According to John F. McManus:
Over the past few decades, well-known internationalist Zbigniew Brzezinski has bounced back and forth between government and academic posts. In 1970, he openly proposed world government in his 300-page book entitled Between Two Ages. Its recommendations led to the 1973 formation of the Trilateral Commission (TC), which he then led for many years. World government, he stated in his book, could be brought about in “piecemeal” fashion through “a variety of indirect ties and already developing limitations on national sovereignty.”
Four years later, another professor and occasional State Department veteran named Richard N. Gardner boldly suggested the same strategy in his article “The Hard Road to World Order.” Published in the April 1974 issue of Foreign Affairs, the journal of the world-government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations, Gardner lamented that a single leap into world government, which he preferred, wasn’t attainable. So he urged “an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece.” And he pointedly advocated a “piecemeal” transfer of power to such international organizations as the UN’s International Monetary Fund, the UN’s World Bank, the UN-led World Food Conference, the UN-led Population Conference, even a United Nations military arm.
The end sought by these two internationalist heavyweights — and many other likeminded globalists — would result in forced redistribution of the world’s wealth, termination of basic freedoms (religion, speech, publishing, property rights, etc.), and complete regimentation of all human activity right down to the local level.
It’s no surprise, therefore, to discover that the “piecemeal” process aiming toward this megalomaniacal goal appears in the UN’s Agenda 21. This enormous document emerged from the highly publicized 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero, Brazil. Its 1,100 pages supply a detailed program for social engineering on such a massive scale that it would, if fully implemented, accomplish complete regimentation of all life on the planet during the 21st Century. Hence the name Agenda 21.
Agenda 21 - This global contract binds governments around the world to the UN plan for changing the ways we live, eat, learn and communicate--all under the noble banner of saving the Earth. Its regulations would severely limit water, electricity and transportation--even deny human access to our most treasured wilderness areas. If implemented, it would manage and monitor all lands and people. No one would be free from the watchful eye of the new global tracking and information system. - Berit Kjos, "Local Agenda 21 - The U.N. Plan for Your Community"
Sustainable Development - The concept of Sustainable Development basically says that there are too many people on planet Earth and that the population of the world must be reduced in order to have enough resources for future generations. [Under the New World Order plan,] the UN should be the global custodian of the Earth and all of its resources. This means that we will be measured by how much we produce and how much we consume as found in the "family dependency ratio." Every person will be valued according to their usefulness. In addition, the UN will control the Earth's resources--energy, water, food and so on. The concept of sustainable development can be found in the Communisto Manifesto and the 1977 USSR Constitution. - Joan M. Veon, The Women's International Media Group, Inc.
The United Nations (UN) program for Sustainable Development is the most extensive and broad ranging social engineering project ever undertaken. Agenda 21, Earth's Action Plan, written by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1992, is the overall social engineering agenda for "sustainable development" with specified "objectives." America's participation is the result of George H.W. Bush signing Agenda 21 in Rio and the succeeding administrations' desires to implement its objectives.
The American public has been treated to a stready stream of articles and so-called studies on how, if we do not change our ways and adopt "sustainable" behaviors and patterns of economic growth, environmental disaster (global warming, deforestation, extinction of species, etc.) is right around the corner. (Steven Yates, "Thoughts on the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development")
Agenda 21 embraces virtually every aspect of human life; it is being implemented aggressively in the United States. Congress has never examined the totality of the Agenda. Instead, Congress is fed only bits and pieces in the context of "protecting the environment."
The ultimate objective of Agenda 21 is to establish "international norms" of personal behavior that are dictated by a handful of the world's enlightened elite who believe they know best how people ought to live. The UN Commission on Sustainable Development is not the result of a treaty ratified by the Senate: America participates in the UN organization by Executive Decree.
During the early 1990s a new set of terms began creeping into our lexicon; in addition to sustainable development or sustainable communities they included our global village, biodiversity, smart growth, habitats, urban boundaries, wildlife conservation zones, open space areas and many others. Many of the new terms seemed to involve local issues on urban and suburban planning in one way or another; others (such as lifelong learning) were turning up in edu-speak; others (e.g., public-private partnerships) spilled over into business, and still others (e.g., workforce development) seemed to cut across more than one area. Few Americans realized that the source of the new vocabulary words was the UN. (Steven Yates, "Thoughts on the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development")
Most have never heard of Agenda 21. This is a shame, because after the Bible and the Koran, Agenda 21 may be the most influential document in the world right now. It is definitely in the top five. (Steven Yates, "Thoughts on the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development")
Through the Clinton/Gore administration, America drove the agenda globally and made it possible for the UN to dictate, not only in America, but around the world, how all people must live. The full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio principles, was strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa from August 26 August to September 4, 2002. And Obama is bringing the Clinton/Gore team back together to finish the job.
According to Steven Yates in "Thoughts on the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development":
Agenda 21 is the bible of the sustainable development movement. A horribly written, long-winded tract consisting of 40 chapters of various lengths covering everything from land, water and waste management to urban planning to biotechnology, it purports to offer a comprehensive new paradigm for life on planet Earth.The following is a post from the maya12-21-12 forum on The Venus Project, which claims we can have an utopia society by balancing man, technology and nature, "a sustainable state of dynamic equilibrium:"
The basic idea behind sustainable development was spelled out back in 1987 by the little-known Brundtland Commission. The Bruntland Commission definition: "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
This innocent sounding phrase came to carry with it the implication that there are too many people living and working in an environment of finite resources to permit "unsustainable" economic freedoms.
Behind the idea of sustainable development is the idea that we have a choice: adopt "voluntary" central planning (with the UN at the helm) to integrate economics and ecology within a globalist perspective or face ecological disaster a few decades down the pike.
The United States has been a thorn in the UN’s side all along. Although President Bush has committed billions to every area the UN wants and has committed the U.S. to involvement in 14 "partnerships," Uncle Sam still doesn’t give the UN as much money as the globalist bureaucrats want, and Uncle Sam opposes such things as global taxation and the erosion of national sovereignty.
The NGO Statement at the European and North American Prepcom was held in 2001 as one of the preliminaries for WSSD. At this meeting non-governmental organizations (NGOs) called for a "Global Deal" involving the following:
Here it comes:
- equity ("eradicating poverty through equitable and sustainable access to resources"),
- rights ("securing environmental and social rights"),
- limits ("reduction of resource use to within sustainable limits"),
- justice ("recognition of ecological debts and cancellation of financial debts"),
- democracy ("ensuring access to information and public participation"), and
- ethics ("rethinking the values and principles that guide human behavior").Sustainable development decision making must be integrated in all policy areas, and at all levels, and made central to all environmental, social and economic planning and law. To rectify current imbalances, international sustainable development law must be strengthened and integrated into all national, regional and global legal instruments.If this is not a call for an edifice of global law to be enforced by global government and financed by eventual global taxation, I cannot imagine what would count as such. The globalist bureaucrats prefer the term governance, of course. Governance involves partnerships. Partnerships are how the encirclement of controls envelops businesses and business organizations, hundreds of which have sent representatives to WSSD.
How to finance this?
Speculative financial flows and unsustainable investment patterns by the private and public sectors have contributed substantially to unsustainable trends … The WSSD must:
- Initiate negotiations toward development of mechanisms to ensure financial markets contribute to sustainable development, such as the Tobin tax;
- Recognize controls on the movement of capital as a legitimate instrument to ensure sustainable development; and
- Agree [to?] global rules governing publicly financed investment, e,g., international financial institutions and export credit agencies to ensure it is tested against sustainable development criteria.
There is a distinct communist streak running through the UN agenda — with environmental issues having replaced exploitation of workers as the primary weapon against "capitalism." This, too, should really be no surprise; socialists founded the UN back in the 1940s, after all. Yesterday we had reds; today we have greens.The post-cold war period has "become nothing less than a global experiment in international development." --Maurice StrongIf one wants to reduce poverty and help the environment, then the proper course of action is to promote economic liberty and private ownership of the land. Limit the power of government to interfere with private property rights and free interactions and transactions between individuals. Educate people in the "developing" world about the benefits of liberty and free enterprise.
As free enterprise began to create jobs, both educational levels and living standards would begin to rise, the physical environment would begin to improve through incentives by free property owners to take care of what they own, and the means of dealing with many of the health problems would emerge. The resulting actions and arrangements may not be "sustainable" as the sustainability agitators define it. After all, building a free and prosperous economy cannot be done without making use of natural resources, changing raw materials into usable goods. But the alternative is to remain mired in poverty — or accept transfers of wealth from "developed" nations, gradually impoverishing them.
It seems likely, however, that improving the human condition, whether in the "developed" or the "developing" worlds, is not what either the globalists or the greens have in mind. The globalists simply want power. As complete secularists (or secular humanists), they see themselves as having made God obsolete. They would replace God with an internationalist superstate. They are living out the realization that once our need for the transcendent is completely removed from our description of the human condition, there is no real reason why those in a position to do so should not attempt to seize the reins of power and rule as they see fit — on a global level, if they can pull it off.
The UN overlords thus clearly see themselves as an emerging world government — the New World Order. Communism was one of the more conspicuous failures of the last century, however. But utopians never give up: the globalists turned to environmentalism and "deep ecology" as the most useful weapons against the despised capitalist system. Hence the rise to power of the greens.
The greens aren’t exactly secularists, though; and they certainly aren’t humanists in any sense of that word that makes sense. They worship "Mother Earth" — Gaia — and in a fashion not unlike that of the pagan tribes that inhabited Europe prior to the rise of Christianity. I think the leaders of the green movement hate humanity, however. They resent the dickens out of a civilization that has largely succeeded without their contributions and which would ignore them completely if it were not for their political clout.
Much "deep ecology" seems to be motivated by a deep-seated hatred not merely of free enterprise but of the human race itself, which it often portrays as akin to a virus that has infected the once-pristine planet Earth. This would explain their welcome embrace of avid pro-abortionists (e.g., International Planned Parenthood) and advocates of so-called "gay rights" (homosexuals cannot have children) — all represented in NGO’s at WSSD. The greens have been useful tools for the globalists.
Now it is important to add that these two categories do not apply to everyone in the sustainable development movement. I have no doubt that there are sincere, dedicated people at the grass roots level of these sustainable-communities movements who believe they are doing the right thing; they may have been pulled in by the change-agents’ skilled use of the Delphi Technique or just fallen, hook, line and sinker for "green" scare tactics about global warming or environmental degradation. The same is likely true of the businesses and corporations who sent representatives to WSSD. The latter may have been sold on bogus, pseudo-ethical arguments about the "rightness" or "social justice" involved in international wealth redistribution. Lenin would have called them all useful idiots.
One should read and absorb everything Joan Veon and Henry Lamb have written on the UN, its threat to national sovereignty and the threat of the sustainable development movement to individuals’ rights to live where they want and do as they please with their own private property. One might even consider donating money to or even joining one of the organizations advocating that the U.S. get out of the UN while it is still possible to stop the global-government agenda. A fairly recent movement called Freedom 21 represents one possible alternative to Agenda 21 and WSSD.
The Venus Project ("Zietgeist: Addendum") presents a bold, new direction for humanity that entails nothing less than the total redesign of our culture. There are many people today who are concerned with the serious problems that face our modern society: unemployment, violent crime, replacement of humans by technology, over-population and a decline in the Earth's ecosystems. As you will see, The Venus Project is dedicated to confronting all of these problems by actively engaging in the research, development, and application of workable solutions. Through the use of innovative approaches to social awareness, educational incentives, and the consistent application of the best that science and technology can offer directly to the social system, The Venus Project offers a comprehensive plan for social reclamation in which human beings, technology, and nature will be able to coexist in a long-term, sustainable state of dynamic equilibrium.
The plans for The Venus Project offer society a broader spectrum of choices based on the scientific possibilities inherent in current technology and direct that knowledge toward a new era of peace and sustainability for all cultures. Through the implementation of a resource-based economy, and a multitude of innovative and environmentally friendly technologies directly applied to the social system, The Venus Project proposals will dramatically reduce crime, poverty, hunger, homelessness, and many other pressing problems that are common throughout the world today.
One of the cornerstones of the organization's findings is the fact that many of the dysfunctional behaviors of today's society stem directly from the dehumanizing environment inherent in the existing monetary system. Moreover, the currently utilized random implementation of automation and other technologies have resulted in a fragmented, self-defeating trend occurring throughout the manufacturing and high-tech sectors of today's global economy--namely the technological replacement of human labor by machines. The Venus Project proposes a social system in which automation and technology would be intelligently applied and integrated into an overall social design where the primary function would be to maximize the quality of life rather than profits. This project also introduces a set of workable and acceptable human values that are more appropriate and in balance with our present state of technology.
July 7, 2011
With the Western nations continuing their downward economic spiral, the advocates of the United Nations’ redistributionist schemes also continue to exploit the environmental agenda in their effort to fundamentally alter the global economy to serve their own ends.
Despite the failure of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December 2009 to achieve its goal of a treaty binding the industrialized world to an economic suicide pact, the "voluntary" agreements are still a threat to the West. The UN is engaged in an effort to use the imagined environmental crisis as the justification for a program of sweeping economic redistribution that would shift trillions of dollars from the industrialized nations to the Third World. The UN is now demanding an “investment” of $1.9 trillion per year in “green technology” to meet the goals that the internationalists have set for the nations of the world. An AFP story entitled “World needs $1.9tn a year for green technology:UN” sets forth the lament of an elite for whom “real money” is measured in tens of trillions of dollars:
"Over the next 40 years, $1.9 trillion (1.31 trillion euros) per year will be needed for incremental investments in green technologies," the UN Economic and Social Affairs body said in its annual survey.
"At least one-half, or $1.1 trillion per year, of the required investments will need to be made in developing countries to meet their rapidly increasing food and energy demands through the application of green technologies," it added. At the moment, "external financing currently available for green technology investments in developing countries is far from sufficient to meet the challenge," it assessed.
Over the last two years, climate change funds managed by World Bank disbursed about $20 billion, a fraction of the sum necessary for developing countries to build up clean energy technologies, sustainable farming techniques and technologies that help cut non-biodegradable waste production. Even though states agreed during a 2009 Copenhagen summit to spend $30 billion over 2010 to 2012 and $100 billion a year by 2020 in transfers to developing countries, these sums have not been realised.
In other words, the costly “feel good” language adopted at Copenhagen — though far from the crushing obligations a treaty would have imposed — still means the World Bank and the United Nations will be playing the role of an international collection agency, metaphorically beating on the doors of various heads of state until they “cough up” the demanded funds.
The cost of “going green” continues its steady upward climb with every new pronouncement from the UN. As reported for The New American in March 2010, the UN plan would eventually cost $45 trillion, with most of that cost coming from the First World:
According to the Earth Summit 2012 website, the goals of the conference will be in line with the Copenhagen agenda: Wrapping economic redistribution in a green mantle.
The United Nations General Assembly agreed to a new Earth Summit in December. The Summit will be in 2012 and will be hosted by Brazil. The themes are the Green Economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, the institutional framework for sustainable development, emerging issues and a review of present commitments.
The term “sustainable” in such a context is usually a buzzword for “governmentally controlled.” Although the plan is still wrapped in green, the dream of “poverty eradication” is coming to the fore.
And what will be the cost to the industrialized world for such “poverty eradication”? The inconceivable price tag is already at $45 trillion — and the conference is still years away. The ANI reports:
Documents written in advance of the meeting assume that the goal of the green economic transformation is the same as that of the ill-fated Copenhagen conference: a 50 percent reduction in global carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.
That, the paper says, will require a staggering 45 trillion dollars to accomplish. While the Copenhagen agenda was declared dead in December, the green road that leads to enormous cuts in carbon emissions by 2050 will require wealth tranfer [sic] from developed to developing country — same as the Copenhagen summit, according to documents.
Now, the $45 trillion has grown to an even more incomprehensible $76 trillion (based on the proposed 40 years of spending $1.9 trillion per year). Calling such a reckless demand “outrageous” and “unsustainable” still falls short — what is demanded is nothing less than the conversion of much of what remains of the economies of the developed world into a means of funneling wealth to the World Bank, which will, ostensibly, redistribute those funds to the Third World.
The human cost of such redistributionist schemes is regularly ignored. The shaky “science” of anthropogenic global warming is so full of holes than it has lost much of its credibility in the eyes of so many people that it is often perceived to be the pet theory of environmentalist fanatics, scientists who have staked their careers on the theory, and politicians (and others) who stand to profit either financially or politically from the schemes that have been hatched to ameliorate its supposed effects.
The problem for the environmentalists and the internationalists is that panicking nations may no longer be willing to sacrifice their future for the sake of a theory that is steadily unraveling.
The United States has yet to show any significant recovery from its own economic troubles, and the plight of Europe is steadily going from bad to worse. As reported previously for The New American, Portugal’s government bonds are now at “junk” status. As Bruce Walker wrote on July 7, the ramifications of the ongoing economic meltdown in Europe may threaten the entire EU:
The effect upon Portugal was immediate — but more ominously, in nearby Spain (the fourth of the so-called "PIGS" nations, the others being Portugal, Italy, and Greece), the stock market dropped 1.5 percent and the amount of interest required by bond purchasers rose. Spain's economy is significantly larger than that of the other PIGS — and only somewhat smaller than the economy of France. Even worse, stocks dropped 2 percent in Italy, affected not only by the ripple of the PIGS but also because spending cuts have not seemed to help its huge national debt.
It would be worse than irresponsible for American and European governments to continue to sacrifice the well-being of their nations to pursue costly “cures” for largely theoretical environmental problems. The plan to divert $76 trillion into “green technologies” ought to be greeted, first, with inquiries into precisely who would profit from such expenditures, and, second, with a resounding rejection of such an obscene effort to loot the economies of the developed world.Herding Americans into Urban 'Human Settlements'
Habitat II - The UN Plan for Human Settlements
Bicycles instead of cars? Dense apartment clusters instead of single homes? Community rituals instead of churches? "Human rights" instead of religious freedom? The United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II), which met June 3-14 in Istanbul, painted an alarming picture of the 21st century community. The American ways — free speech, individualism, travel, and Christianity — are out. A new set of economic, environmental, and social guidelines are in. Citizenship, democracy, and education have been redefined. Handpicked civil leaders will implement UN "laws," bypassing state and national representatives to work directly with the UN. And politically correct "tolerance" — meaning "the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism" as well as "appreciation" for the world's religions and lifestyles — is "not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement." - Berit Kjos, Kjos Ministries, June 1996
The Habitat Agenda Goals and Principles (Exerpt from the Preamble to this UN Document)
We recognize the imperative need to improve the quality of human settlements, which profoundly affects the daily lives and well-being of our peoples. There is a sense of great opportunity and hope that a new world can be built, in which economic development, social development and environmental protection, as interdependent and mutually reinforcing components of sustainable development, can be realized through solidarity and cooperation within and between countries and through effective partnerships at all levels. International cooperation and universal solidarity, guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and in a spirit of partnership, are crucial to improving the quality of life of the peoples of the world. The purpose of the second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) is to address two themes of equal global importance: "Adequate shelter for all" and "sustainable human-settlements development in an urbanizing world." Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development, including adequate shelter for all and sustainable human settlements, and they are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.
Agenda 21 – The UN Blueprint for the 21st Century
America of 2009 Moving Toward a Modern European State
Understanding Sustainable Development: A Guide for Public Officials
Local Land Grab Part of UN Agenda
The DLC's Global Economy Project
Sustainable Development Is a Western Driven Project to Hamper and Cripple Russia
America’s Corporate Connections to Hitler’s Holocaust
Fast-Growing Western U.S. Cities Face Water Crisis
Senate Passes Bill to Grab 2 Million Acres in 9 States
The Control Freak Leftist Agenda to Totally Control Your World is Underway in America
Sustainable Development Successes and Failures Since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit