Agenda 21-Part 2: The Nature of the Beast

The most difficult part for most people when attempting to wrap their head around Agenda 21 [(besides the concerted effort – by the very people who are implementing it – to keep it hidden (See Footnote 1)] is coming to terms with how these ruling elite and their subordinate bureaucrats and politicians can treat their fellow humans with such cold, calculating contempt and disdain. Especially since many of these globalists are held up by our Main Stream Media as beacons of integrity and compassion! Cognitive Dissonance is the psychiatric term for this phenomenon of refusing to believe something in spite of overwhelming factual evidence of its existence. In other words, lying to yourself. To even begin to understand how this could be happening, we first need to understand what kind of people crave and gravitate towards these positions of power and control, and the astonishing transformation that occurs in most “normal” people once they obtain that position of power.
NOTE: For purposes of this article only, the terms “normal” and “psychopath” are defined below. The term “normal” simply means anyone who is not a “psychopath”. And the term “psychopath” is a person completely lacking in empathy and compassion and has an inordinate desire to rule over their fellow human.
         In very general terms two types of people are attracted to positions of power. There are the “normal” people, who are the vast majority and who are basically good hearted and simply want to make the world a better place and there are the psychopaths who constitute a very small minority. The psychopath lusts after power like a moth to light!
Note: If you are having a hard time believing the idea that a very large percentage of the most powerful people on the planet (the global elite) are “psychopaths”, simply read the quotes in the article – Agenda 21-Part 1; Quotes.
          I believe empathy comes naturally to most people. It’s our default setting. There are countless examples of people risking their own life to save a stranger. This more than any other human trait gives me hope for our future. Unfortunately, many of these good hearted, well meaning “normal” people, once they attain a position of power and/or control – over a period of time – will necessarily become corrupt. A nearly perfect corollary to this process is the “ring of power” in the movie Lord of the Rings. The only person who can wear the “ring of power” without being corrupted by it is the unpretentious and humble Hobbit. Just as people seek positions of power to do good, so to do people seek the ring of power to do good. But very few people are able to wield its power and not be corrupted. Likewise, a large percentage of people who succeed in obtaining powerful positions in government and other large organizations such as huge corporations will be unable to wield their position of power and not become corrupted. So, by their very nature these institutions create unfeeling, uncaring, power hungry bureaucrats (aka sociopaths) who lack empathy toward their fellow human beings. The government/corporate/bureaucratic concept by its very nature is anti-empathy. It distributes/spreads guilt over a large number of people, so not any one person/bureaucrat feels the entire brunt of the guilt. “Everyone else is doing it, why shouldn’t we?” I’m sure there were generally good hearted people in government/military or the corporations that were contracted by government, who felt bad about the genocide that they helped perpetrate on the American Indian but they did it anyway because they didn’t “really” feel responsible. It’s not that there weren’t truck loads of guilt to go around because there were. It was just spread so thin over so many people that no one single person felt it was really their fault. And, more than likely if a whistle blower did speak out about it they would probably lose their job or be demoted. (Note: Today, not only do whistle blowers lose their jobs, they might very well be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. This president who bragged about how his administration would be incredibly transparent, and fair, has prosecuted more whistle blowers under the Espionage Act than all other presidents combined!) The same can be said about the African slave trade, the immoral and unconstitutional incarceration of 110,000 Japanese Americans, the intentional injection of the live syphilis virus in thousands of African American, the murder of 50,000 Canadian children in orphanages by ritual murder and experimentation by pharmaceutical companies, the intentional release of massive amounts of lethal radiation from Hanford Nuclear plant-“in order to see what would happen to the downwinders”,  the murder and torture of tens of thousands of Philippineos in the Spanish American war, the 500,000 Iraqi children that died as a result of economic sanctions (in an interview with 60 minutes when asked if the sanctions were worth the price of those 500,000 children, Madeline Albright said that it was), the fire bombing of Dresden Germany, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, etc, etc, etc to infinity. It should also be mentioned that when government gets as big and far reaching as it is today people tend to cop the attitude, “Why should I care about the welfare of others, government will take care of them? Isn’t that why I pay taxes?
         The idea that these large organizations like governments, mega corporations, the military, etc, create mindless bureaucrats and worse, has been clearly demonstrated in several very well known experiments.
In 1971, Stanford University psychologist Phillip Zimbardo set up an experiment known infamously today as the Stanford Prison Experiment. The design was simple: Zimbardo analyzed 70 male student volunteers and picked the most normal, average people in the bunch. He divided the participants into two groups, guards and prisoners, had the prisoners arrested and booked and transported to a university building where a prison had been created for a two-week stay. The experiment lasted only five days, however. It wasn’t so much the experiment that was horrific, it was the results. Within just a few hours, the guards — who’d been instructed that physical abuse was off limits — had devolved into a monstrous, psychologically abusive gang. One of the guards — dubbed John Wayne — even developed a Southern accent alongside his increasingly brutal and dehumanizing actions.
Perhaps most curiously, the researchers who designed and executed the experiment fell into their own groupthink. It wasn’t until an outside researcher arrived five days in and saw what was going on that Zimbardo and his colleagues halted the experiment. One third of the prison guards became extremely sadistic. In other words they got sexually aroused by being cruel to other human beings. I believe these one third type people are the of type that rise to the top, whether it be in politics, military or corporations.
          In the Milgram Experiment it was found, surprisingly, that 67% of his subjects, ordinary residents of New Haven, were willing to give apparently harmful and potentially fatal electric shocks-up to 450 volts-to a pitifully protesting victim, simply because a scientific authority commanded them to, and in spite of the fact that the victim did not do anything to deserve such punishment. The victim was, in reality, a good actor who did not actually receive shocks, and this fact was revealed to the subjects at the end of the experiment. But, during the experiment itself, the experience was a powerfully real and gripping for most participants.
         So, when in a perceived position of power over others, 67% will brutally traumatize the innocent because of their perceived authority, even worse 1/3 of them after only a few days will begin to enjoy it.
       Where the sociopath is created the “psychopath” is born.
        “Psychopaths” are generally extremely intelligent and from almost all outward appearances seem quite “normal”. “Psychopaths” have an overwhelming desire to dominate and control others. Therefore, more often than “normal” people they end up in positions of power and control, such as politicians, police, judges, movie producers, bankers, bureaucrats, prosecutors, captains of industry, generals, etc. And, unlike sociopaths, they don’t require any training or coaxing in order to enjoy traumatizing innocent people. There is no learning curve for the “psychopath”. The “psychopaths” are the people who climb the highest. They are the people who’s names we all know. They love the prestige and power that comes from this control. To them, the power is like a drug they can never get enough of!
         The global elite or oligarchy that Audlus Huxley spoke about so often (See Footnote 2), most of them being “psychopaths” themselves, understand these inherent characteristics of people in positions of power and control because they are the ones who often times identify the up and coming “psychopaths” and help to install them in those positions of power. Also, they are the ones who have funded most of the psychological experiments conducted over the last hundred years and therefore are privy to exactly how the human psyche operates. [if you have not read Agenda 21-Part 1; Quotes now might be a good time to do that].
         In the case of the United Nations, the sociopathic and psychopathic characteristics of the people who run this organization and all of its tentacles are unencumbered by any checks and balances that they would otherwise have to deal with in a Democracy or a Republic. These people are unelected, un-beholden to any constituency (except other UN members), have allegiances to no country, therefore are free to grow and realize their full psychotic/sociopathic potentials. In other words, the UN is a dictatorship! And these dictators want us, along with every other country in the world, to cede our sovereignty over to them! Thereby allowing them to dictate nearly every aspect of our lives!
Thanks for reading!
Jamie Fagan
Kodiakcompass.com
 
         “Ironically, government officials who extoll the benefits of moving private property into public trusts for the common good are the same people who have failed abysmally in their mission to create peace on earth and end world hunger. What makes them think they could manage businesses and the private lives of people?”
 “Ron Taylor, “Agenda 21-An Expose”
          The following link is a collection of notes about Agenda 21 taken from
          (Footnote 1) “Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking UN 21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.”
-J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development.
             (Footnote 2Audlus Huxley Berkley Speech 1962: Transcript – The Ultimate Revolution

March 20, 1962 Berkeley Language Center – Speech Archive SA 0269

Moderator:

{garbled}Aldous Huxley, a renowned Essayist and Novelist who during the spring semester is residing at the university in his capacity of a Ford research professor. Mr Huxley has recently returned from a conference at the Institute for the study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara where the discussion focused on the development of new techniques by which to control and direct human behavior. Traditionally it has been possible to suppress individual freedom through the application of physical coercion through the appeal of ideologies through the manipulation of man’s physical and social environment and more recently through the techniques, the cruder techniques of psychological conditioning. The Ultimate Revolution, about which Mr. Huxley will speak today, concerns itself with the development of new behavioral controls, which operate directly on the psycho-physiological organisms of man. That is the capacity to replace external constraint by internal compulsions. As those of us who are familiar with Mr. Huxley’s works will know, this is a subject of which he has been concerned for quite a period of time. Mr. Huxley will make a presentation of approximately half an hour followed by some brief discussions and questions by the two panelists sitting to my left, Mrs. Lillian {garbled} and Mr. John Post. Now Mr. Huxley

Huxley:

Thank You.

{Applause}

Uh, First of all, the, I’d like to say, that the conference at Santa Barbara was not directly concerned with the control of the mind. That was a conference, there have been two of them now, at the University of California Medical center in San Francisco, one this year which I didn’t attend, and one two years ago where there was a considerable discussion on this subject. At Santa Barbara we were talking about technology in general and the effects it’s likely to have on society and the problems related to technological transplanting of technology into underdeveloped countries.

Well now in regard to this problem of the ultimate revolution, this has been very well summed up by the moderator. In the past we can say that all revolutions have essentially aimed at changing the environment in order to change the individual. I mean there’s been the political revolution, the economic revolution, in the time of the reformation, the religious revolution. All these aimed, not directly at the human being, but at his surroundings. So that by modifying the surroundings you did achieve, did one remove the effect of the human being.

Today we are faced, I think, with the approach of what may be called the ultimate revolution, the final revolution, where man can act directly on the mind-body of his fellows. Well needless to say some kind of direct action on human mind-bodies has been going on since the beginning of time. But this has generally been of a violent nature. The Techniques of terrorism have been known from time immemorial and people have employed them with more or less ingenuity sometimes with the utmost cruelty, sometimes with a good deal of skill acquired by a process of trial and error finding out what the best ways of using torture, imprisonment, constraints of various kinds.

But, as, I think it was (sounds like Mettenicht) said many years ago, you can do everything with {garbled} except sit on them. If you are going to control any population for any length of time, you must have some measure of consent, it’s exceedingly difficult to see how pure terrorism can function indefinitely. It can function for a fairly long time, but I think sooner or later you have to bring in an element of persuasion an element of getting people to consent to what is happening to them.

It seems to me that the nature of the ultimate revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: That we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably will always exist to get people to love their servitude. This is the, it seems to me, the ultimate in malevolent revolutions shall we say, and this is a problem which has interested me many years and about which I wrote thirty years ago, a fable, Brave New World, which is an account of society making use of all the devices available and some of the devices which I imagined to be possible making use of them in order to, first of all, to standardize the population, to iron out inconvenient human differences, to create, to say, mass produced models of human beings arranged in some sort of scientific caste system. Since then, I have continued to be extremely interested in this problem and I have noticed with increasing dismay a number of the predictions which were purely fantastic when I made them thirty years ago have come true or seem in process of coming true.

A number of techniques about which I talked seem to be here already. And there seems to be a general movement in the direction of this kind of ultimate revolution, a method of control by which a people can be made to enjoy a state of affairs by which any decent standard they ought not to enjoy. This, the enjoyment of servitude, Well this process is, as I say, has gone on for over the years, and I have become more and more interested in what is happening.

And here I would like briefly to compare the parable of Brave New World with another parable which was put forth more recently in George Orwell’s book, Nineteen Eighty- Four. Orwell wrote his book between, I think between 45 and 48 at the time when the Stalinist terror regime was still in Full swing and just after the collapse of the Hitlerian terror regime. And his book which I admire greatly, it’s a book of very great talent and extraordinary ingenuity, shows, so to say, a projection into the future of the immediate past, of what for him was the immediate past, and the immediate present, it was a projection into the future of a society where control was exercised wholly by terrorism and violent attacks upon the mind-body of individuals.

Whereas my own book which was written in 1932 when there was only a mild dictatorship in the form of Mussolini in existence, was not overshadowed by the idea of terrorism, and I was therefore free in a way in which Orwell was not free, to think about these other methods of control, these non-violent methods and my, I’m inclined to think that the scientific dictatorships of the future, and I think there are going to be scientific dictatorships in many parts of the world, will be probably a good deal nearer to the brave new world pattern than to the 1984 pattern, they will a good deal nearer not because of any humanitarian qualms of the scientific dictators but simply because the BNW pattern is probably a good deal more efficient than the other.

That if you can get people to consent to the state of affairs in which they’re living. The state of servitude the state of being, having their differences ironed out, and being made amenable to mass production methods on the social level, if you can do this, then you have, you are likely, to have a much more stable and lasting society. Much more easily controllable society than you would if you were relying wholly on clubs and firing squads and concentration camps. So that my own feeling is that the 1984 picture was tinged of course by the immediate past and present in which Orwell was living, but the past and present of those years does not reflect, I feel, the likely trend of what is going to happen, needless to say we shall never get rid of terrorism, it will always find its way to the surface.

But I think that insofar as dictators become more and more scientific, more and more concerned with the technically perfect, perfectly running society, they will be more and more interested in the kind of techniques which I imagined and described from existing realities in BNW. So that, it seems to me then, that this ultimate revolution is not really very far away, that we, already a number of techniques for bringing about this kind of control are here, and it remains to be seen when and where and by whom they will first be applied in any large scale.

And first let me talk about the, a little bit about the, improvement in the techniques of terrorism. I think there have been improvements. Pavlov after all made some extremely profound observations both on animals and on human beings. And he found among other things that conditioning techniques applied to animals or humans in a state either of psychological or physical stress sank in so to say, very deeply into the mind-body of the creature, and were extremely difficult to get rid of. That they seemed to be embedded more deeply than other forms of conditioning.

And this of course, this fact was discovered empirically in the past. People did make use of many of these techniques, but the difference between the old empirical intuitive methods and our own methods is the difference between the, a sort of, hit and miss craftsman’s point of view and the genuinely scientific point of view. I think there is a real difference between ourselves and say the inquisitors of the 16th century. We know much more precisely what we are doing, than they knew and we can extend because of our theoretical knowledge, we can extend what we are doing over a wider area with a greater assurance of being producing something that really works.

In this context I would like to mention the extremely interesting chapters in Dr. William (sounds like Seargent’s) Battle for the Mind where he points out how intuitively some of the great religious teachers/leaders of the past hit on the Pavlovian method, he speaks specifically of Wesley’s method of producing conversions which were essentially based on the technique of heightening psychological stress to the limit by talking about hellfire and so making people extremely vulnerable to suggestion and then suddenly releasing this stress by offering hopes of heaven and this is a very interesting chapter of showing how completely on purely intuitive and empirical grounds a skilled natural psychologist, as Wesley was, could discover these Pavlovian methods.

Well, as I say, we now know the reason why these techniques worked and there’s no doubt at all that we can if we wanted to, carry them much further than was possible in the past. And of course in the history of, recent history of brainwashing, both as applied to prisoners of war and to the lower personnel within the communist party in China, we see that the pavlovian methods have been applied systematically and with evidently with extraordinary efficacy. I think there can be no doubt that by the application of these methods a very large army of totally devoted people has been created. The conditioning has been driven in, so to say, by a kind of psychological iontophoresis into the very depths of the people’s being, and has got so deep that it’s very difficult to ever be rooted out, and these methods, I think, are a real refinement on the older methods of terror because they combine methods of terror with methods of acceptance that the person who is subjected to a form of terroristic stress but for the purpose of inducing a kind of voluntary quotes acceptance of the state the psychological state in which he has been driven and the state of affairs in which he finds himself.

So there is, as I say, there has been a definite improvement in the, even in the techniques of terrorism. But then we come to the consideration of other techniques, non-terroristic techniques, for inducing consent and inducing people to love their servitude. Here, I don’t think I can possibly go into all of them, because I don’t know all of them, but I mean I can mention the more obvious methods, which can now be used and are based on recent scientific findings. First of all there are the methods connected with straight suggestion and hypnosis.

I think we know much more about this subject than was known in the past. People of course, always have known about suggestion, and although they didn’t know the word ‘hypnosis’ they certainly practiced it in various ways. But we have, I think, a much greater knowledge of the subject than in the past, and we can make use of our knowledge in ways, which I think the past was never able to make use of it. For example, one of the things we now know for certain, that there is of course an enormous, I mean this has always been known a very great difference between individuals in regard to their suggestibility. But we now know pretty clearly the sort of statistical structure of a population in regard to its suggestibility. Its very interesting when you look at the findings of different fields, I mean the field of hypnosis, the field of administering placebos, for example, in the field of general suggestion in states of drowsiness or light sleep you will find the same sorts of orders of magnitude continually cropping up.

You’ll find for example that the experienced hypnotist will tell one that the number of people, the percentage of people who can be hypnotized with the utmost facility (snaps), just like that. is about 20%, and about a corresponding number at the other end of the scale are very, very difficult or almost impossible to hypnotize. But in between lies a large mass of people who can with more or less difficulty be hypnotized, that they can gradually be if you work hard enough at it be got into the hypnotic state, and in the same way the same sort of figures crop up again, for example in relation to the administration of placebos.

A big experiment was carried out three of four years ago in the general hospital in Boston on post-operative cases where several hundred men and woman suffering comparable kinds of pain after serious operations were allowed to, were given injections whenever they asked for them whenever the pain got bad, and the injections were 50% of the time were of morphine, and 50% of water. And about twenty percent of those who went through the experiment, about 20% of them got just as much relief from the distilled waters as from the morphea. About 20% got no relief from the distilled water, and in- between were those who got some relief or got relief occasionally.

So yet again, we see the same sort of distribution, and similarly in regard to what in BNW I called Hypnopedia, the sleep teaching, I was talking not long ago to a man who manufactures records which people can listen to in the, during the light part of sleep, I mean these are records for getting rich, for sexual satisfaction (crowd laughs), for confidence in salesmanship and so on, and he said that its very interesting that these are records sold on a money-back basis, and he says there is regularly between 15% and 20% of people who write indignantly saying the records don’t work at all, and he sends the money back at once. There are on the other hand, there are over 20% who write enthusiastically saying they are much richer, their sexual life is much better (laughter) etc, etc. And these of course are the dream clients and they buy more of these records. And in between there are those who don’t get much results and they have to have letters written to them saying “Go persist my dear, go on” (laughter) and you will get there, and they generally do get results in the long run.

Well, as I say, on the basis of this, I think we see quite clearly that the human populations can be categorized according to their suggestibility fairly clearly,. I suspect very strongly that this twenty percent is the same in all these cases, and I suspect also that it would not be at all difficult to recognize and {garbled} out who are those who are extremely suggestible and who are those extremely unsuggestible and who are those who occupy the intermediate space. Quite clearly, if everybody were extremely unsuggestible organized society would be quite impossible, and if everybody were extremely suggestible then a dictatorship would be absolutely inevitable. I mean it’s very fortunate that we have people who are moderately suggestible in the majority and who therefore preserve us from dictatorship but do permit organized society to be formed. But, once given the fact that there are these 20% of highly suggestible people, it becomes quite clear that this is a matter of enormous political importance, for example, any demagogue who is able to get hold of a large number of these 20% of suggestible people and to organize them is really in a position to overthrow any government in any country