PDA

View Full Version : Article: The Trouble With "Sustainable Development"




LibertyEagle
09-15-2009, 06:38 AM
The Trouble With "Sustainable Development"
By Tom DeWeese
Published 09/14/09

TEA Parties and "End the Fed" Protests cannot win back the Republic without this information!

Many Americans appear to be awakening from their slumber of apathy as government forces are making their move for total control of our lives. Massive TEA Party protests on April 15th, followed by more than 1000 again on Independence Day, show a growing movement of concerned, dedicated Americans. But there is a major component missing from those protests. There is a nearly universal lack of understanding of the issue of Sustainable Development and the dangers it poses to our liberty. Consequently, that issue is being left out of the protests.

Meanwhile, as thousands attend the TEA Parties and protest the Federal Reserve, taxes, and out of control federal government, inside their local city halls, international forces are busy turning the communities into little soviets.

I have been traveling the nation over the past few months sounding the alarm that we cannot win this battle to restore our Republic if we don’t understand that what we face is not a bunch of random issues -- but a complete agenda of control -- Sustainable Development. Cap N Trade, global warming, population control, gun control, open borders and illegal immigration, higher taxes, higher gas prices, refusal to drill American oil, education restructuring, international IDs, natural health supplement control, food control, farming "reform," control of private property, NAIS and UN Global Governance are all part of the Sustainable Development/Agenda 21 blueprint.

To that end, I am focusing this entire issue on Sustainable Development to give activists all the ammunition they need to fight back. I am also including a list of more than 500 cities that are currently enacting Sustainable Development policies. If this is happening in your town (and it is), I urge you to challenge your local city council and mayor to stop these polices. The battles now must be fought on the local level. Remove Sustainable Development from every community and policies out of the federal government will be neutralized. And only then can we be on our way to restoring the American Republic. ------ Tom DeWeese

Sustainable Development: The root of all our problems

In his book, Earth in the Balance, Al Gore warned that a "wrenching transformation" must take place to lead America away from the "horrors of the Industrial Revolution." The process to do that is called Sustainable Development and its’ roots can be traced back to a UN policy document called Agenda 21, adopted at the UN’s Earth Summit in 1992.

Sustainable Development calls for changing the very infrastructure of the nation, away from private ownership and control of property to nothing short of central planning of the entire economy -- often referred to as top-down control. Truly, Sustainable Development is designed to change our way of life.

In short, it’s all about wealth redistribution. Your wealth into a green rat hole.

During the Cold War, communists tried to get us to surrender our liberties and way of life for the wisdom of Karl Marx. Americans didn’t buy it.

But now, they have taken the same clap trap and wrapped it all in a nice green blanket, scaring us with horror stories about the human destruction of the environment -- and so we are now throwing our liberties on the bon fire like a good old fashioned book burning -- all in the name of protecting the planet.

It sounds so friendly. So meaningful. So urgent. But, the devastation to our liberty and way of life is the same as if Lenin ordered it.

We now have a new language invading our government at all levels. Old words with new meanings fill government policy papers. The typical city council meeting discusses "community development," "historic preservation," and "partnerships" between the city and private business.

Civic leaders organize community meetings run by "facilitators," as they outline a "vision" for the town, enforced by "consensus." No need for debate when you have consensus! People of great importance testify before congressional committees of the dire need for "social justice."

Free trade, social justice, consensus, global truth, partnerships, preservation, stakeholders, land use, environmental protection, development, diversity, visioning, open space, heritage, comprehensive planning, critical thinking, and community service are all part of our new language.

What are they really talking about? What mental pictures come to mind when those words are used? George Orwell realized that those who control language and manipulate key phrases can control policy.

The language is being changed and manipulated to quietly implement a very destructive policy. Whenever you see or hear these words, know that, in every case, they are defining one thing - the implementation of Sustainable Development.

Rather than good management of resources, Sustainable Development has come to mean denied use and resources locked away from human hands. In short, it has become a code word for an entire economic and social agenda.

I have spent most of the past 12 years studying every facet of this new political agenda which is fast becoming a revolution -- touching every aspect of our businesses, our public education system, our private property, our families and our individual lives.

Interestingly, it is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It’s not liberal or conservative. It is being implemented on a purely bipartisan basis. It is now the official policy of the United States, put in force by literally every department of the government. It is the official policy of every state government, and nearly every city, town and county in the nation.

But, I warn you, accepting the perception that Sustainable Development is simply good environmental stewardship is a serious and dangerous mistake.

So what is Sustainable Development? The Sustainablists insist that society be transformed into feudal-like governance by making nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society.

To achieve this, Sustainablist policy focuses on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control.

Keep in mind that America is the only country in the world based on the ideals of private property. But, private property is incompatible with the collectivist premise of Sustainable Development.

If you doubt that, then consider this quote from the report of the 1976 UN’s Habitat I conference which said: "Land. . . cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributes to social injustice."

According to Sustainablist doctrine, It is a social injustice for some to have prosperity if others do not. It is a social injustice to keep our borders closed. It is a social injustice for some to be bosses and others to be merely workers.

Social justice is a major premise of Sustainable Development. Another word for social justice, by the way, is Socialism. Karl Marx was the first to coin the phrase "social justice."

Some officials try to pretend that Sustainable Development is just a local effort to protect the environment -- just your local leaders putting together a local vision for the community. Then ask your local officials how it is possible that the exact language and tactics for implementation of Sustainable Development are being used in nearly every city around the globe from Lewiston, Maine to Singapore. Local indeed.

Sustainable Development is the process by which America is being reorganized around a central principle of state collectivism using the environment as bait.

The best way to understand what Sustainable Development actually is can be found by discovering what is NOT sustainable.

According to the UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report, items for our everyday lives that are NOT sustainable include: Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paved and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment (capitalism, free markets).

Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Rio Earth Summit in 1992 said, ". .. Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class -- involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air-conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable."

Are you starting to see the pattern behind Cap and Trade, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and all of those commercials you’re forced to watch about the righteousness of Going Green? They are all part of the enforcement if Sustainable Development.

And one of the most destructive tools they use to force it on us is something called the "precautionary principle." That means that any activities that might threaten human health or the environment should be stopped -- even if no clear cause and effect relationship has been established -- and even if the potential threat is largely theoretical.

That makes it easy for any activist group to issue warnings by news release or questionable report and have those warnings quickly turned into public policy -- just in case.

Many are now finding non-elected regional governments and governing councils enforcing policy and regulations. As these policies are implemented, locally-elected officials are actually losing power and decision-making ability in their own communities. Most decisions are now being made behind the scenes in non-elected "sustainability councils" armed with truckloads of federal regulations, guidelines, and grant money.

continued....


Read the rest, here:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=198

dantheman
09-15-2009, 07:58 AM
I don't like the idea of the government being in charge of a lot of things...

But isn't it possible to pursue "Sustainable Development" without the government being in charge? Shouldn't we want to pursue this concept since it gives back to the land that we take from?

Why is it dangerous because of somethin' Al Gore said. Forget him. These things are being embraced by guys like Joe Salatin and are going to be very important moving into our future (especially with the economy the way it is).

Dr.3D
09-15-2009, 08:21 AM
I don't like the idea of the government being in charge of a lot of things...

But isn't it possible to pursue "Sustainable Development" without the government being in charge? Shouldn't we want to pursue this concept since it gives back to the land that we take from?

Why is it dangerous because of somethin' Al Gore said. Forget him. These things are being embraced by guys like Joe Salatin and are going to be very important moving into our future (especially with the economy the way it is).

From the article:

Social justice is a major premise of Sustainable Development. Another word for social justice, by the way, is Socialism. Karl Marx was the first to coin the phrase "social justice."


Sustainable Development calls for changing the very infrastructure of the nation, away from private ownership and control of property to nothing short of central planning of the entire economy -- often referred to as top-down control. Truly, Sustainable Development is designed to change our way of life.

This is partly why it is dangerous.
Just that right there is enough to make me say no to such a thing.

pcosmar
09-15-2009, 08:30 AM
Dang, a few people actually get it.
I have been warning about Agenda 21 for some time. Most ignore it.

It is not about "Sustainable Development". It is about total control.


Sustainable Development is the process by which America is being reorganized around a central principle of state collectivism using the environment as bait.
This can be seen by those on this board that support it. They are buying the lie.



So what is Sustainable Development? The Sustainablists insist that society be transformed into feudal-like governance by making nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society.

To achieve this, Sustainablist policy focuses on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control.
And this is the core program for a One World Government, the NWO.

This is a very good article. I wish more here would take a serious look at the UN's Agenda 21.
The media has been mostly quiet about it.

jkr
09-15-2009, 08:39 AM
so solar film on our cars and houses are bad?


gee, that's what i really want to do

guess ill just make another loud rolling weather dominator to clogg the air somy wife cant breath...

loopsided arcticle

BillyDkid
09-15-2009, 09:32 AM
I don't like the idea of the government being in charge of a lot of things...

But isn't it possible to pursue "Sustainable Development" without the government being in charge? Shouldn't we want to pursue this concept since it gives back to the land that we take from?

Why is it dangerous because of somethin' Al Gore said. Forget him. These things are being embraced by guys like Joe Salatin and are going to be very important moving into our future (especially with the economy the way it is).
Except that "sustainable development" is a code phrase with a particular political meaning. There's sustainable development and there's "sustainable development".

BenIsForRon
09-15-2009, 09:39 AM
The ignorance in this thread is overwhelming. Sustainable development DOES NOT have it's roots in Agenda 21, it was an idea that people have been talking about in some capacity since industrialization, and it really took off in the 60's.

I am in the Sustainable Development program at my school, and we NEVER talk about government roles. When we talk about social justice, we talk about ways to empower people so they aren't dependent on multinational corporations. Like when people grow their own food and support farmer's markets and CSA's, that is a step to self empowerment and away from the enslaving structures set up by government and corporations.

And fuck you guys who say "You're drinking the kool-aid" just because I'm involved in the program. The sustainable development program has some of the most free thinkers in my university, and many of them are libertarians. Like Dan mentioned earlier, Joel Salatin is a very famous proponent of SD, and he is a staunch libertarian. He purposefully breaks many government regulations on his farm.

sevin
09-15-2009, 09:58 AM
so solar film on our cars and houses are bad?

gee, that's what i really want to do

guess ill just make another loud rolling weather dominator to clogg the air somy wife cant breath...

loopsided arcticle


The ignorance in this thread is overwhelming. Sustainable development DOES NOT have it's roots in Agenda 21, it was an idea that people have been talking about in some capacity since industrialization, and it really took off in the 60's.

I am in the Sustainable Development program at my school, and we NEVER talk about government roles. When we talk about social justice, we talk about ways to empower people so they aren't dependent on multinational corporations. Like when people grow their own food and support farmer's markets and CSA's, that is a step to self empowerment and away from the enslaving structures set up by government and corporations.

And fuck you guys who say "You're drinking the kool-aid" just because I'm involved in the program. The sustainable development program has some of the most free thinkers in my university, and many of them are libertarians. Like Dan mentioned earlier, Joel Salatin is a very famous proponent of SD, and he is a staunch libertarian. He purposefully breaks many government regulations on his farm.

It seems like you guys are missing point. It's not that sustainable development is bad, it's that the government uses it to trick ignorant masses into accepting more government control.

LibertyEagle
09-15-2009, 10:05 AM
I don't like the idea of the government being in charge of a lot of things...

But isn't it possible to pursue "Sustainable Development" without the government being in charge? Shouldn't we want to pursue this concept since it gives back to the land that we take from?

Why is it dangerous because of somethin' Al Gore said. Forget him. These things are being embraced by guys like Joe Salatin and are going to be very important moving into our future (especially with the economy the way it is).

Sure. But, you have to understand that what is being pushed now IS being driven by the same people who we are fighting against. They get away with all this shit, just like they did when they funded the Environmental movement and so many others, by appealing to those who were good-hearted people, but people who did not look behind the curtain.

I myself, love animals, love the environment, and all the rest and yes, I walk my talk, but we have to be careful not to walk into the ploys of those who are using our passionate innocence to carry out their own agendas.

pcosmar
09-15-2009, 10:09 AM
Some links,
WHY ARE AMERICANS IGNORANT OF 'AGENDA 21'?
http://www.newswithviews.com/Morrison/joyce36.htm
Local Agenda 21
http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/la21_198.html

Speaking of Agenda 21 128k version (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4299496017777786958#)

And if you think this is old news, of forgotten. Think again.
http://www.agenda21now.org/index.php?section=project1

FunkBuddha
09-15-2009, 10:10 AM
I never really understood how any eviromentalist could be pro-government. Government is the epitome of waste and exploitation. A friend of mine asked me one time how a libertarian could be so enviro-friendly ( he is a progressive). I explained that I viewed protecting the environment as my personal responsibility. I then went on to explain how the US government is one of the largest if not the largest polluter in the world.

I've been trying to come up with a way to co-opt the SD movement. With TRUE sustainability comes self-sufficiency and with self-sufficiency comes independence. The less dependent people become the less they depend on Big Gov, Big Oil, Big Ag, Big Pharma, Military Industrial Complex etc...

LibertyEagle
09-15-2009, 09:27 PM
bump

Isaac Bickerstaff
09-15-2009, 09:55 PM
We can totally hijack the Sustainable Development discussion. It is so easy to point out how government and subsidized corporations are squandering resources and suppressing real solutions with their "incentives". The heroes of the "sustainability" movement all talk about controlling the population. DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT! Call them on their shit. Ask them why they have children and why they have not snuffed themselves for the good of the planet. Force them to admit that they think they are better than you. The people that are gullible enough to buy into their crap will be easy enough to win back to reality if we expose the Agenda 21 folks as the ghouls they are. Always make them look stupid by offering real solutions to the issues that have already been implemented.

BenIsForRon
09-15-2009, 09:59 PM
Though I'm mostly a libertarian, I DO believe that local and regional governments should set up strict zoning regulations. If we had smart zoning laws in the 40's, America would be much more efficient with energy and waste today.

Just look at suburban sprawl and the strip malls it brings with it. I swear, especially in the south, you can't tell the difference between a suburban area outside any two cities. They all look the same: walmart, target, mcdonalds... walmart, target, mcdonalds... whether you're in DC or Atlanta or Raleigh, it all looks the fucking same.

Changing zoning laws to restrict most flat land with rich soil to agricultural use would go a long way to solving this problem. Not everybody can afford a freaking land trust, we have to use state coercion to prevent devolopers from commiting violence against the land. Land that generations thousands of years in the future will need to live on.

BenIsForRon
09-15-2009, 10:01 PM
We can totally hijack the Sustainable Development discussion. It is so easy to point out how government and subsidized corporations are squandering resources and suppressing real solutions with their "incentives". The heroes of the "sustainability" movement all talk about controlling the population. DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT! Call them on their shit. Ask them why they have children and why they have not snuffed themselves for the good of the planet. Force them to admit that they think they are better than you. The people that are gullible enough to buy into their crap will be easy enough to win back to reality if we expose the Agenda 21 folks as the ghouls they are. Always make them look stupid by offering real solutions to the issues that have already been implemented.

Who the fuck are you talking about. When I think about leaders of the sustainability movment, I think of guys like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_salatin.

A libertarian mind you.

AGENDA 21 FTW!!!1!1111!

ladyliberty3
09-15-2009, 10:24 PM
I posted the link to the article the other day, had 2 comments, no one seemed to be interested. I can't help but feel that The Fed, health care reform, birth ceritificate questions, bailouts, and now the Acorn scandal, etc. are nothing more than smoke screens to divert everyone's attention and get everybody riled up over these things that aren't even going to matter once they get this stuff implemented into all the local governments.

BenIsForRon
09-15-2009, 10:27 PM
I posted the link to the article the other day, had 2 comments, no one seemed to be interested. I can't help but feel that The Fed, health care reform, birth ceritificate questions, bailouts, and now the Acorn scandal, etc. are nothing more than smoke screens to divert everyone's attention and get everybody riled up over these things that aren't even going to matter once they get this stuff implemented into all the local governments.

What are you talking about? Are you really scared of your local town council? Get real. The Rockefellers and Rothschilds need bigger guns than your local Board of Adjustments.

LibertyEagle
09-16-2009, 04:22 AM
http://www.magic-city-news.com/textfiles/sd-guide.pdf

An excerpt from Page 27:

"In contrast to the unalienable rights found in America's founding documents, the United Nations Charter and the Declaration of Human Rights are based on a very different idea: rights are granted and rescinded by men."

"However, for progress to be made in implementing Sustainable Development in the United States, unalienable rights such as the right to property must be eroded, attacked, and struck down altogether."

dantheman
09-16-2009, 05:35 AM
the thing is i don't believe i've ever heard any of the elites talk about this. Obama doesn't, Clinton doesn't, or even Henry Kissenger.

i DO HEAR sustainable development being talked about by guys like Michael Pollan, who are pointing out that due to our large use of chemicals we administer when growing food is leading to the deterioration of our land. he's talking about preserving the land, not putting us into camps. where's the globalist agenda in that?

LibertyEagle
09-16-2009, 05:41 AM
It's not what they're talking about in the media that you need to worry about the most. Much of that is distraction. What we really have to be worried about is what they're NOT talking about and is going on behind the scenes. Agenda 21 is one of those things. It is huge. Local laws have been harmonized with these mandates and very few have even noticed.

LibertyEagle
09-16-2009, 05:52 AM
What are you talking about? Are you really scared of your local town council? Get real. The Rockefellers and Rothschilds need bigger guns than your local Board of Adjustments.

Ben, check out the document I posted above. You really don't understand what is being talked about here. This is not about individual farmers and how they choose to farm.

DapperDan
09-16-2009, 10:04 AM
is this just as big as Codex Alimentarius? cause that's quite hush hush as well...

BenIsForRon
09-16-2009, 11:41 AM
Ben, check out the document I posted above. You really don't understand what is being talked about here. This is not about individual farmers and how they choose to farm.

I read the article, and it is full of strawmen. The author references no individuals. He talks about no individual policies that local governments have taken. He's just speaking in broad, unfair generalizations.

For example, he said that "Sustainablists" believe that resources must be taken from the rich to help the poor. That is bullshit. Most proponents of SD believe that we should take steps to help the poor become self sufficient, not just give them money or food. This can be done with things like NGO's and microloans, no need for government. Many SD proponents have a very limited view of governments role in this reformation.

My major concentration is sustianable development, so please, don't tell me I don't know what I'm talkin about.

Basically, I'm pissed of that this article is on C4L's website. C4L would do WAY better to adopt sustainability into it's platform, and talk about free market ways of achieving sustainable goals.

LibertyEagle
09-16-2009, 11:45 AM
I read the article, and it is full of strawmen. The author references no individuals. He talks about no individual policies that local governments have taken. He's just speaking in broad, unfair generalizations.

For example, he said that "Sustainablists" believe that resources must be taken from the rich to help the poor. That is bullshit. Most proponents of SD believe that we should take steps to help the poor become self sufficient, not just give them money or food. This can be done with things like NGO's and microloans, no need for government. Many SD proponents have a very limited view of governments role in this reformation.

My major concentration is sustianable development, so please, don't tell me I don't know what I'm talkin about.

Basically, I'm pissed of that this article is on C4L's website. C4L would do WAY better to adopt sustainability into it's platform, and talk about free market ways of achieving sustainable goals.

Did you read this?
http://www.magic-city-news.com/textfiles/sd-guide.pdf

Sustainable Development is fine if you want to exercise it yourself. But, if you want to use government force, then I'm sure you understand that it is not ok.

I think you are very wrong about this. I encourage you to check further into the UN's Agenda 21 and how your local laws have been harmonized to fit its requirements.

amy31416
09-16-2009, 11:58 AM
Personally, I think the largest obstacle to stopping Agenda 21-like mandates is that it is a good thing to be a conservationist, an environmentalist (not the wacky ones, you know what I mean), to recycle (usually), and to not take resources like water for granted. People who are unaware of the bad implications of A21 will think that we are, like many other Republicans, all for destroying everything in our path for things like oil.

We all know that is not the case, as many people here are conservationists, local food and alternative energy proponents.

But if we are aligned with the ordinary Republicans and even many Libertarians, who would easily destroy any efforts we make to increase awareness of such things. The mainstream environmental movement is huge and self-righteous. If we want to stop A21's goals, then we have to be careful how we go about it.

Thanks for starting this thread Nancy--I'll admit that I was only barely aware of what it was about.

LibertyEagle
09-16-2009, 12:08 PM
All good points, Amy. Thanks. :)

InterestedParticipant
09-16-2009, 12:09 PM
I read the article, and it is full of strawmen. The author references no individuals. He talks about no individual policies that local governments have taken. He's just speaking in broad, unfair generalizations.

For example, he said that "Sustainablists" believe that resources must be taken from the rich to help the poor. That is bullshit. Most proponents of SD believe that we should take steps to help the poor become self sufficient, not just give them money or food. This can be done with things like NGO's and microloans, no need for government. Many SD proponents have a very limited view of governments role in this reformation.

My major concentration is sustianable development, so please, don't tell me I don't know what I'm talkin about.

Basically, I'm pissed of that this article is on C4L's website. C4L would do WAY better to adopt sustainability into it's platform, and talk about free market ways of achieving sustainable goals.
Talk about your manufactured dialectics!!!! This entire concept of scarcity is right up there with UFO's and little green men.... it is utterly contrived in order to ram Agenda-21 down the publics throats and justify population reduction.


Environmentalism: cult of death
http://www.the-thinking-man.com/environmentalism.html

Make no mistake: environmentalism, with its attendant army of politicos all armed to the teeth with environmental laws, is the highroad to hell.

Before going all the way green, I urge you to take a longer look into exactly what horse you're backing here: it may very well turn out to be a horse of an entirely different color than you think.

Environmentalism is a philosophy that upholds a profound hatred of humankind. And here is what I mean:

"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs" (John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal).

"Mankind is a cancer; we're the biggest blight on the face of the earth" (past-president of PETA and environmental activist Ingrid Newkirk).

"If you haven't given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of **** Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species…. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental" (Ibid).

Quoting Richard Conniff, in the pages of Audubon magazine: "Among environmentalists sharing two or three beers, the notion is quite common that if only some calamity could wipe out the entire human race, other species might once again have a chance.”

Environmental theorist Christopher Manes (writing under the nom-de-guerre Miss Ann Thropy): "If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human population back to ecological sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS."

A speaker at one of Earth First!'s little cult gatherings: "Optimal human population: zero."

“Ours is an ecological perspective that views Earth as a community and recognizes such apparent enemies as ‘disease’ (e.g., malaria) and ‘pests’ (e.g., mosquitoes) not as manifestations of evil to be overcome but rather as vital and necessary components of a complex and vibrant biosphere … An antipathy to ‘progress’ and ‘technology.’ We can accept the pejoratives of ‘Luddite’ and ‘Neanderthal’ with pride…. There is no hope for reform of industrial empire…. We humans have become a disease: the Humanpox” (Dave Foreman, past head of Earth First!)

"Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn't true. Somewhere along the line we … became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth…. Until such time as **** Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." (Biologist David Graber, “Mother Nature as a Hothouse Flower” Los Angles Times Book Review).

“The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty ‘Good riddance!’” (Paul Taylor, "Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics").

"If we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism. I don't think it is possible under capitalism" (Judi Bari, of Earth First!).

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" (Maurice Strong, Earth Summit 91).

David Brower, former head of the Sierra Club and founder of Friends of the Earth, calls for developers to be "shot with tranquilizer guns.”

Why?

"Human suffering is much less important than the suffering of the planet," he explains.

Also from socialist Sierra Club: "The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope."

From the green party's first Presidential candidate Barry Commoner:

"Nothing less than a change in the political and social system, including revision of the Constitution, is necessary to save the country from destroying the natural environment…. Capitalism is the earth's number one enemy."

From Barry Commoner again:

"Environmental pollution is a sign of major incompatibility between our system of production and the environmental system that supports it. [The socialist way is better because] the theory of socialist economics does not appear to require that growth should continue indefinitely."

So much for your unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

“Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective” (Harvey Ruvin, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, Dade County Florida).

Sierra Club cofounder David Brower, pushing for his own brand of eugenics:

"Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."

That, if you don't know, is limited government environmentalist style.

"There's nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win. Then you write history" (Sierra Club board member Paul Watson).

Again from Paul Watson, writing in that propaganda rag Earth First! Journal: "Right now we're in the early stages of World War III…. It's the war to save the planet. The environmental movement doesn't have many deserters and has a high level of recruitment. Eventually there will be open war."

And:

"By every means necessary we will bring this and every other empire down! Mutiny and sabotage in defense of Mother Earth!"

Lisa Force, another Sierra Club board member and quondam coordinator of the Center for Biological Diversity, advocates "prying ranchers and their livestock from federal lands. In 2000 and 2003, [Sierra] sued the U.S. Department of the Interior to force ranching families out of the Mojave National Preserve. These ranchers actually owned grazing rights to the preserve; some families had been raising cattle there for over a century. No matter. Using the Endangered Species Act and citing the supposed loss of 'endangered tortoise habitat,' the Club was able to force the ranchers out" (quoted from Navigator magazine).

Further proof of the Sierra's hatred of humanity can be found in their 1995 attempt to block an Animas River water diversion project, which project was designed to bring water to Durango and the nearby Ute Indian Reservation.

Dams and irrigation are often life-and-death matters in the arid west, a fact of which Sierra is well aware. Thus, after successfully getting the project slashed by more than 70 percent, thereby depriving the Ute Reservation of much-needed water, the Sierra Club lawyers went for the jugular: they demanded the project be cut still more.

Fortunately for the rest of us, they overplayed their hand.

Their shady methods and motives prompted the following quote from Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell:

"The enviros have never been interested in a compromise. They just simply want to stop development and growth. And the way you do that in the West is to stop water."

From a chairwoman of the Ute Indian tribe: "The environmentalists don't seem to care how we live."

Greenpeace is worldwide the largest and wealthiest environmental group.

Of their co-founder Dave McTaggart, fellow co-founder Paul Watson said this:

"The secret to David McTaggart’s success is the secret to Greenpeace’s success: It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true. You are what the media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth, and a myth-generating machine."

And since, rather than addressing the actual data, environmentalists believe that citing the source of funding is the only argument one ever needs to refute a counterargument, they should be extraordinarily persuaded by this very partial list of Greenpeace's funding found here.

Most people have no inkling that throughout Greenpeace's tireless campaign against "Frakenfood" (i.e. biotech food - "Frakenfood" is a word coined by Greenpeace campaign director Charles Margulisto, who hates technology), the Third World has steadily perished from malnutrition and famine, as a direct result thereof.

Quoting Tanzania’s Doctor Michael Mbwille (of the non-profit Food Security Network):

“Greenpeace prints and circulates lies faster than the Code Red virus infected the world’s computers. If we were to apply Greenpeace’s scientifically illiterate standards [for soybeans] universally, there would be nothing left on our tables.”

For an example of how to successfully expose Greenpeace's lies and environmental rodomontade, please read this relevant article.

Candidly, I haven't even begun.

And yet from this small sampling, you can probably get an idea of what an exceptionally gracious and non-politically motivated folk these environmentalists and environmental leaders are. Indeed, environmentalism is a benevolent and life-affirming philosophy, and the people who populate it are a kind, non-violent people, whose reasoning is sound and scrupulous, and who believe unreservedly in the individual's inalienable right to life and property.

There is of course only one real problem with all that: these people are pigs, and environmentalism worships at the shrine of death.

The entire movement, replete, as it is, with its politicos and environmental politics, is not simply "wrong." That would be too easy.

The environmental movement is criminal.

Reader, if you have even a vestigial love of freedom within you, you must denounce environmentalism with all your heart. You must see it for what it actually is: a statist philosophy of human-hatred and enslavement.


Enviromentalism is neo-Marxism at its blackest.

BenIsForRon
09-16-2009, 12:10 PM
Did you read this?
http://www.magic-city-news.com/textfiles/sd-guide.pdf


Dude, the pdf is by the SAME organization! Listen, sustainable development is covered by the UN just like human rights and economic development are. Doesn't mean human rights or economic development are issues invented by the UN.

Anyways, in America, sustainable development is mostly about local initiatives. Like the agricultural exension of Watauga county, where I live. Their main agenda is to inform local farmers about the advantages of adopting sustianable farming practices, and helping them find the resources to make the transition. There is also the Boone Bike Initiative, which is a non-profit that rents bikes to people and helps develop biking infrastructure so that people don't have to use their cars to get everywhere.

My point is: STOP FOCUSING ON AGENDA 21!! It really has very little to do with what is happening in America, or many other regions for that matter. Sustainable development is a school of thought totally independent of the UN.

As far as government roles, there are varying opinions within the movement on policies and such. Many agree that zoning laws should be updated to reduce things like suburban sprawl. For example, Portland has an "urban development boundary". This prevents urban development from happening outside a certain distance from the city. Therefore, outer areas are reserved for agricultural use or nature preserves. I'm totally cool with policies like that. I'm not cool with multinational governmental regulations like Cap and Trade, there is a difference.

InterestedParticipant
09-16-2009, 12:15 PM
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

Chapter V - The Vacuum
First Global Revolution
Club of Rome (1991)
http://www.archive.org/details/TheFirstGlobalRevolution





http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/7f/ba/c781e03ae7a02368f602b110._AA240_.L.jpg

FunkBuddha
09-16-2009, 12:20 PM
Basically, I'm pissed of that this article is on C4L's website. C4L would do WAY better to adopt sustainability into it's platform, and talk about free market ways of achieving sustainable goals.

I approve this message.

BenIsForRon
09-16-2009, 12:21 PM
Interested Participant, would you please shut up. You always try to pretend like you're on a level of discourse above everyone else, but you're not.

Do you really think there is no scarcity? Are you really that fucking stupid? If there was no scarcity, then there would be no problem with the Fed printing a fucking trillion dollars every day, because there would be enough capital and resources to back up the money. Please stay out of this conversation.

LibertyEagle
09-16-2009, 12:28 PM
Why are you getting so upset, Ben? :confused:

InterestedParticipant
09-16-2009, 12:30 PM
Interested Participant, would you please shut up. You always try to pretend like you're on a level of discourse above everyone else, but you're not.

Do you really think there is no scarcity? Are you really that fucking stupid? If there was no scarcity, then there would be no problem with the Fed printing a fucking trillion dollars every day, because there would be enough capital and resources to back up the money. Please stay out of this conversation.
There is no scarcity. You are a victim of a long term propaganda campaign which was established to help ensure power's control over the world.

I could try to point you to documents where these plans were made, I could show you why scarcity was important to manufacture from a cybernetics (systems theory) point of view, but it seems you do not want to learn from someone who has already done the hard slog through this learning curve.

You want to believe what you want to believe, and you are going to kick and scream and plug your hears so that you don't have to believe otherwise. Well, I don't respect children who respond with temper tantrums, and I am certainly not going to take crap from an indoctrinated member of the public who seeks nothing other than to perpetuate these socially engineered falsehoods.

BenIsForRon
09-16-2009, 12:30 PM
Why are you getting so upset, Ben? :confused:

I'm not upset at you, just at IP. He always derails threads. It's incredibly annoying, I want him to disappear and go to infowars or something.

LibertyEagle
09-16-2009, 12:35 PM
Ok, but since it's my thread (:)), I'd really like to have a discussion about this topic. No offense or anything, Ben. If you don't want to participate, just go find a different thread that interests you more.

InterestedParticipant
09-16-2009, 12:36 PM
Here is an excerpt from a post I made in the Peak Water thread referencing a cybernetics perspective into "scarcity"


Yes, I am certain about this.

Not only is this view supported by elite think tanks, but it is also supported by cybernetics theory (ie. systems theory). In cybernetics view of the world, you and I are just nodes in a large system (ie global society). To maintain order, one must be able to develop feedback-control techniques that accounts for every node in this system, resulting in each node being "predictable" and therefore "controllable." However, each additional node in this society presents the risk of it being an anomaly... something that is not predictable and therefore not controllable by existing feedback-control techniques. Hence, to reduce the risk of an out-of-control condition, one must reduce the number of nodes in the system thereby reducing the risk of a system anomaly.

BenIsForRon
09-16-2009, 12:42 PM
Ok, but since it's my thread (:)), I'd really like to have a discussion about this topic. No offense or anything, Ben. If you don't want to participate, just go find a different thread that interests you more.

That's the thing, I do want to have a discussion on the merits and agenda of sustainable development, but then IP comes in and says that scarcity is a myth. I think we would all agree that scarcity is most certainly not a myth, because if it was everything in the world would be free.

Anyways, you can look on the previous page and see my response to your last posts. My basic point was that sustainable development has virtually nothing to do with the UN in the real world, and that most of the progress is occurring outside of government. I also made an argument for appropriate use of local governments. You can look at both points and ask more questions. Like I said, SD is my main area of interest, I can talk about it all day, or at least until I go pick blue berries later this afternoon.:)

LibertyEagle
09-16-2009, 12:57 PM
There is no scarcity. You are a victim of a long term propaganda campaign which was established to help ensure power's control over the world.

I could try to point you to documents where these plans were made,

Ok. Point me.

InterestedParticipant
09-16-2009, 01:19 PM
Ok. Point me.
Start with chapter 5 of "The First Global Revolution" cited in my earlier post (but you're going to have to see through the double speak). In the mean time, I'll go through my notes and collect some links and references.


That's the thing, I do want to have a discussion on the merits and agenda of sustainable development, but then IP comes in and says that scarcity is a myth. I think we would all agree that scarcity is most certainly not a myth, because if it was everything in the world would be free.

Anyways, you can look on the previous page and see my response to your last posts. My basic point was that sustainable development has virtually nothing to do with the UN in the real world, and that most of the progress is occurring outside of government. I also made an argument for appropriate use of local governments. You can look at both points and ask more questions. Like I said, SD is my main area of interest, I can talk about it all day, or at least until I go pick blue berries later this afternoon.:)
We live in two worlds, the world of universal truth and the Simulacrum. The Simulacrum (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=206336)tells us that there are scarcities in economics, food, energy, water, etc. While the real, the real that has yet to be murdered, shows us that all of these scarcities are manufactured.. that there are oil fields all over north america that are capped or undrilled, that CO2 has nothing to do with some unknowable trend in climate, that food scarcities are being directed by global operators who worked to destroy domestic farmers while investing in foreign farm land, and that these fiat debts were perpetrated by wall street string pullers who hired unemployed physicists to manufacture huge instruments called derivatives that would create fictional debt that could be transferred onto the real economy by deceiving the public.

There is much evidence of the real, but the murders of the real will never tell you this. Once must look beyond easily accessible media sources to see behind the facade of the Simulacrum. But to do this, one must have the will to do so.

dannno
09-16-2009, 01:51 PM
It is amazing to realize that if we obeyed property rights and let market forces take over, sustainable development would be built right into a system based completely on liberty and freedom.

The only reason we don't develop sustainably right now is because of the Federal Reserve, government subsidies and lack of respect for private property rights as well as a lack of respect for sovereignty of other nations.

BenIsForRon
09-16-2009, 08:45 PM
Danno, I think strict market forces could lead to continued suburban sprawl. We need zoning to control which parts of an environment are suitable for residential areas, which are suitable for agriculture, which are suitable for industry, and so on. Otherwise, we'll use up every flat piece of land in America to build a freaking house with a lawn and driveway, and we won't have any area to grow our food.

Of course, this a role mainly for state and especially local governments. Zoning totally interferes in private property, but I think it is necessary. Otherwise, for our great grandchildren, every square mile of America will look like this:

http://www.rapingmothernature.com/wp-content/gallery/american-sprawl/urban-sprawl-florida.jpg

LibertyEagle
09-16-2009, 08:55 PM
by Darren Weeks
August 18, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

“All countries, where appropriate, should develop and implement resettlement programmes that address the specific problems of displaced populations in their respective countries…” —Agenda 21, Chapter 7

Everything that happens today, happens for a reason. News headlines are engineered daily for us, along with financial markets and monetary systems, the wars that kill thousands, viruses that kill more, and our weather patterns which kill more. Crisis after manipulated crisis, ours is a highly engineered world, controlled by the richest of families whose purpose is to move us further and further toward their synthetical societal dictatorship under their oligarchic world governing system.

We are witnessing our wealth being incrementally stolen from us by inflation, created shortages of our energy supplies, and massive taxation both with and without “representation”. We have pending global carbon taxes, and the ongoing and purposeful movement of our jobs to other countries via treasonous trade policies with our avowed enemies.

But most of all, our wealth is being annihilated by the unrestrained and largely unchallenged theft of all private property rights by state and federal agencies, private land trusts, private developers, and sell-out city councils.

The UN, through its long and endless tentacles, has given us Heritage Areas, Scenic Byways, Conservation Easements, Historic Districts, Buffer Zones, Wetland Preserves, and a million other handy excuses to put the means of production, the land, off limits to the people.

Welcome to life under Agenda 21

Yet, despite being 16 years into implementation, the average man or woman on the street has never even heard of it, much less do they care — until it is their property being targeted.

If the existing land use restrictions weren’t already severe enough, there are the countless and infinite disasters that make it very convenient and expedient for local governments to impose even greater burdens upon private land “ownership”.

In 1968, Congress passed legislation which created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), purportedly in response to the rising costs associated with flood disasters. The results of the Congressional action are written into Title 42, Chapter 50, Subchapter I of the United States Code. Section 4011 authorizes the Federal Emergency Management Agency to develop and oversee the flood insurance program.

The Mitigation Division of FEMA administers the NFIP, and according to FEMA, nearly 20,000 communities take part in the program.[1]

In order for communities to participate in the NFIP, they must adopt a Floodplain Management Program, which represents conformity to a myriad of zoning regulations and ordinances that are established by FEMA. Without the adoption of a Floodplain Management Program, communities are not eligible for NFIP participation.

The Flood Insurance Manual is a guide for insurance companies. It reads,

“Participating (Eligible) Communities Flood insurance may be written only in those communities that have been designated as participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).”[2]

The National Flood Insurance Program is a perfect example of how regional governance is changing the face of government at a local level.

Without fanfare or scrutiny from a pacified nation, president Richard Nixon quietly signed executive order 11647 on February 10, 1972, dividing the united States into ten federal regions, each with its own capital. These regional governing councils are administered by unelected, appointed bureaucrats who are not accountable to the people.

Read the rest here:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Weeks/darren106.htm

LibertyEagle
09-16-2009, 08:57 PM
http://www.amerikanexpose.com/agenda21/

http://www.governamerica.com/ (scroll about 1/2 way down the page and you will see a whole section full of links)


Agenda 21
"Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced — a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level. There are specific actions which are intended to be undertaken by multinational corporations and entrepreneurs, by financial institutions and individual investors, by high-tech companies and indigenous people, by workers and labor unions, by farmers and consumers, by students and schools, by governments and legislators, by scientists, by women, by children — in short, by every person on Earth." —Daniel Sitarz, Attorney and Environmental Activist

BenIsForRon
09-16-2009, 09:02 PM
Liberty Eagle, you are barking up an empty tree. The people in this country that actually care about sustainability could give two shits about what the UN says.

I've taken many classes in sustainable development, and we never speak of the UN. Only in the introductory class did we mention the Agenda 21 meeting. It really has no significance on our lives, because the majority of work in sustainability is done outside of government involvement, and when government is involved it is local.

LibertyEagle
09-16-2009, 09:08 PM
Yes, Ben, but it is my understanding that it is the local laws that have/are being harmonized to fit Agenda 21. Most people do not realize it is even happening. But, once in awhile you will hear the term "harmonized" being thrown out with respect to local laws. To see if it has hit your local area first, you would have to do some research.

BenIsForRon
09-16-2009, 09:09 PM
Agenda 21
"Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced — a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level. There are specific actions which are intended to be undertaken by multinational corporations and entrepreneurs, by financial institutions and individual investors, by high-tech companies and indigenous people, by workers and labor unions, by farmers and consumers, by students and schools, by governments and legislators, by scientists, by women, by children — in short, by every person on Earth." —Daniel Sitarz, Attorney and Environmental Activist

I agree with this quote, except for the multinational corporation part. They will have little to do with the transition, but they will have to adjust to it if they want to survive.

BenIsForRon
09-16-2009, 09:12 PM
Yes, Ben, but it is my understanding that it is the local laws that have/are being harmonized to fit Agenda 21. Most people do not realize it is even happening. But, once in awhile you will hear the term "harmonized" being thrown out with respect to local laws. To see if it has hit your local area first, you would have to do some research.

There is no "harmonizing" that I've seen. In cities like Portland, you just see people trying to get governments to create more public transportation and bike lanes. People using government to create community gardens in abandoned plots (also happening with the private sector). The UN really has nothing to do with this, it's just common sense.

Do you have any concrete examples?

InterestedParticipant
09-16-2009, 09:31 PM
Start with chapter 5 of "The First Global Revolution" cited in my earlier post (but you're going to have to see through the double speak). In the mean time, I'll go through my notes and collect some links and references.
Just two quick sites that I've found very informative and referenced in the past, with links to other valuable resources that explain the sustainable development game and its origins...

http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html


http://www.freedomadvocates.org/

Freedom Advocates is a wonderful organization, with its founder extremely knowledgeable in how/why the elites originated these plans. You'll find great video presentations and some excellent pamphlets, although I seem to recall that some of their printed material is available only for purchase.

P.S. I've yet to go thru my own archive, and still plan to do that.

jmdrake
09-17-2009, 08:11 AM
Danno, I think strict market forces could lead to continued suburban sprawl. We need zoning to control which parts of an environment are suitable for residential areas, which are suitable for agriculture, which are suitable for industry, and so on. Otherwise, we'll use up every flat piece of land in America to build a freaking house with a lawn and driveway, and we won't have any area to grow our food.

Of course, this a role mainly for state and especially local governments. Zoning totally interferes in private property, but I think it is necessary. Otherwise, for our great grandchildren, every square mile of America will look like this:



Problem - reaction - solution. The "problem" was created in part by federal government intervention. Suburban sprawl, which Al Gore rails against, can be traced back to the rise of the interstate highway system, which his father helped create. That said we are nowhere close to running out of farmland. The government still pays farmers not to plant crops! And this nutty policy is only going to increase under the bull manure regime called "cap and trade"! That's right. Your buddy Al Gore wants to cut our food supply by encouraging farmer to turn their fields into forrests.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2009-08-19-forest_N.htm

But many of these fields were grasslands before they were farms. Doesn't matter. The government says there shalt be trees where the buffalo used to roam and science, economics and history be damned. So don't give me this "suburban sprawl will destroy or farmland" nonsense.

InterestedParticipant
09-17-2009, 09:36 AM
Problem - reaction - solution. The "problem" was created in part by federal government intervention. Suburban sprawl, which Al Gore rails against, can be traced back to the rise of the interstate highway system, which his father helped create. That said we are nowhere close to running out of farmland. The government still pays farmers not to plant crops! And this nutty policy is only going to increase under the bull manure regime called "cap and trade"! That's right. Your buddy Al Gore wants to cut our food supply by encouraging farmer to turn their fields into forrests.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2009-08-19-forest_N.htm

But many of these fields were grasslands before they were farms. Doesn't matter. The government says there shalt be trees where the buffalo used to roam and science, economics and history be damned. So don't give me this "suburban sprawl will destroy or farmland" nonsense.
This 53 Minute documentary provides insight into how the Suburban Sprawl was manufactured and why. Unfortunately, it digresses into the manufactured dialectic of Peak Oil, but overall provides good insights.

YouTube - The End of Suburbia - 52 minute documentary on peak oil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3uvzcY2Xug)

BenIsForRon
09-17-2009, 12:22 PM
Problem - reaction - solution. The "problem" was created in part by federal government intervention. Suburban sprawl, which Al Gore rails against, can be traced back to the rise of the interstate highway system, which his father helped create. That said we are nowhere close to running out of farmland. The government still pays farmers not to plant crops! And this nutty policy is only going to increase under the bull manure regime called "cap and trade"! That's right. Your buddy Al Gore wants to cut our food supply by encouraging farmer to turn their fields into forrests.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2009-08-19-forest_N.htm

But many of these fields were grasslands before they were farms. Doesn't matter. The government says there shalt be trees where the buffalo used to roam and science, economics and history be damned. So don't give me this "suburban sprawl will destroy or farmland" nonsense.

I do not want to turn farmland into forests, and Al Gore is not my buddy, please refrain from the strawmen.

I know we pay farmers not to farm, but that is under the current subsidized, industrial system. If we stopped that, more people would farm. On top of that, the population of this country isn't going to stay at 300 million. We will need more farmland in the future, not more McMansions.

s35wf
09-17-2009, 12:40 PM
if people would stop buying 0 lot line houses; they could have a yard with gardens & trees built in between all those houses.