July 29, 2011
The term Sustainable is thrown around an awful lot lately. For many, “sustainable living” can bring to mind any number of images. For me, I used to think of organic gardening and crop rotation. Mainly, a process is considered sustainable when it can be done without creating excess waste, considers “unseen” concerns, and simultaneously uses the energy it needs to function in such a way as to either meet or exceed the required amount necessary for production. However, the term “Sustainable Development” describes a specific series of public policy objectives designed by the United Nations. As defined by the “World Commission on Environment and Development”, sustainable development is:
“Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
According to the U.N., this is best accomplished by international legislation with sweeping changes in the entire structure of our society, all in the name of these goals:
1.) Protect the environment
2.) Stimulate economic development
3.) Promote social equity
Who could possibly have a problem with these goals? When we as people do not engage with our environment harmoniously, negative results result for humans. Not to mention, I would love to stimulate the economy! As far as social equity goes, I am a firm believer that we are all equal unto each other, brothers and sisters under the Eternal Only God.
However, as is often the case with things that seem too good to be true, these terms have very different meanings when taken in the context of the United Nations version of “Sustainable Development”. Let’s review each of these goals individually, for the terms are deceiving to the average man intentionally.
Firstly, take the stated goal to “protect the environment”. The word “environment” does not mean untouched nature only, as many of us naturally believe. “Environment” means the entire eco-system of the earth, including our human economy, population, goods, services, as well as all touched and untouched natural space on our entire planet earth. And what do they mean by “protect”? Protect does not mean to keep safe, or even to keep human production in harmony with our environment. “Protect” means to keep off limits to the general population. The masses will be unable to use it, visit it, or in any way enact with it, unless they are allowed to do so by the U.N. In fact, untouched natural landscape will be completely off-limits to any human interaction whatsoever unless they are U.N. officers. To accomplish these totalitarian goals, the U.N. will need complete authority and ownership of the environment. And so you see, when we investigate the term “protect the environment”, it really means “give the UN total power over the earth”.
The second goal, “Stimulate economic growth”, is also misleading. The kind of “economic growth” they are referring to is not the free-market economy you and I think about. It is the new world economic system, where we will all operate under a single fiat currency, and the only jobs available will be for U.N. sponsored corporations.The main reason this goal seems to be included is to make the rest of its Agenda more palatable to the uninformed. The main reason “Sustainable Development” will stimulate the economy is because there will be a natural need for workers to execute this new world order, which will naturally create positions that need to be filled, thereby “stimulating”. However, this is only dealing with the “seen” aspects of “development”, as we shall discuss later.
Even the goal of “social equity” is not the social equality that Dr. King dreamed of. Social equity, under the guise of creating equality and ensuring individual needs, in truth suggests that we should all work for the benefit of the collective state. In truth they want us to work for the state for free, and do so in order to own nothing, and with no hope for advancement in our position. The culmination of all inequality is a group of people oppressed as slaves under their rulers. And we would all be slaves under the U.N.
In Rio de Janiero, 1992, a summit was held between various UN agencies in conjunction with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature for the purpose of creating a policy document for sustainable development. Known as the Rio Earth Summit, this meeting created the now infamous document Local Agenda 21. Also known as Agenda 21, this document outlines the recommendations for future development that the UN has deemed “sustainable”, and calls for a major restructuring of society, with cooperation on the part of every level of government with these “sustainable” goals.
In order to harmonize American development with Agenda 21, Bill Clinton created the Presidents Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) in June 1993. This consisted of 12 cabinet secretaries, all from corporate or environmentalist organizations. The PCSD operated through the 90’s, and is responsible for promoting “Sustainable Development” throughout the government via publications such as “Sustainable America: A New Consensus” (1996), and the follow ups “Building on Consensus”, and “The Road to Sustainable Development”.
To help facilitate the move into a sustainable world, federal grants and subsidies were offered by the EPA and other Federal agencies to create Non Government Organizations and Foundations specifically formed to promote and help development of “Sustainable Development”. This created a thriving economy of Non Government Organizations (NGO’s) such as the American Planning Association, which received $3,885,093 to promote “Sustainable Development”. As you can imagine, this is a great incentive to align your policies with your funding. NGO’s such as The Sustainable Resource Center and the Institute for Sustainable Development receive millions of dollars in grants for the expressed purpose of forwarding the goals of Agenda 21. Federal grants are not only given to NGO’s, however. Through “visioning” and “challenge” grants, local governments are enticed into starting to develop their neighborhoods into a “sustainable” communities. Often, these grants will go to planning departments and universities in order to ensure a return on the investment. This is happening in your locality right now.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) says this of NGO’s:
“Since its inception, UNESCO has recognized that non-governmental organizations and foundations which have concerns close to its own play an important role in international cooperation in the service of peoples.
“For more than a half-century, UNESCO has woven a valuable tapestry of cooperative relations with a number of such organizations in its fields of competence, thereby enabling it to work with civil society in achieving its objectives and to disseminate through them its democratic and ethical ideals.”
Mainly, these NGO’s will exert their influence locally through a process known as “Visioning”. This process consists of a town hall style meeting between “stakeholders” in sustainable development, all chosen by an NGO facilitator. “Stakeholders” are generally members of local government agencies, along with representatives from business, finance, education, etc. Along with these chosen officials, key members from environmental groups and “social justice” organizations are invited to attend.
These visioning process meetings are designed to make it appear as though Agenda 21 is being implemented from the ground up, rather than the top down. However, the Local planning meetings always come to the same solutions outlined by Agenda 21. The “stakeholders” that are chosen are all known proponents of the goals desired, and this is no accident. In fact, stakeholders who are sympathetic to the cause are chosen openly and on purpose, because they say that the old way of doing things created “gridlock”. This is seen as detrimental to a process with such beneficial goals as Agenda 21. In order to avoid this gridlock, the panel is decided about the outcome before the process begins.
Once the visioning process is complete, the next step is to convert it into a Comprehensive land use plan, adopted by local elected officials in the form of an ordinance that is enforceable with fines and other penalties. What are these beneficial goals that are so vital, so important, so essential to our survival that all deliberation be swept aside in its favor?
According to the U.N., the ideal community as described in Agenda 21 is a city where everything is run by the government. Instead of cars, public transportation systems will exist. Instead of houses and personal property, people will be stacked into housing projects; built to “sustainable” codes, of course. Instead of individual farmers, local growers and backyard hobbyists, there will be certain plots of land sectioned off for farming, all designed and run by the government, of course. All of this food will be grown using chemicals, genetic modification, and pesticides. Instead of a free-market operating on supply, demand, and self interest, you will be able to decide your future from a list of various government sponsored corporations and subsidized businesses.
Agenda 21 also outlines the creation of a standing world army under the command of the UN secretary General. Additionally, the United Nations calls for disarmament of nations under the guises of peace, when in reality the UN remains as armed as ever (and more). This is the crux of all “disarmament” discussions, and gun control laws already in effect.
The IMF, World Bank, Development programs, and World Trade Organization will be consolidated into an “economic security council”. This council will preside over a singular world currency, and have sole authority over the world economy. Similar plans are outlined for the education system, the health care system, etc.
Even the environmental legislation that they have proposed is preposterous. We all want there to be a natural landscape for us to be able to visit, camp, and enjoy desire (which is certainly what fuels the support of countless hippies). However, the Wildlands Project suggested a system of biosphere wilderness areas that will be completely off limits to anyone but the U.N., surrounded by buffer zones of limited public population activity. The Wildlands Project called for 50% of North America to be turned into wilderness areas of this nature, all connected by wilderness corridors. Just this past week, Obama put this project on hold, but two other Senators are re-introducing it under a different name.
In the light of recent events in Arizona, please note that these “protected” areas which are off-limits to the general public are used heavily by drug runners for different cartels. It is a well documented fact that the intelligence community is dealing drugs. Because of the “off-limits” status of Federal lands, these corridors can be used for black operations. This is evidenced by our most recent fires in Arizona, which were lit by (allegedly) Mexican drug cartel runners who lit a back fire because they were being pursued. It is also worth mentioning that when areas like this are destroyed, development that was not possible before can be proposed. I wonder what development codes will be used to rebuild?
WITH WHAT MONEY?
It is not uncommon for people to think that just because money can be printed by the government, then they expect that it is printed in order to match the costs needed for government programs. The truth is far less mysterious. The government has no money; NONE AT ALL. The only money that the government has is that which it is allocated to receive through taxes, fees, and tolls imposed on the working population and economy. Even if money is “printed” often, it cannot be printed for every task “ad nauseum”. If money were printed like this, then it would be so abundant that it would be worth less than its paper. Even when a government does choose to print money for a given scenario, the hope is that said money will circulate through the system, bringing economic energy wherever it is needed, and make its way back into the hands of the government as well.
So, where will the funding come for all this “smart growth”? Taxes, fees, and tolls imposed on the working class slaves that will continue keeping the economy turning. It could be argued that the taxes and fees imposed are the cost of government, and is one of the best investments a citizen can make. In response, I would like to quote the great French 19th century economist Claude Frédéric Bastiat. In fact, his work is so appropriate to our current situation, that I will take the liberty to quote his work at length:
“In the economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause—it is seen. The others unfold in succession—they are not seen: it is well for us if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference—the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen and also of those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil…
“The advantages which officials advocate are those that are seen. The benefit that accrues to the dispensers is still that which is seen. This blinds all eyes. But the disadvantages which the taxpayers have to bear are those that are not seen. And the injury that results from it to the providers is still that which is not seen, although this ought to be self-evident. When an official spends for his own account an extra hundred sous, it implies that a taxpayer spends for his account a hundred sous less. But the expense of the official is seen, because the act is performed, while that of the taxpayer is not seen, because, alas! he is prevented from performing it.
“You compare the nation, perhaps to a parched tract of land, and the tax to a fertilizing rain. So be it. But you ought also to ask yourself where are the sources of this rain, and whether it is not the tax itself which draws away the moisture from the ground and dries it up? Again, you ought to ask yourself whether it is possible that the soil can receive as much of this precious water by rain as it loses by evaporation? There is one thing very certain, that when John Q. Citizen counts out a hundred sous for the tax-gatherer, he receives nothing in return. Afterwards, when an official spends these hundred sous, and returns them to John Q. Citizen, it is in exchange for an equal value in corn or labor. The final result is a loss to John Q. Citizen of five francs.
“It is very true that often, perhaps very often, the official performs for John Q. Citizen an equivalent service. In this case there is no loss on either side; there is merely an exchange. Therefore, my arguments do not at all apply to useful functionaries. All I say is—if you wish to create an office, prove its utility. Show that its value to John Q. Citizen, by the services which it performs for him, is equal to what it costs him. But, apart from this intrinsic utility, do not bring forward as an argument the benefit that it confers upon the official, his family, and his providers; do not assert that it encourages labor. When John Q. Citizen gives a hundred sous to a Government officer for a really useful service, it is exactly the same as when he gives a hundred sous to a shoemaker for a pair of shoes. But when John Q. Citizen gives a hundred sous to a Government officer, and receives nothing for them unless it be annoyances, he might as well give them to a thief. It is nonsense to say that the Government officer will spend these hundred sous to the great profit of national labor; the thief would do the same; and so would John Q. Citizen, if he had not been stopped on the road by the extra-legal parasite, nor by the lawful sponger. Let us accustom ourselves, then, to avoid judging of things by what is seen only, but to judge of them by that which is not seen.”
- “That Which Is Seen, And That Which Is Not Seen”, by Bastiat
THIS IS IT
And so, in regards to “Sustainable Development”, it is clear that we are dealing with serious legislation, which will have serious effects on our daily lives. This short article is not even able to give you a basic synopsis of what is being implemented through “Local” action, and how it will change our world. For those of us who have been studying the “conspiracy”, world government, the U.N., and all the rest, this is it. This is the culmination of everything the unseen hand has been working for, and how they will implement it. This is the New World Order, and it has already happened, is happening, and if we aren’t active locally, we will lose everything within our generation.
Please, do not take this legislation lightly. Investigate “Sustainable Development” in your community. Stakeholders will deny that “Sustainable Development” has anything to do with Agenda 21, which is absolutely ridiculous. The Presidents Council for Sustainable Development was created to implement Agenda 21 in America. Additionally, local officials are most likely unaware of the reality that is facing our communities. We must learn, educate, and DO NOT LEGISLATE!
You must look into your local governments and find out how “Sustainable Development” is being enacted in your community. I assure you, it is. Some keyword’s to look for:
- Smart Growth
- Comprehensive Land Use Planning
Once you identify a planning committee, you can call them and ask to attend the planning meeting. You can also just walk into your local city hall and start asking questions, but you may run into a firestorm. You may want to approach a local organization that shares your interests. I recommend that you be wary, however; for there are many wolves in sheep’s clothing… Nevertheless, you may be able to find other individuals in those organizations that you can build alliances with. In any case, doing nothing is not an option anymore. We must work.
We will continue this discussion in part 2…(Note: Due to the length of this series, we will do a dedicated Bibliography at the end).