Maurice Strong – Man Behind Agenda 21- Part 1

Posted on October 19, 2009. Filed under: Enemies of The State | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

This will be a perpetual database on Maurice Strong, a key player in the demise of America through his role in Agenda 21. This database will be updated as information becomes available and will be filed in my Enemies of the State Category for easy accessiblity here on the website. It is my hope this will be of some aide to the heralded watchdogs among us. Several shocking bits of information have come to my attention, many with help from fellow patriots JoAnne Moretti and Pam L. I wish to thank them for their help on assembling this laundry list of eye openers. There are so many that I find it necessary to merely provide a list with a synopsis and the link for you to comb over the full articles at will.
The new world devised by Maurice Strong and George Soros

United Nations and its carefully managed One World Order

By Judi McLeod    Monday, November 24, 2008

According to financial experts, the world, as we know it will change dramatically by the year 2012.  People, who provided for their families only three years ago, will be desperately searching for food. The story of the economic meltdown of 2008 begins and ends with the United Nations and its carefully managed One World Order. Behind the curtain of this dark chapter in human misery are ogres Maurice Strong and George Soros.
It is both power lust and an all-consuming hatred of the United States of America that elevated this deadly duo to ogre status. Fortunately for all of those searching for answers, much of their plan for the world, post November 4, 2008 is already mapped out in writing.  Leading economic experts and Strong agree that in 2012 people will be going hungry.
“Strong has worked diligently and effectively to bring his ideas to fruition, He is now in a position to implement them.” (Henry Lamb, The Rise of Global Governance, available at  “His speeches and writings provide a clear picture of what to expect.  In 1991, Strong wrote the introduction to a book published by the Trilateral Commission, called Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology, by Jim MacNeil. (David Rockefeller wrote the foreword).  Strong said this:
“This interlocking…is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international.  By the year 2012, these changes must be fully integrated into our economic and political life.”
These chilling words are in line with ones he used for the opening session of the Rio Conference (Earth Summit II) in 1992, that industrialized countries have:
“Developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma.  It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class—involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing—are not sustainable.  A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”
The only change that has happened since 1992 is that Strong and Soros now have their Agent of Change coming to the White House.
        Voluntary acceptance of global governance is the preferred means of achieving a takeover of America without a
        single shot being fired.
…“Education programs to teach the “global ethic” have been underway by UNESCO and by UNEP for more than twenty years.” (Page 90, The Rise of Global Governance). “That the U.S. government, through its representatives to the various U.N. agencies, has not already crushed this global governance agenda is s testament to the effectiveness of the U.N.’s education program.”
..  “A new Economic Security Council (ESC) would replace the existing Economic and Social Council.  The new ESC would consist of no more than 23 members who would have responsibility for all international financial and development activities.  The IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO—virtually all finance and development activities—would be under the authority of this body.  There would be no veto power by any nation. (Italics CFP’s).  Nor would there be permanent member status for any nation.”
  But in Maurice Strong’s New World, NGOs will flag the new order about truth tellers: “The Commission (on Global Governance) believes that the U.N. should protect the “security of the people” inside the borders of sovereign nations, with or without the invitation of the national government.  It proposes the expansion of an NGO “early warning” network to function through the Petitions Council to alert the U.N. to possible action.” (Italics CFP’s).
… It is Obama’s job to demoralize the 58 million people who did not buy into his campaign and for all of those who do not want One World Order. 
In jest we now call GM “Government Motors” – apparently we’re not far off – but Mr. Strong thinks it should be the Chinese Government :
Maurice Strong: Let China buy Detroit
Financial Post
Posted: February 05, 2009, 10:00 PM by NP Editor
 Encourage China to invest in the Big Three, to ensure their survival through the use of Chinese components

By Maurice F. Strong  (for clarity, this article appears in full)

It is surely clear that the bailout of the U.S. automobile industry will not resolve its fundamental problems. But it could provide the time for a new approach that accords with the realities of the industry and can contribute to a resolution of its problems.While I would not pretend to be an expert on the automobile industry, the close association I have had with it and my concern with its impacts on the environment — particularly the risks of climate change — have convinced me that radical changes are needed in the design and the use of automobiles. The need is particularly urgent in making the transition from fossil fuels to more environmentally benign alternatives and to develop new people-friendly approaches to transportation.

It would be unrealistic to expect that this can be done by denying ownership to people in China, India and other developing countries. The automobile industry is experiencing a growth that can be slowed down and rationalized but cannot be stopped. A prime example: The need to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions from autos is urgent and immediate. It cannot be achieved without giving high priority to the development of alternatives to oil and gas as their fuel, and to improved judgment and greater care in vehicle utilization. To be sure, some promising technologies and approaches are being developed, but thus far none are being developed on a scale that can be expected to meet this need in sufficient time.

The current crisis in the industry makes it possible to break new ground in resolving this fundamental dilemma in ways that would have been seen as unrealistic before the crisis. The Chinese have always regarded crises as creating opportunities. Now China could play a major role in helping to rescue the U.S. automobile industry while contributing to resolving the economic and environmental issues confronting the industry worldwide.

China’s domestic industry has been developing rapidly. Chinese companies are already moving into international markets and are inevitably targeting the U.S. market. While they have yet to meet the rigorous quality standards required, it is only a matter of time before they achieve this. In the meantime, the Chinese have provided U.S. and other foreign companies with some of their most profitable markets. And companies of both countries confront the challenge of leading the transition to the post fossil-fuels era.

All of this, I contend, provides a unique opportunity for a new era of co-operation between the Chinese and the North American auto industries in which others, like India, could also participate.

The main elements of such an agreement would be:

1.  Encourage and facilitate China to make major investments in General Motors, Ford and Chrysler that would enable them to reconstruct and revitalize their companies on a basis that would ensure their survival and competitiveness, including the use of Chinese components. This would be done through investment by, or joint ventures with, leading Chinese companies.

2.  The U.S. and Canadian markets would be opened on a selective basis to Chinese automobiles, which would be marketed through the General Motors, Ford and Chrysler dealer networks, restoring the viability and profitability of dealerships afflicted by the industry crisis.

3.  The U.S. companies would have their established positions in the China market secured. They would obtain the right to expand their production and distribution in that market in co-operation with their Chinese partners.

4. The United States, Canada and China would agree to undertake and support a co-operative program of technological development in which their main companies would lead. These developments would be designed to produce a new generation of environmentally benign, people-friendly automobiles with particular focus on the development of alternatives to fossil fuels as well as alternative approaches to personal transportation

There is no question that the negotiation of such an agreement, involving the governments of the countries as well as their industry leaders, would be difficult and complex. But the massive economic and environmental benefits that would accrue to them, and indeed to the entire world, provide a powerful incentive to undertake it. The new administration in the United States and the demonstrated capacity of the Chinese government to manage the processes of fundamental change make this challenging opportunity unique.

Financial Post
Maurice Strong is a founding director of the United Nations Environment Program and a past president of Petro-Canada.

Mr. Strong’s Bio at his Earth Council Alliance
Mr. Strong founded the Earth Council in 1992 after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, and is now extending that leadership with a new mandate to unite local councils and affiliated organizations under the Earth Council Alliance with co-founder Tommy E. Short. In addition, he is currently spending much of his time in China in his role as advisor to government, business and United Nations organizations. He also is a special advisor to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, as well as chairman of the council, University for Peace, affiliated with United Nations.

A Canadian and international businessman, Mr. Strong was catapulted onto a world stage in the early 1970s through his work with the United Nations.
From November 1970 until December 1972, Mr. Strong was Secretary- General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, the Stockholm conference on sustainability. He subsequently became the first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme.

And from 1990 to 1993, he was Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development – the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro – as the focus widened to economic, social, and environmental factors in meeting sustainability goals. Since 1985, he has been an Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations. In 1985 and 1986, he was concurrently Executive Co-Founder, Chairman Emeritus Biography.

Coordinator of the United Nations Office for Emergency Operations in Africa and a member of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Earlier in his career Mr. Strong served in investment and senior management positions with corporations in the energy and financial sectors.
He was president of the Power Corporation of Canada before leaving in 1966 to head Canada’s External Aid Office, later reorganized as the Canadian International Development Agency.

Mr. Strong returned to Canada as president, chairman and CEO of Petro-Canada (1976-78). He served as Chairman of the International Energy Development Corporation from 1980 to 1983 and of the Canada Development Investment Corporation from 1982 to 1984.


His book – Where On Earth Are We Going – was published in 2002.
( listing: )



APRIL 4, 2001
Veon: What kind of preparation did you do in 1970 for 1972 meeting and 1990-1991 for the 1992 meeting?
Strong: Well there was a preparatory process in both instances. In case of Stockholm, the whole issue was just new on the international agenda so we needed to prepare people politically to deal with it….Preparation to deal with the actual issues, for example; initiation of a negotiation process which eventually produced the Framework on Convention on Climate Change, and the Framework Convention Biodiversity and then led to a new negotiation process which finally produced a Convention on Desertification, a problem of great concern of developing countries and so and then there was the negotiations of what we call Agenda 21, the Agenda for the 21st Century which was Painstakingly negotiated, every word of it, negotiated by governments. ….The developing countries, not only at the Stockholm Conference were concerned that the issue was really an issue for the industrialized countries and one that would divert attention and divert resources away from their primary preoccupations with the elimination of poverty and getting on with their own developing process not having it inhibited by this new fad called environment. Whereas at Rio, the same issue prevailed but it had a lot more meat on it because by that stage the developing countries did understand the issue they realized that they, too, were being affected by it, but they took a even stronger position that they were not the main cause of the problem and therefore they couldn t be expected to do it on their own, to move on to a sustainable development pathway without help from the North help in terms of money, yes help in terms of access to technologies, and they insisted that if they were going to join in effort to create a better, more sustainable development pathway for the whole human community, that they needed to have access to the funds and to the technology that would enable them to do that.
Rather, America will roll up its sleeves as a world leader, not only in terms of economic and military power, but also the world leader in impacting the environment. Americans contribute 25% of the greenhouse gases that affect the atmosphere. Americans use twice as much energy per capita than Europeans. Europeans live very well they have a very good standard of living which demonstrates that you can, in fact, be more efficient in your use of energy by enjoying very robust economies and good standards of living. Americans haven t yet recognized that. But Americans are sensible and I believe…

Veon: Won’t biodiversity and smart growth implementation of smart growth help us with energy?
Strong: Absolutely and also paradox, we are going to see higher energy prices, and higher energy prices will provide a very strong incentive for people to use energy more efficiently [JV: like giving a dog a bone]. Not that one should advocate high prices, but high prices are not all bad, they will permit people, and even [encourage] people to use energy more efficiently. I ran a large power utility company. We spent 700 million dollars teaching our clients to be more energy efficient which means using our product more efficiently and that means using less of a product. Why would we do that? One, because it actually keeps our customers more economically valuable. And if they are more economically valuable they may use less electricity but their going to be customers for a lot longer period. And their volubility as customers is important to us. So helping them come more valuable by being more efficient in their energy use makes sense. I was criticized for this but it made sense for us. And it makes sense for America to use energy and to provide it so you don t have to force people to do it. But you can make them more aware, you can show them how better use of energy makes sense for them and also meets their bottom line as corporations and as individuals. You know there s an abundance of evidence today that the most efficient corporations in environmental terms are those that are also the most efficient in industrial terms. The two things go together, industrial efficiency produces environmental efficiency. Environmental efficiency contributes to industrial efficiency all that contributes to the bottom line of corporations, of countries, societies. Now of course that isn t expected by everybody. Its not yet conventional wisdom but literally hundreds of Chief Executive Officers now believe in it, and are committed to it. Stockholm there are very few industrial business leaders who really were pro-environmental. Now there still not a majority, but the majority at least take it seriously and are out in front. I remember the CEO of Dupont saying at the time of the summit, Our present industrial civilization is not viable. We need to make a change of course. Then he went on to explain that the change, of course, will produce more opportunities for business then it fore closes. That it will meet, and that this is the new generation of opportunity for business America should be in the lead. America is a great nation, The world can never be a better world than America. But America cannot be a better America without cooperating with the rest of the world.

Veon: Who is running it?
Strong: Well my former Deputy and colleague, Nitsin Desai. Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs at the UN and who was my Deputy and who actually did most of the effective work in preparing for Rio, He is in charge. He has a good secretariat and then the governments are creating their governmental preparatory committee and I believe they have now agreed on a very outstanding Indonesian environmental leader Emil Salad (sp) I am not sure if that is official yet but it seems to be in the works. He is extremely confident, he has the respect of other environmental officials from around the world as well as the non governmental community. So there s a good team in place but, frankly, the time is very short and the attitude of rest of this stage is certainly an anonymous one as to what we have to celebrate next year in Johannesburg. Will Johannesburg be an occasion to celebrate the progress we have made or to demonstrate dramatically or how much we have slipped back.

Veon: You haven t slipped back have you? Look sustainable development It is in everyones vocabulary. I mean 10 years ago it was only in a few at the international level. You hear it everywhere sustainable growth, sustainable corporations. You have United States, implementing the biodiversity in forms of Smart Growth. I mean so what……
Strong: There has been a lot of progress. I mean overall. For example, you look at the targets under the Climate Change Convention, they have not been reached and they are not going to be reached. If you look at the progress under the Biodiversity Convention, yes some progress, but very little progress in terms of the intellectual property issues for example. I am not trying to suggest that there is no progress. For example, you say unsustainable government more than 3,000 cities and towns around the world have adopted their own Local Agenda 21 based on the Earths Summits Global Agenda 21. So yes, there s progress a number of corporations, the number of industries but all of that is good but overall the condition of the environment is deteriorating because the forces driving it which are population growth in developing countries and even more so the continued addiction of our industrialized societies too wasteful.


Maurice Strong named in UN oil-for-food report News Staff Date: Thursday Sep. 8, 2005

The inquiry into the UN’s scandal-ridden oil-for-food program has found that Canadian businessman Maurice Strong accepted a personal cheque for nearly $1-million US from a controversial businessman who was working closely with the Iraqi regime.

Korean-born Tongsun Park, who has since been charged with influence-peddling for Saddam Hussein, allegedly carried $1 million US in cash out of Iraq in July 1997.

He reportedly took the cash to a Jordanian bank in a plastic bag where he deposited it before writing “Mr. M. Strong” on a cheque for $988,885 to purchase a stake in Cordex Petroleum Inc., a company controlled by the Strong family.

According to the report, Park was given the cash by then-Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz, who gave him $1-million US in a cardboard box to be used in the regime’s campaign to win favourable treatment from the UN.

The report, which was delivered to the UN Security Council Wednesday, said there was circumstantial evidence that Strong was in a position to know that the money came from Iraq, but concluded there was no “direct evidence” that he knew where the money came from or if Park was trying to buy his influence.

However the independent inquiry said the relationship between Strong, who served as a close advisor to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and Park raised troubling questions regarding conflict of interest among UN officials.

In July 2005, Strong lost his job as top UN envoy for North Korea after the oil-for-food investigation revealed his previous involvement with Park.

.. Wednesday’s report by the committee headed by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker criticized the UN Security Council and Annan for allowing Hussein’s regime to bilk some $10.2-billion US during the $64-billion US oil-for-food program.

The report claims that at least $8-billion US of the pilfering was the result of smuggling, which Security Council members were aware of and failed to stop.


In this copyrighted article Terry Melanson says in the section entitled Maurice Strong and the “Agenda”:
In 1992 Maurice Strong was the Secretary General of the historic United Nations (UNCED) Earth conference in Rio. This gathering featured an international cast of powerful figures in the environmental movement, government, business, and entertainment. Maurice Strong’s wife Hannah, was involved in the NGO alternative meeting at the Summit called Global Forum ’92. The Dalai Lama opened the meeting and, according to author Gary Kah, to ensure the success of the forum, Hanne Strong held a three-week vigil with Wisdomkeepers, a group of “global transformationalists.” Through round-the-clock sacred fire, drumbeat, and meditation, the group helped hold the “energy pattern” for the duration of the summit.
It was hoped that an Earth Charter would be the result of this event. This was not the case, however an international agreement was adopted – Agenda 21 – which laid down the international “sustainable development” necessary to form a future Earth Charter agreement. Maurice Strong hinted at the overtly pagan agenda proposed for a future Earth Charter, when in his opening address to the Rio Conference delegates he said, “It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light.” [note: Alice Bailey, and Blavatsky before her, used these terms often. Their writings state that the ‘force of darkness’ are those who adhere to the ‘out-dated’ Judeo-Christian faith; those who continue along their ‘separative’ paths of the one true God. The ‘force of light’ (Lucifer), in their view, is the inclusive new age doctrine of a pagan pantheistic New World Religion. In the New Age of Aquarius there will be no room for the ‘force of darkness’ and ‘separativeness’.] “We must therefore transform our attitudes and adopt a renewed respect for the SUPERIOR LAWS OF DIVINE NATURE,” Strong finished with unanimous applause from the crowd.
Despite the disappointing setback of no official agreement toward a “peoples Earth Charter”, Maurice Strong forged ahead, with Rockefeller backing, to form his Earth Council organization for the express purpose of helping governments implement UNCED’s sustainable development which Agenda 21 had outlined. Agenda 21 was perhaps the biggest step taken to facilitate any future “enforcement” of a patently pagan Earth Charter. According to Strong “the Charter will stand on it’s own. It will be in effect, to use an Anglo-Saxon term, the Magna Carta of the people around the Earth. But, it will also, we hope, lead to action by the governments through the United Nations.”


The Earth Charter and the Ark of the Gaia Covenant
 © Terry Melanson Nov. 6, 2001


Do not stop here- You won’t believe what’s in part 2 . This database is continued here

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

15 Responses to “Maurice Strong – Man Behind Agenda 21- Part 1”

RSS Feed for Soldier For Liberty Comments RSS Feed

[…] don’t recognize that name, it’s crucial you make his acquantance: Maurice Strong  1 2 3 4 5 […]

you should watch “World Conspiracy” with
Jessy Ventura. TRU TV Dec 16, 09

Yes, I watched. It was AWESOME Tonight!

Very nice resource, thank you! Noticed someone clicked through to your site via a “possibly related posts”, so added a link to this page here:
You might also be interested in some of the ClimateGate/Climate-Propaganda posts here:
Tofu Charlie

[…] For Liberty blog is collecting info on Maurice Strong, “The Man Behind Agenda 21″ [UN sustainable development programme, voted on at the Rio '92 Earth Summit – full text, […]

Maurice Strong is a fraud, he is a motor mouth.
Read between the lines of his so called bio.
He is a front man a beard for the Rothschild-Rockefeller banking syndicate.
A conduit of money laundering between Rothschild-Rockefeller banking syndicate and the think tanks they fund.
He was indicted in the Oil-For-Food scandal investigated
by a close business associate James Wolfensohn.
Think about it, he is a supposed bbillionare
who gets his hand caught in the Food for Oil scam cookie jar for a million bucks.
Was his allowance not enough, was he reminded
who was the boss ?
And was it leverage to get his ass back in gear.
This clown ran and hid in Communist China
to avoid prosecution but still is constantly involved with the U.N.

His business career doesn’t add up unless he is just a former bum-boy turned front man.

Unbelievable! I am shocked.

It is vital to understand Strong’s push for his one world agenda and his anti-capitalism rant. We also note this concides wirh Obama’s agenda to radically change America from the capitalism that has made America the greatest nation on this planet into the marxist/socialist coubtry he envisions.

[…] includes articles from the Canadian press: Maurice Strong – Man Behind Agenda 21- Part 1 Posted on October 19, 2009. (…) The new world […]

These people are in positions of extreme power and have the ears of all governments.The normal everyday person would not and could not ever fathom the lunacy of these people and so they dismiss them as unimportant to their lives.This is why they are winning this battle.I pray someone in authority will step to the plate and gather the forces of good and lead the charge against these lunatics.

We are fighting this in NH tooth and nail.

Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: