Throughout history there have always been totalitarian schemes, such as feudalism, communism and fascism, where the few con artists at the top live in luxury while the rest of civilization surrenders — it’s just a question of how to convince citizens that it’s to their benefit to live in serfdom.

In the preface in Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World,” Huxley explains who will convince citizens to live in serfdom: “A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which an all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers.”

At the Sixth Party Congress held in Moscow in 1928, the Communist International approved “The Program,” which called for a global environmental program to bring about their New World Order. These con artists were selling the idea of a world without nations, without nationalities, without borders, without competition … without freedom. They wanted an all-powerful one-world hierarchy of regional governances to control every aspect of human life on Earth, forever.

Why did the communists want a global environmental program? It’s simple. Whomever controls resources controls people. If these con artists could convince citizens that mankind was just another animal destroying the environment, and that the only solution was their bureaucratic handlers controlling land and resources, what kind of lifestyle would citizens be willing to live to save the Earth?

From the Soviet Union’s 1977 Constitution: “In the interests of the present and future generations, the necessary steps are taken … to protect and make scientific, national use of the land and its mineral and water resources, and the plant and animal kingdoms to preserve the purity of air and water, ensure reproduction of natural wealth, and improve human development.” Soviet con artists believe improving human development means controlling every aspect of it.

In “Earth in the Balance,” Al Gore wrote that we should “use every policy and program, every law and institution, every treaty and alliance, every tactic and strategy, every plan and course of action — to use, in short, every means to halt the destruction of the environment and the preserve and nurture our ecological system.” Would Gore’s ends-justify-the-means environmental agenda include a film and Nobel Peace Prize?

Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor for British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, was influential in the British court ruling that requires teachers showing Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” to call it a “political work” and describe nine blatant falsehoods in the film. Monckton is now warning about the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Dec. 7-18. According to Monckton, attendees will use “global warming hype” to sign what he believes will be an “institutional framework for an un-elected supreme communist-style world government.”

Last May, I spoke with Holly Swanson, author of “Set Up and Sold Out: Find Out What Green Really Means.” Swanson, an environmental activist for 10 years before researching her book, told me the environmental movement had been politically “hijacked” and our government’s “sustainable” solutions to environmental problems are intended to lead America into “communism.”

“Set Up and Sold Out” references United Nations Agenda 21, which was signed onto by President H.W. Bush at the UN Rio Earth Summit in 1992, and implemented by the Clinton administration in 1993. Using fear of climate change and overpopulation, Agenda 21 essentially calls for international control over land use, resources and population. According to Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, both the Republican and Democratic parties are fully behind Agenda 21. Every federal agency is under Agenda 21 “sustainable” directives (including education), and there is a “master plan” for every county in the United States.

I asked Michael Shaw, president of Freedom Advocates, to speak on sustainable development at the Healthcare and Liberty Forum, Sept. 3, at Veterans Memorial Park in Napa. Shaw, who worked for the Agenda 21 program in Santa Cruz, has been warning about Agenda 21’s “global-to-local” network of un-elected, unaccountable Soviet-like councils and their threat to our private property rights and freedom. Shaw said that Napa County is further along the Agenda 21 process than any county in the United States.

Register reporter Natalie Hoffman attended the forum but failed to report on Shaw’s talk, focusing on the health care debate instead. I e-mailed Hoffman, requesting comprehensive articles on Agenda 21 so that citizens are aware of Agenda 21’s history and implementation process in Napa County. Nothing yet — but then again, what did Huxley say the task of newspaper editors and schoolteachers would be?

(Eggers lives in Napa.)