I found this link in my travels:

http://www.usasurvival.org/next-sg.html

Here, it is suggested that some NWO types in the past have actually talked about industrialized nations needing to be collapsed for the good of the world. The person pictured here, according to this site, is being positioned as the next UN head.

Is this a bunch of hooey, or has anyone else seen something like this before?

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous.com), March 09, 1999

Answers

I say "go for it." The UN can't get much more irrelevant than it already is. I guarantee you if this dude was large and in charge we wouldn't have some strained distinction about whether it was legal to get to'up on distilled alcohol vs. herbal preparations. (Don't worry, I'm stricly legal, but I think I'm legal only because of the threat of fine and imprisonment, but, who knows, maybe I'm just a dweeb.) I guarantee you if he sits around a tree meditating GAIA with Albert, they ain't going to be drinking Budweiser. Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), March 09, 1999.

He's got my vote! I'd rather see my money go to the trees and birds and bees than to corrupt politicians and corporate power freaks.

-- @ (@@@.@), March 09, 1999.

Maurice Strong was Chairman of Ontario Hydro before US experts were called in to inspect their nuclear reactors. Their report of dangers due to totally inadequate maintenance resulted in a furor and the shutdown of the reactors. OH went from a producer of surplus electricity to a buyer from others. My memory suggests that one may wish to enquire about a scandal in the 1980s involving water rights in respect to lands owned by his wife in S.W.Colorado. He had a larger, darker moustache on his upper lip a few years ago.

-- Watchful (seethesea@msn.com), March 09, 1999.

Strong is the anti-gaia

-- Aardvarkian (laughs@the.devil), March 10, 1999.

Clearly, It is long past time for the United States to pull out of this corrupt orgnization. Maybe there is a silver lining to Maurice Strong. Maybe a loon ey like this will make it clear that its time for the US toi turn in its UN resignation letter.

-- Rick (doc_u_ment@hotmail.com), March 10, 1999.

I had been lead to believe that our current benevolent leader, Bubba the First, Last and Only (God willing) had his heart set on becoming the next UN leader. After all, where else could he move upward after being King of America, besides becoming Emperor of Earth?

As far as Mr Strong, I can believe he and Gore would agree with Ted Kazcinski on the need to create more peasants in our world. Especially American peasants. Of coures THEY wouldn't have to be peasants, just us.

Strong is really an anti-US activist who seems to delight in finding ways to screw the United States and its citizens. If he does get the UN Secretary General's post, look for some fireworks to say the least.

Strong should be no stranger to Americans, he was one of the leaders in the Kyoto Greenhouse Gas summit which, if Clinton gets it enforced, is going to wreck the US economy. Provided Y2K doesn't do it first. I also think I've heard his name attached to the Rio de Janairo Bio-diversity agreement, which poses real threats to private property rights in America. I wonder if he got an exclusion included for Canada?

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), March 10, 1999.

Wildweasel,

perhaps you should do a little research...

With just 4% of the world's population, the US generates more than 20 per cent of the world's emissions of carbon dioxide, yet in the lead up to the [Kyoto] summit a propaganda war, described as "one of the most successful and vicious of all time" has been waged to mislead and distort the truth about climate change.

A US consortium of 20 organisations launched a #10 million campaign of TV ads warning of job losses, tax rises and the end of the the American consumerist way of life if a meaningful treaty went ahead. With money no object, they could run rings around their opponents, fund right-wing think tanks that talked of global warming creating "a milder, greener, more prosperous world" and fund `greenhouse sceptic' scientists, who describe themselves as "independent" despite toeing the fossil-fuel line.

One of these consortiums is the Global Climate Coalition (GCC). It is made up of 50 trade associations and private companies representing almost every major US and European oil, motor, chemical, airline, electricity and plastic company, including BP, Shell, Chevron, Exxon, Ford Motor Company, and Mobil. In the run up to the summit it's activities included distributing to hundeds of journalists a video which claims that increased levels of carbon dioxide will increase crop production and help to feed the hungry people of the world!

According to the UN $300 billion of taxpayers money has been used world wide in the last 20 years to prop up the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. In contrast, environmental solutions like solar electricity and wind power received only $15 billion.

Check out the Climate Change Secretariat at http://www.unfccc.de

-- (z@z.z), March 10, 1999.

WW; Strong organized and chaired the "Rio Bio Bust".Your memory is right on.

-- Watchful (seethesea@msn.com), March 10, 1999.

Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio Summit) http://www.unep.ch/bio/conv-e.html

I can't find the bit about infringing private property rights...where is it ?

-- (z@z.z), March 10, 1999.

Yes - I remember the Rio summit - they demanded that the waste paper be recycled - Rio did not have the facilities to do it, so they loaded up an airplane with trash paper and flew it to Europe to recycle. Burning the fuel over the Atlantic (lets see here - 150-200 passenger's worth of space times 600.00 per ticket maybe) to recycle 20.00 dollars worth of paper. Real environmental pro's.

Pure socialistic propaganda - no facts, no reasoning. Anti-business, anti-US. And no complaints about Russia or Siberia allowed by the socialists in charge.

By the way - the diatribe about richest/poorest doesn't fly. It's the same game used by Clinton and his cronies in raising class envy and race baiting tactics to a fine art. If the levels from mankind mattered - the glaciers would not have melted as they did several times every 5,000 - 10,000 years. We're about due for another change.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 10, 1999.

z,

Perhaps YOU should do a little research. I suggest you look at back issues of National Review for the late spring/summer of 1998. Mr Strong was fully covered in a "get to know him" article.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), March 11, 1999.