control must ensure the survival, if not necessarily the improvement, of the species, in terms of its relations to environmental supply.
5. Cultural and Scientific. A surrogate for the function of war as the determinant of cultural values must establish a basis of socio-moral conflict of equally compelling force and scope. A substitute motivational basis for the quest for scientific knowledge must be similarly informed by a comparable sense of internal necessity.

Potential Substitutes for War Functions (p. 62 of the Report)
1. Economic.
    a) A comprehensive social-welfare program, directed toward maximum improvement of general conditions of human life.
    b) A giant open-end space research program, aimed at unreachable targets.
    c) A permanent, ritualized, ultra-elaborate disarmament inspection system, and variants of such a
system. (This last substitute was generally rejected by the SSG.)
2. Political.
    a) An omnipresent, virtually omnipotent international police force. (This recommendation was generally dismissed by the SSG because it would imply a continuing state of warfare of some nature.)
    b) An established and recognized extraterrestrial menace.
    c) Massive global environmental pollution. d) Fictitious alternate enemies.
3. Sociological.
    Control Function:
      a) Programs generally derived from the Peace Corps model.
      b) A modern, sophisticated form of slavery.
    Motivational Function:
      a) Intensified environmental pollution.
      b) New religions or other mythologies.
      c) Socially oriented blood games.
      d) Combination forms.
4. Ecological. A comprehensive program of applied eugenics.  (eugenics: the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).)
5. Cultural and Scientific.
    Cultural: No replacement institution offered.
    Scientific: The secondary requirements of the space research, social welfare, and / or eugenics programs.

Signs of Transition

Like all good planners, the SSG recommends that the solutions be arrived at before implementation begins.  What follows is taking the model provided by the SSG planners and fitting current events to that model.  The fact that many current events fit into this model does not in and of itself validate that the powers-that-be are actually following the model as laid out in the Report.  However, it could help explain these curious events that currently seem to make no sense otherwise.

1. Economic.
    a. The Affordable Care Act, being enormous in cost, independent of the normal supply/demand model, and under arbitrary political control, may meet the criteria to be a substitute function for the current military expenditures of the United States.  It even calls for a new civil defense force that may meet the need for a Peace Corps type organization in the Sociological realm.
    b. Some national leaders have thrown out the ideas of establishing a "moon base" or putting a human on Mars, which could be interpreted as efforts to establish an open-ended space program as the substitute for the military portion of the budget.
    c. Sequestration and the currently planned cuts to the military budget will assist in significantly reducing the size of the United States military over a 10-year period, and reduce its portion of the entire national budget.
    d. The current precarious position of the US military deployed in the Pacific and Mideast could result in significant losses should war erupt in near-simultaneous fashion.  This, coupled with the budget/deficit problems, could force the retirement of the US military from overseas positions.
    e. The creation of, and government support for, "green jobs" may be an attempt to replace a portion of the military industry in the economy with a completely new sector.

2. Political.
    a. The UFO phenomenon that has been present for decades now may not be a credible enough threat  to force people to accept political authority.  Threat from a meteor/asteroid strike might not either.
    b. Islam could be used as the external (and potentially internal) "menace," or even the controlling political structure itself.  However, the acceptance of Islam by the American people as that internal political structure may not be feasible.

3. Sociological.
   a. There will be a requirement to transition people currently serving in the military into other professions due to "general disarmament."  The new initiative by the Department of Defense, "Reverse Boot Camp," could be the start point for a larger program to support such massive disarmament and returning military professionals to civilian life commensurate with the disarmament.
   b. With the amount of debt being placed on the backs of the American taxpayer in the form of the national debt, home loans, college loans, etc., this could potentially serve as a modern form of slavery for the American people--slavery to enormous debt that is owed to the central government. (control function)
   c.  There are the current hyped-up threats of man-made "global warming" and "climate change" that can be used for the motivational function and provide "fear of personal destruction."  Maybe an asteroid or meteor strike.  (motivational function)

4. Ecological.
    a. Legalized abortion serves eugenics purposes by limiting the size of the population and the number of children had by members of the lower classes of society.  With pre-natal testing, abortion allows couples to abort children with birth defects.
    b. The promotion of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender behavior also helps reduce the size of the population by encouraging men to "shoot at the wrong target" and women to opt out of child-bearing relationships.
    c. Some researchers are now suggesting that post-birth abortions are ethical, which can also be used to reduce the size of the population and eliminate children with birth defects that were not identified in the womb.

5. Cultural and Scientific.
    a. A potential cultural replacement institution could be Islam which brings with it the complete totalitarian package that appears to be required by this Report.  However, the SSG potentially dismisses the need for a "god" by stating "It may be, however, that a basic cultural value-determinant [i.e. God] is not necessary to the survival of a stable society." (p. 63)  Another possibility could be the worship of the planet.
    b. An attempt to find a substitute for the scientific contributions of the war industry could be with the development "green technology," or potentially the space exploration sector should the US decide to resume its space program.

Special Study Group Recommendation

The Special Study Group's (SSG) primary recommendation at the conclusion of the report was for the United States Government to establish a WAR/PEACE Research Agency to determine technically feasible, politically acceptable, and socially credible "substitute institutions for the principal non-military  functions of war" (pp. 61, 69) and "to ensure the continuing viability of the war system to fulfill its essential nonmilitary functions for as long as the war system is judged necessary to or desirable for the survival of society." (p. 70)

The Agency's organization and powers are described as follows:

This agency (a) will be provided with non-accountable funds sufficient to implement its responsibilities and decisions at its own discretion, and (b) will have authority to preempt and utilize, without restriction, any and all facilities of the executive branch of the government in pursuit of its objectives. It will be organized along the lines of the National Security Council, except that none of its governing, executive, or operating personnel will hold other public office or governmental responsibility. Its directorate will be drawn from the broadest practicable spectrum of scientific disciplines, humanistic studies, applied creative arts, operating technologies, and otherwise unclassified professional occupations. It will be responsible solely to the President, or to other officers of government temporarily deputized by him. Its operations will be governed entirely by its own rules of procedure. Its authority will expressly include the unlimited right to withhold information on its activities and its decisions, from anyone except the President, whenever it deems such secrecy to be in the public interest. (p. 69)

Conclusion of the Special Study Group (pp. 64-66)

Such solutions, if indeed they exist, will not be arrived at without a revolutionary revision of the modes of thought heretofore considered appropriate to peace research. That we have examined the fundamental questions involved from a dispassionate, value-free [aka no God] point of view should not imply that we do not appreciate the intellectual and emotional difficulties that must be overcome on all decision-making levels before these questions are generally acknowledged by others for what they are. (p. 64)

A viable system of peace, assuming that the great and complex questions of substitute institutions raised in this Report are both soluble and solved, would still constitute a venture into the unknown, with the inevitable risks attendant on the unforeseen, however small and however well hedged. (p. 65)

It is possible that one or more major sovereign nations may arrive, through ambiguous leadership, at a position in which a ruling administrative class may lose control of basic public opinion or of its ability to rationalize a desired war. It is not hard to imagine, in such circumstances, a situation in which such governments may feel forced to initiate serious full-scale disarmament proceedings (perhaps provoked by "accidental" nuclear explosions), and that such negotiations may lead to the actual disestablishment of military institutions. As our Report has made clear, this could be catastrophic.(p. 66)

Summary

This Report is one of the most evil documents I have ever read.  The SSG presupposes the absence of God, and treats humans as animals governed by evolution and survival of the fittest.  Not surprisingly, their construct is the polar opposite of how our Founding Fathers solved the problem of creating a new government for the United States of America, by first assuming there is a God who endowed us with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

What we observe in the Report from Iron Mountain is man's total reliance on science (or human knowledge and reason) and a blatant rejection of God.  What is important to know is that there are people in the world that think this way, and can exploit science and reason to "rationally" support their conclusions, no matter how faulty their premises or how inhumane their solutions.  As a result, these are very dangerous people.

The Report from Iron Mountain, like socialism, is a great thought exercise.  However, its implementation will result in utter failure because of a critical precondition that was set by the Group: that God is not a factor (basically, does not exist).

The United States of America, as a Christian nation, can never be at "peace" with the rest of the world.  This is because the rest of the world is replete with poisonous ideologies that seek to destroy our liberties and faith in God.  So to even harbor the thought that peace is possible before the return of Christ is fallacious.

Finally, in the United States, the people are sovereign.  The fact that this Report proposes that our government deceive the people in order to transition to a state of peace indicates that many of the recommendations of the "Report from Iron Mountain" are treasonous (treason: 1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign. 2.a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state. 3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.).

Read the Report from Iron Mountain at your own mental peril.  Two of the group members experienced heart attacks following the completion of the Report. (p. 13)  I personally have not experienced such a bad physical response to reading a document since reading descriptions of partial-birth abortions.

Primary resource: "Report from Iron Mountain: On the Possibility and Desirability of Peace."  New York: The Dial Press, 1967.  (link)

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Previous Posts on Agenda 21

The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, or Rio+20, commences on Wednesday in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.  In celebration of this magnificent event that demonstrates how the rest of the world can come together to solve human-made "problems" without preserving our freedoms, I am listing my previous posts on the matter for your reference.  Since you probably do not have the time to look at every post, I have indicated the most important posts with an asterisk (*).

SATURDAY, JUNE 16, 2012

Australia Has Wrapped Itself in Agenda 21

*Senior Military Leaders Oppose LOST

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2012

OMG! Earth is headed toward tipping point!

*Agenda 21: Target America

TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2012

Alabama Stands Against Agenda 21

SUNDAY, JUNE 10, 2012

*The United Nations and the One World Government

Farmers Plead to Use Water from own Wells

THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 2012

MUST READ: Ron Taylor's "Agenda 21"

SUNDAY, JUNE 3, 2012

*UN Rio Earth Summit 1992

FRIDAY, JUNE 1, 2012

Open Season on Agenda 21

MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012

Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST)

MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012

*Lord Monkton on Agenda 21

SATURDAY, MAY 5, 2012

UN: US Should Return Lands to Native Americans

SUNDAY, APRIL 22, 2012

DHS Environmental Justice Strategy

SATURDAY, APRIL 21, 2012

*Deciphering the "Green" Economy

SATURDAY, APRIL 14, 2012

City of Colfax, California, Rejects UN Agenda 21

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2012

*Romney's Global Warming Plan (Analysis)

SUNDAY, MARCH 18, 2012

TN House Passes Anti-UN Agenda 21 Resolution

MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2012

*Globalization Causes Next Major War

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

*The Desire for One World Government

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Australia Has Wrapped Itself in Agenda 21

Australia has effectively cut off access to more than 33% of its surrounding waters to demonstrate its submission to the United Nations' Agenda 21 and the Green Agenda just in time for the Rio+20 conference.

"It's time for the world to turn a corner on protection of our oceans," Mr Burke said. "And Australia today is leading that next step. 

"Australia has timed its announcement to coincide with the run-up to the Rio+20 Earth Summit - a global gathering of leaders from more than 130 nations to discuss protecting key parts of the environment, including the ocean, says the BBC's Duncan Kennedy.

But don't lament, because one of the industries that will suffer from this exclusion of access to the natural resources of Australia will be compensated by the Australian taxpayer. 

The fishing industry is set to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation, reports say.

This appears to be a lose-lose situation for the citizens of Australia.  Their fishing industry takes a big hit, and then Australians have to compensate companies for the reduction of said industry.  Then, the reduction of the fishing industry will most likely have a negative impact on their overall national economy.

The fishing industry is Australia’s sixth most valuable food-based primary industry with a landed value of more than $2.1 billion a year. In addition more than 3.4 million Australians recreationally fish each year spending an additional $2.5 billion. (Source: http://www.frdc.com.au/fishingindustry/fishing-industry)

Australia to create world's largest marine reserve

Continue reading the main story

Australia says it will create the world's largest network of marine parks ahead of the Rio+20 summit.

The reserves will cover 3.1 million sq km of ocean, including the Coral Sea.

Restrictions will be placed on fishing and oil and gas exploration in the protected zone covering more than a third of Australia's waters.

Environment Minister Tony Burke, who made the announcement, will attend the earth summit in Brazil next week with Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

"It's time for the world to turn a corner on protection of our oceans," Mr Burke said. "And Australia today is leading that next step."

Australia has timed its announcement to coincide with the run-up to the Rio+20 Earth Summit - a global gathering of leaders from more than 130 nations to discuss protecting key parts of the environment, including the ocean, says the BBC's Duncan Kennedy.

The plans, which have been years in the making, will proceed after a final consultation process.

Ocean parks

Last year, the Australian government announced plans to protect the marine life in the Coral Sea - an area of nearly 1 million sq km.

The Coral Sea is home to diverse wildlife, including sharks and tuna

The sea - off the Queensland coast in northeastern Australia - is home to sharks and tuna, isolated tropical reefs and deep sea canyons. It is also the resting place of three US navy ships sunk in the Battle of the Coral Sea in 1942.

The network of marine reserve will also include the Great Barrier Reef, a Unesco World Heritage site.

The plan will see the numbers of marine reserves off the Australian coast increased from 27 to 60.

"What we've done is effectively create a national parks estate in the ocean,'' Mr Burke told Australian media.

However, activists and environmental protection groups are likely to be less than satisfied with the plans, having called for a complete ban on commercial fishing in the Coral Sea.

The fishing industry is set to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation, reports say.

Some have also noted that oil and gas exploration continue to be allowed near some protected areas, particularly off western Australia.

The Australian Conservation Foundation said that although the plan didn't go as far as they would like, it was a major achievement in terms of ocean conservation.

Currently the world's largest marine reserve is a 545,000-sq-km area established by the UK around the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean.

Link to original BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18437040

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.