World Order Rising?
Thoughts on the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development
begun on August 26 and continuing on through September 4, the World
Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, South
Africa is what may be the largest confab the United Nations has
ever sponsored. WSSD commemorates the ten-year anniversary of the
adoption of Agenda
21 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil back in 1992.
Over 100 world leaders, thousands of delegates, CEOs, representatives
organizations (NGOs), and other dignitaries and elites
over 20,000 people in all have descended on the Sandton Convention
Center in South Africa’s largest city. Moreover, as WSSD has approached
the American public has been treated to a stready stream of new
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. So the time has come
to stop talking about Agenda 21 and take action.
exactly, is Agenda 21?
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 involving 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. Most have never heard of Agenda 21. They certainly
aren’t going to learn of it from Dan Rather. 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.
21 is the bible of the sustainable development movement. A horribly
written, longwinded 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 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 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 opposes such things as global taxation and
the erosion of national sovereignty.
the purpose of the Rio Summit was to introduce sustainable development
to the world, WSSD’s purpose is to call for action. According to
Nitin Desai, Secretary-General of WSSD, writing in the UN’s Global
Challenge, Global Opportunity: Trends in Sustainable Development,
"[s]ustainable development, as a complex process with many
interacting factors, requires the participation of all members of
society, as public policy makers, producers, consumers, scientists,
engineers, educators, communicators, community activists and voters."
Accordingly, WSSD has convened with five items on its agenda: water,
energy, health, agriculture and biodiversity. These five have generated
a new acronym: WEHAB (we inhabit the Earth
get it?). The WEHAB Working Group released five Framework for Action
papers, one for each problem area. I had a look at just one: the
for Action on Health and the Environment. It offers some interesting
insights into how globalist bureaucrats think.
first premise is Principle 1 of the Rio
Declaration on Environment and Development: "Human beings
… are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with
nature." The authors then draw on the idea that understanding
"the close relationship between health, the environment and
development" is the key to improving health, for "the
environment can also be a profound source of ill health for many
of the world’s people. At least a quarter of the global burden of
disease may be attributable to poor environmental conditions."
By poor environmental conditions is meant a lack of clean water,
indoor air pollution, contaminated food, unhealthy working conditions
and chemical contaminations. Much of what follows is an account
of the various diseases and conditions to which populations in the
"developing world" are prone: HIV / AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis,
malnutrition, pregnancy-related complications and so on. A lot of
connections are drawn here, including to lack of basic education,
lack of sanitation and lack of access to health services.
what are the authors proposing? I got a sense of reading the work
of minds chronically out of focus. There are repeated references
to "stronger partnerships," "new technologies,"
"better environmental management," and "human resource
development" more telltale buzzwords to add to those
above. There are criticisms of the "insufficient political
commitment, inadequate human resources, difficulty in achieving
intersectoral action for health and insufficient funding."
There are calls for "a major intensification of effort"
and a "sustainable and integrated approach to poverty reduction
and environmental improvement that reaches the poorest, most marginalized
and most displaced individuals." There are, finally, all the
obligatory references to "promoting gender equality" and
"incorporat[ing] the education and empowerment of women."
one cuts through the bureaucratese, it is clear that we are looking
at something that is only possible (1) if implemented by large-scale
interventions in every areas of the local economy and in people’s
lives, involving a great deal of coordination and centralization,
and (2) if funded by vast amounts of money from outside, since the
economies of the nations we are talking about mostly in Africa
are dysfunctional. This particular document does not openly
call for a global tax. The closest it comes is to state that "Political
commitment at all levels of government is clearly a prerequisite
for action," meaning "unprecedented resources and global
alliances to address health threats in a broader development framework."
This "massive effort … will require substantially increased
funding …" This means "Intensified efforts are needed
to mobilize resources through higher allocations from national budgetary
resources, increases in bilateral and multilateral assistance …"
A figure of $66 billion a year in U.S. dollars is mentioned, "about
half of which comes from donors." Draw your own conclusions.
gets something more definite from the NGO
Statement at the European and North American Prepcom, held almost
a year ago as one of the preliminaries for WSSD. At this meeting
NGOs called for a "Global Deal" involving the following:
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"). Here it comes:
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
to finance this?
financial flows and unsustainable investment patterns by the
private and public sectors have contributed substantially to
unsustainable trends … The WSSD must:
negotiations toward development of mechanisms to ensure financial
markets contribute to sustainable development, such as the
controls on the movement of capital as a legitimate instrument
to ensure sustainable development; and
[to?] Global rules governing publicly financed investment,
eg, international financial institutions and export credit
agencies to ensure it is tested against sustainable development
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
sustainable-development writing has a flavor of localism about it,
in the sense that its authors appear to want to involve local groups
and average citizens, and encourage "voluntary" action.
"Decisions should be made closest to those affected, wherever
appropriate" which sounds okay until we ask who determines
what is or is not "appropriate." "It is our view
that law and policy frameworks at higher levels of government should
be better focused to enable local action. This requires a strengthening
of local authorities and decision making structures." Does
this mean local sovereignty or micromanagement? The problem with
the former is that the local people might not do what the globalists
want, including ensuring "that human rights include the right
to a favourable and healthy environment including social rights
and equitable access to resources;…" There is no means of accomplishing
this without control from the center, especially given the authors’
firm conviction that "the idea that access to markets will
on its own bring poor communities out of poverty is wrong"
are two things that greatly sadden me about all this. (1) Not all
of the issues being discussed at WSSD are unfounded or illegitimate.
It is true enough that we cannot foul our own nest, as it were,
without eventually paying the consequences. Moreover, no reasonable
person can look at the situation in many impoverished and dysfunctional
societies without a sense that something can be done to improve
the lives of the people living there. (2) Agenda 21 isn’t the answer,
however. Not in either case. One gets a sense of "calls for
action" that will have no rational basis and do more harm than
good. One of the oft-repeated premises of WSSD is that the "developed"
countries (read: the U.S., primarily, but also Western Europe) represent
20 percent of the world’s population but consume 80 percent of the
world’s resources, and that this is "unsustainable." Sustainability-activists,
UN bureaucrats and "developing world" politicians propose
huge transfers of funds ranging from out-and-out government grants
to private investments of resources and technology, under the assumption
that this will reduce and eventually eliminate poverty. They demonstrate
no grasp of where wealth comes from or why a program of massive
redistribution of wealth will not work. As it undermines incentives
to create wealth in the "developed" world, the kinds of
proposals being floated at WSSD and being endorsed by our
own leftist politicians would result in lower standards of
living here and guarantee eventual worldwide poverty as there is
less and less wealth to redistribute. Nor is there the slightest
evidence that global centralization of power in a body such as the
UN will do anything to protect the environment. The evidence points
in the other direction: the less centralization, the better. When
the Soviet Union collapsed and U.S. observers saw Russian rivers
and streams for the first time they were dismayed at the pollution.
They found tracts of land the size of Massachusetts that were uninhabitable.
Americans have not been polluters at all by comparison; but the
U.S. has nurtured a powerful and very radical environmentalism that
has been incorporated wholesale into the sustainable development
Americans have any inkling of the degree to which this movement
has insinuated its way into our lives including at the local
level. The changing vocabulary of city and community planning considered
at the outset ought to provide a few clues; city newspapers endorse
the plans and throw around such terms as if their meaning were straightforward.
They generally do not mention the UN. There are thousands of documents
on the Web that promote sustainable development or discuss its role
in one community plan or another; one has to do a very focused Internet
search to find the relative handful of sites that criticize the
emphasis on nurturing change-agents at the local level should be
no more surprising than the omission of reference to the UN, if
we think about it. Globalists want to encourage as many people as
possible to "think globally and act locally," as the late-60s
slogan went. They want to alter a community’s infrastructure to
bring it into line with the global-government agenda without drawing
attention to themselves or their involvement. Thus in their instruction
manuals (but not their press releases) we find local versions of
Agenda 21 called in Europe Local
Agenda 21 (LA21) and a version aimed squarely at Americans called
21. Let us pass the reins of the discussion into the hands of
an organization called the International
Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), a UN partner.
ICLEI bills itself as "the international environmental agency
for local governments. Its mission is to build and serve a worldwide
movement of local governments to achieve tangible improvements in
global environmental and sustainable development conditions through
cumulative local actions." The organization claims to promote
"decentralized cooperation" between its members. But it
is entirely beholden to Agenda 21, drawing its impetus from Agenda
28 which focuses on local initiatives. Here is the crucial statement,
reproduced on the ICLEI website almost like a Biblical quotation:
local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens,
local organizations and private enterprises and adopt "a
local Agenda 21." Through consultation and consensus building,
local authorities would learn from citizens and from local, civic,
community, business and industrial organizations and acquire the
information needed for formulating the best strategies. The process
of consultation would increase household awareness of sustainable
development issues. Local authority programmes, policies, laws
and regulations to achieve Agenda 21 objectives would be assessed
and modified, based on local programmes adopted. Strategies could
also be used in supporting proposals for local, national, regional
and international funding (Paragraph 28.3 all emphases
read that right. Versions of Communities 21 now reach from the change-agents
all the way down into private households in many American cities
and towns as the sustainability movement spreads. The change-agents’
aim is to bring entire communities into alignment with globalist
goals, using whatever techniques of manipulation and behavior modification
are necessary. ICLEI’s U.S. branch, based in Berkeley, Calif. (where
else?), published a very detailed Local
Government Handbook: essentially a guide for sustainability
change-agents along the lines of Saul Alinsky’s Rules
for Radicals on how to infiltrate towns and communities,
win the support of local politicians, local media, business leaders,
organizations such as the local Chamber of Commerce, other community
leaders including ministers, and win as much support as possible
from ordinary citizens by virtue of the bandwagon effect.
this document is an experience in itself. The sustainable development
movement has generated its own brand of change-agent psychobabble,
full of phraseology that sounds wonderful if you don’t read
between the lines. There are linguistic products such as the following:
of sustainability goals requires the participation of the entire
community. Effective public outreach and education programs
must be developed to educate the community on the issues and
to get them involved in the implementation of sustainability
initiatives. Non-profits and community groups are potential
collaborating partners, given that their organizational mission
or activities may dovetail with that of the sustainability goals.
the requires and the must be developed in there. Such
soft-law imperatives ("We must…" "Communities have
to…" "Local authorities are called upon to…" "Citizens
will be required to," etc.) permeate sustainability-speak,
and you might miss them if you are not looking for them. There is
no indication that sustainability development as a whole is the
sort of thing that ought to be voted on. Indeed, the Communities
21 model would transfer authority from elected officials and autonomy
from businesses as sustainability bureaucrats slowly assumed the
reins of power and began implementing an agenda established thousands
of miles away. Communities 21 calls for such things as listing all
the community resources in a "sustainability inventory,"
articulating a "vision statement," developing goals, outlining
actions and establishing timetables. These might include such events
as an "annual sustainability day" to promote the activities
to the general public in a way calculated to entertain and generate
enthusiasm but there are very few specifics on what citizens
are being asked to do. What they eventually will have to do goes
beyond recycling cans and using bicycle trails. It would be easy
for the unwary reader to forget that he is reading a Gramscian
campaign of infiltration, a "march through institutions"
of all sorts with the purpose being to bring a population regarded
as little more than sheep under control using focus groups,
methods of generating consensus and eliminating opposition such
as the Delphi
Technique, and enough persuasion through the media, workshops,
etc., so that as many citizens as possible will cooperate willingly
in the transformation of their cities and communities to a socialist
feudal order. That claims on behalf of "citizen participation"
might be bogus is strongly suggested by reports such as that "1,800
people" were involved in the planning that has gone into Region
2020, the globalist master plan for central Alabama being developed
out of Birmingham. Can anyone in his right mind believe that 1,800
people in such a group are going to participate directly in anything,
much less reach a consensus?
is one mention in the Handbook, at the beginning, of the UN’s role.
What it says is in plain English:
of the outcomes of the 1992 UNCED conference in Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil was the document, Agenda 21, a blueprint for global sustainability.
Mirroring Agenda 21’s mandate to national governments, Chapter
28 of the blueprint calls on all local authorities to develop
plans for sustainability. The resulting international effort
to organize municipalities around sustainability initiatives,
spearheaded by ICLEI, is known as Local Agenda 21 (LA 21).
ask again: is this or is this not a mandate of global control, something
that could lead nowhere except to global government otherwise
known as the New World Order in which the content of education,
the availability of jobs, the use of natural resources, etc., would
all be strictly monitored and controlled by sustainability bureaucrats.
Moreover, the bureaucrats will have applied what is probably their
most important learning experience of the past century, which is
that really determined socialists can accomplish far more through
infiltration, manipulation through distortion of language and behavior
modification than they can through open displays of force. However,
there can be no doubt that what cannot be accomplished through these
methods leading to "voluntary" cooperation will be accomplished
by legislative force. There is, again, plenty of fine print you
might miss if you are not reading closely: "[A sustainable
community] encourages environmental stewardship among businesses
through regulatory incentives." The last time I checked, regulatory
meant controlling economic action through force of law.
if not hundreds of cities and towns of various sizes have already
allowed themselves to become guinea pigs for this agenda. The Local
Government Handbook is replete with examples, and references still
others with URLs. The reader is led to believe that the process
of reshaping America’s smaller communities for the better is already
underway. But let’s make no mistake about the aim of this agenda:
it is to lead millions of ordinary people to submit willingly to
globalist micromanagement in the name of saving the environment
from destruction at the hands of unplanned and therefore "unsustainable"
actions on the part of free persons. For all practical purposes,
we could remove every usage of the word sustainable and replace
it with micromanaged.
there direct evidence to support this negative interpretation of
sustainable development? Consider the effects of the sustainable
development movement on the town of Pattonsburg, Missouri. In 1993
in the early years of the sustainable development movement
the town suffered from a devastating flood. Sustainability
activists came to the rescue. A New Pattonsburg was built. Residents
found themselves living under a
few new legally binding mandates:
New Pattonsburg residents will: a. use low flow
showerheads; b. use gravity flow toilet tanks that use
no more than 1.5 gallons per flush; c. install faucet
aerators on kitchen & bathroom faucets; d. make provisions
for storage & processing of recyclables and composting,
including recycling bins near the kitchen, under sink door-mounted
bucket with lid for compostibles and outside composing bin where
feasible; e. preserve all existing trees where feasible;
preserve natural drainage patterns; f. abide by such
fertilizer and pesticides usage rules as are announced from
time-to-time by the Board of Aldermen. Residential lots must
have trees planted to maximize summer cooling. [Emphases in
discussed were eight-pages of Architectural Standards related to
external walls, building elements, windows and doors, roofs, gardens
and landscape covered under specific categories of materials,
configuration and techniques. There were a couple of items classified
as miscellaneous: "Railings of steel or wrought iron shall
be painted black."
was in 1993! Today the micromanagement is on a much larger scale.
Consider the 98-page
plan for a "Progressive Pell City," Pell City, Alabama:
all 14,880 acres have been developed, the city will see much
of its woods and pastures become a traditional suburban community:
on lots larger than 3 acres will comprise 20.5 percent of
on lots of 0.3 to 3 acres, 41.7 percent;
homes, townhouses and apartments, 5.8 percent;
housing, 2 percent;
and office building, 9.7 percent;
complexes, 7.1 percent;
and open space, 8.5 percent;
and greenways, 3.4 percent;
buildings, 1.3 percent.
is not a word in either case about private ownership of anything;
the master planners have, instead, developed what begins to look
more and more like a plan of population control.
are just two examples. There are plenty of others every state
in the U.S. is being affected in one way or another by the sustainable
the end, however, the kinds of global wealth redistribution, central
planning and population control being promoted at huge globalist
confabs like WSSD are what will prove unsustainable in the long
run. The meager handful of critics of WSSD (such as Joan
Morse and Ilana
Mercer) have observed 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 lack of understanding of basic economic law that
has undermined every attempt to "build socialism" remains.
Genuine understanding of economic law would reveal why the "developed"
world has succeeded and why the "developing" world continues
to struggle with poverty and misery. What would lead, e.g., the
peoples of Africa out of poverty and misery?
place to start would be to get rid of thugs like Zimbabwe’s
Robert Mugabe, and of the idea that "black majority rule"
is in some sense progress. Whether anyone likes it or not, when
these nations were under the yoke of European whites they were relatively
prosperous with far lower crime rates; now, ruled by blacks, their
standards of living have spiraled downwards as crime and barbarism
have spiraled upwards; whites have fled in droves, sometimes in
fear for their lives. Europeans developed an understanding of economic
law and the role of private property rights; Africans did not. One
of the reasons for the lack of genuine opportunities in Africa is
that no one, black or white, will live and invest resources in a
place where he has to wonder if he will make it home alive, if his
family will be safe while he is at work, or if his business will
still be standing the next morning.
good second step would be to get rid of the resentment-driven
Marxist division of the world into "victims" and "oppressors,"
which reappears in UN-speak as the contrast between "developed"
and "developing" nations along with the idea that the
"developed" world grew prosperous by exploiting the "developing"
world. There is a distinct sense that the massive transfers of wealth
and resources being called for by "developing" world politicians
and activists are regarded as payback a form of reparations
for centuries of exploitation and apartheid. A third step
would be something I cannot foresee the UN ever doing (since it
would mean the end of its very raison d’etre): relinquishing
the idea that central planning either has or ever can bring about
anything except diminished living standards and eventual totalitarianism
regardless of whether we call it that or just go on using
the word governance.
course, this is looking at things from an ends-means perspective.
If your end really is to reduce poverty, then what are the most
appropriate means? It can hardly be an accident that those countries
that have enjoyed the most economic liberty have also been the most
prosperous and the least polluted. So if 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.
So as one Johannesburg dissident from the party line recently put
we really need is more unsustainable exploitation.
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.
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.
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.
hasn’t ended yet, and so its outcome and long-term effects are unclear.
No doubt there are many who will gripe that "not enough was
done" despite all the promises made and "partnerships"
formed. Let’s hope not! It is unclear what can be done to stop the
growing encirclement of controls on populations, often so subtle
and gradual that the average person isn’t aware that anything has
changed until it is too late. But there are ways. One is education
the real thing, which means debunking the "reforms"
being staged in government schools, whether we call them school-to-work,
no-child-left-behind, or whatever fashionable phrase comes
along next. There is abundant evidence of a sustained, decades-long
effort to dumb down the American public, with its focal point being
government schools. If change-agents in classrooms can inculcate
socialism and groupthink into children today, globalists will have
little trouble ruling compliant, socialist adults tomorrow.
solution is to support home schooling and private schools
kept private by abstaining from vouchers or other devices that will
eventually be used to pull the institutions back in under the edifice
of government and therefore globalist control. The growth of home
schooling and home schooling networks all across the country has
been one of the most interesting developments of the past decade,
and should be encouraged.
strategy is to consider supporting or even joining the various secessionist
and separations movements existing throughout the United States
and, indeed, throughout the world especially given that it
is unlikely that any genuine purveyors of individual freedom will
be nominated, much less elected, to any national office today (with
Ron Paul being the only exception I know of). Groups such as the
League of the South are scorned
and labeled as racists in the dominant national media and by lackeys
in the academic world. There is a very good reason for this: these
are efforts to maintain control by controlling how information reaches
the public. Such groups which have formed and exist in plenty
of places besides the Southeast are a potential threat to
the New World Order and therefore to the sustainable development
movement. Their core ideas are sovereignty and independence
notions that have become taboo in major media circles today. Applying
labels such as racist or sexist or homophobe or xenophobe or conspiracy-nut
or isolationist or whatever has become the most convenient means
of discrediting someone without having to listen to whatever he
might have to say. Real education will teach children and teenagers
to see through such garbage.
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.
alternative is the world as the WSSD globalists envision it: an
expanding encirclement of controls on individuals reflecting what
is "sustainable," not what is Constitutional. Animals
and even plants will have more legally recognized rights than human
beings. Large tracts of land will be set aside as "wildlife
preserves"; people will not be permitted to live there. Those
in such places now will be relocated forcibly, if necessary.
Communities will be highly ordered habitats where the majority of
the population lives in apartments and high rises (their service-sector
jobs will not pay enough to afford houses). They will be more like
beehives than neighborhoods and towns as we know them today. People
will use mass transit or bicycles instead of automobiles to get
to their jobs automobiles pollute the air, after all. They
will almost certainly not be allowed to own guns or other weapons.
There will probably be plenty of entertainment sports, nightclubs,
and reality shows on TV. Such things function as distractions that
encourage mental passivity. People in certain occupations might
be encouraged to spy on their neighbors and report any "unsustainable"
activities (spying on U.S. citizens is already being encouraged
by the Bush Regime in the name of the "war on terrorism,"
thus establishing the precedent). Dissidents will be ostracized,
find it increasingly difficult to earn a living, and might even
find themselves harassed on their own property or in fear for their
physical safety. This has already
happened to at least one family simply for protesting outcome-based
education in the local government school.
is very probable that if Agenda 21 is fully implemented, citizens
of the projected "sustainable communities" of the future
will be told how many children they can have, so that control of
population size can be maintained. Anyone who doubts that such ideas
have been kicked around the smoke-free rooms of the globalist elites
is invited to consult the work of sustainability-economists Herman
Daly and John B. Cobb Jr. Abortion will not be a problem; abortions
will be available, inexpensive and safe, just as Planned Parenthood
and the NOW had ordered. Those children allowed to be born will
be "educated" about their duties to the public good (always
as defined by officially-designated authorities) and the evils of
our nation’s past, about celebrating diversity, and using latex
condoms when they have sex. It may no longer be necessary to divide
them from their parents if their parents are also obedient socialists.
As youth they will learn "job skills" in group settings
and as adults they will work in teams in cubicles, having chosen
an occupation from a list of government-provided options; they will
return home at night to slightly larger cubicles, possibly shared
with other families. They will believe if they think about
the matter at all that truth is just consensus. In general
they will have "learned" to be intellectually dependent
on authority in the name of "interdependence," having
grown up to be compliant "global citizens." With enough
Ritalin, Prozac and "anger management" seminars and workshops,
but with plenty of entertainment and no need to do any real independent
thinking, they might even, in their own strange and passive way,
come to enjoy living under the New World Order.
Yates [send him mail]
has a PhD in philosophy and is a Margaret "Peg" Rowley Fellow
at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
He is the author of Civil
Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (ICS Press,
1994), and numerous articles and reviews. At any given time
he is at work on any number of articles and book projects, including
a science fiction novel.
© 2002 LewRockwell.com