Comment: So, basically...

(See in situ)

So, basically...

What the BLM can learn is a new management technique (Holistic Land Management).

That would involve - correct me if I'm wrong - "scientifically" based management control over the movement of all livestock.

According to Mr. Savory, Holistic Management International has given training to professionals from many Land Management Agencies - including BLM - in using the holistic framework and is pushing for federal policies on it's use by the Land Management Agencies:

"What is required is for the US to make such broad policy decision holistically — the only thing I know to be socially, environmentally, economically and scientifically sound and in the best interests or all citizens. As you saw in the lecture, a large sample of US professional people (2,000) from the Soil Conservation Service (now NRCS), Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs and land grant universities — after a week of training in how to analyse and formulate natural resource policies using the holistic framework — concluded that:

'They could now see that unsound resource management was universal in the United States.'

Tragically all that training in the use of a holistic decision making framework was stopped by the Reagan Administration and it desperately needs to be restarted if the US is to be serious about climate change, the desertification of the US, and it's claim to world leadership."

- Allan Savory, see more at:

The above excerpt is from an interview discussing a lecture given by Allan Savory that was sponsored by Feasta ("The foundation for the economics of sustainability")

Video of the lecture in full is available here:

If the BLM was to adopt this technique do you think they will have their name changed to the Bureau of Land and Livestock Management?

Did you notice that he uses the terms international and framework to describe his system, there are many global control frameworks being put in place and are at different stages in their development, for instance, here is another - somewhat related - video from Feasta with Alex Evans who's report on climate change and global institutional reform was published by the Center on International Co-operation earlier this year. He presented the case for basing a framework for dealing with the climate crisis on a scientifically derived stabilisation target."

Listening to these people often makes me wonder how on earth the world survived the period from it's birth up until now without the complete "scientific" global management of all resources (this of course would need to include human resources).

All, I repeat ALL of these NGO's, Foundations and Institutions are part of an international framework that is driving toward a "science based" global dictatorship. The organisational structure of which appears to be following along the lines of those suggested by many of the early proponents of Scientific Socialism.

One of those to consider this possibility was - for instance - Bertrand Russell, who in a book containing a series of his lectures on the subject entitled "THE IMPACT OF SCIENCE ON SOCIETY" sets out what he feels would be required in order to accomplish a scientifically organized world government dictatorship.

It really is quite a read:

This book is based upon lectures originally given at
Ruskin College, Oxford, England.

Three of these - Chapter I, "Science and Tradition," Chapter II, "General Effects of Scientific Techniques," and Chapter VI, "Science and Values" - were subsequently repeated at Columbia University, New York, and published by the Columbia University Press.

None of the other chapters have been published before in the United States.

The last chapter in the present book, "Can a Scientific Society be Stable?" was the Lloyd Roberts Lecture given at the Royal Society of Medicine, London.[this one is a doozy]

The book is available to download here:,%20illu...

What did the CFR have to say about Bertrand Russells' "New Hopes for a Changing World" essays? (Hopey Changey anyone?):