August 21, 2018

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 101 – What the Average American Needs to Know.

agenda 21 sustainable developmentSustainable Development to the average American is a concept that is difficult to fully comprehend. Air quality, water quality and healthy living seem to be, in the minds of many, noble causes worthy of advocacy and support. Who doesn’t want fresh air to breath, or fresh water to drink, or healthy food to eat … Alternate energy and conservation, why not… right? Besides, many mainstream celebrities are in favor of it. Then there is the cry from others: the loss of property rights and the warnings against the infringement on property rights. So as an average American who is busy going to work, running a business, raising children, going to church and such, is there any time to do the necessary research? When able to do so it becomes overwhelming. Then one is faced with the decision: which side is right? Which side is wrong? Are there valid arguments on both sides? Do both sides have a point? Should there be give and take? Should one take the side that sounds most reasonable?

This scenario is typical. It is typical of any issue really. And the more important the issue, the more difficult it is to get a clear picture. So there results a divide.

Sustainable Development is one of those issues. When attempting to understand it, it gets even more confusing because of the strong effort by its proponents to persuade the American People to favor it. But it is an issue that demands careful consideration because all Americans are impacted by it and there are major implications that will come in the future if we are not careful.

Sustainable Development is a very dangerous concept. It is dangerous because there are insidious tenants that underly it. These tenants are cloaked with a tremendous amount of deception. It’s been this way for at least 50 years. This deception has blinded the general public from the real dangers and has created ideologically committed low-level proponents who do not really understand its real intent, even though they promote it. However, the high-level masterminds and advocates who engineer and promote it do. They are the ones who design and drive the policies which facilitate its acceptance and implementation. The low level proponents mainly promote the utopian vision of a fully implemented sustainable world using the entry point of Environmentalism. The reality of what it is is far from utopian, in fact it is catastrophic to humanity as a whole.

Sustainable Development – The Driving Philosophy

To begin the demystification process, let us begin with fundamentals – the premise. Whether it be education, science, economy or politics for instance, any system or idea is driven by a premise, philosophy or design. In construction for example, a structure, whether it be single-story or multi-story, is never constructed without it first being designed. An architect designs the structure and based on that design it is constructed. The same goes with an automobile. A tremendous amount of think work and creative goes into developing the concept, first as a digital or hand sketch drawing, then clay modeling and such. Once the designers are satisfied with the final draft and the design has gone through an approval process, it then goes to manufacturing. At the end of the whole process, from concept to completion, an automobile emerges. It is no different when it comes to building societies.

There is a philosophy which drives Sustainable Development. It is driven primarily by the philosophy of Thomas Robert Malthus. Utilitarianism also plays a role.

Thomas Robert Malthus was a cleric, but not just any cleric. He was a cleric of what you would today call a left-wing cleric. Malthus asserted and advocated an idea in his writings, particularly in “An Essay on the Principle of Population”. The case he made in his book was that the ultimate factor to consider for the well-being of a society was its population to be “kept” in par with the food supply. His distorted assertion was that as the population increases, the more stress is put on the means of subsistence; in other words, the more people there are, the less ability exists for them to feed themselves because population growth is exponential while food supply growth is linear. His claim was that as a “principle” or law, when there are too many people, the principle of population reduction gets triggered through hunger, violence, disease, war, “vices of men” and such which results in bringing the population and the means of subsistence to a “balance”. In his mind, too many people in existence creates this stress which is at the root of all violence, hunger, poverty, famine, disease and war. Once this balance is reached, hunger, disease, pandemics, violence, poverty and war cease. He cites many examples justifying his assertions, including the criticism of the growth of the American colonies.

He reasoned that these checks to population if “allowed” to be kept in play, they hold the population at a balance with the subsistence of that society. These checks were acknowledged as “preventative checks” and “positive checks”. The preventative checks reduce or lower the birth rate and the positive checks raise the death rate. Example of positive checks included hunger, disease and war. The preventative checks included abortion, birth control, prostitution, postponement of marriage and celibacy. He makes a case that by removing these checks, population quickly increases creating a subsistence crisis at the point when the population out-paces subsistence. So the main tenet of his argument in his book was that these checks should “not” be removed but be left alone. There is an implication of “encouragement” of these checks. True happiness would then be found in the “leaving” of these checks as opposed to the increase in productivity.

Malthus wrote: “This natural inequality of the two powers, of population, and of production of the earth, and that great law of our nature which must constantly keep their effects equal, form the great difficulty that appears to me insurmountable in the way to the perfectibility of society.

It is also important to note that Charles Darwin quotes in “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection – Or the Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life” that Malthus was the inspiration to his work!

He argued against productivity and development. Development meaning productivity which sustains the individual’s life and well-being. There is an implication in Malthus’ writings that economic growth and productivity, which were the result of a moral and civilized society, contributed to the increase in population. The ludicrous conclusion was that morality is a contributor to hunger, disease, war, pandemics and the such. This idea is carried on by modern day Malthusians today.

Interestingly enough, we see a similar theme going all the way back to the account of the Exodus. In this account found in the first chapter of the book of Exodus in the Old Testament, the children of Israel were multiplying exceedingly and were becoming very powerful as a result. Pharaoh argued to his people that if the Israelite population continued to increase, they would be overrun and, in the event of war, would unite with their enemy against them to overthrow them. So they were resolute in bringing the Israelites under hard bondage and labor. However, the harder the labor, the more they multiplied. So Pharaoh decided that “positive” measures should be taken to arrest their growth. This positive measure was infanticide of the males born to the Israelites.

The population of the Israelites posed nothing more than a threat to Pharaoh’s power. And such is the case with the global elites of the world today!

The word and idea of “sustainable” is rooted in this dangerous Malthusian philosophy. It becomes clear when one reads the definition of Sustainable Development. According to the Brundtland Report “Our Common Future”, prepared by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 (an arm of the United Nations), Sustainable Development is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” It can also be seen in the following definition found on the Taiwanese government’s Environmental Protection Administration website, which reads, “Sustainable Development and Management is a process for meeting [EM] human development goals while maintaining [EM] the ability of natural systems to continue providing the natural resources and ecosystem services, upon which the economy and society depend.” In this definition, one can also see the peculiar yet significant phrase “Human Development Goals”.

Human Development plays a significant role in the implementation of Sustainable Development. When one thinks of human development though, the context which comes generally to mind to a normal well intended individual is the spiritual, physical and mental growth for the betterment of an individual. One would think of human development as personal development in a general sense. However according the the architects of Sustainable Development, Human Development means something completely different! Human Development is defined by Dr. Selim Jahan, Director of United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Report Office (HDRO) in New York, as “the process of enriching human choices“. Enriching? What choices? What does human development have to do with choices? They define that in the Brundtland Report which in one section reads that “Sustainable global development requires that those who are more affluent adopt life-styles within the planet’s ecological means – in their use of energy, for example. Further, rapidly growing populations can increase the pressure on resources and slow any rise in living standards; thus sustainable development can only be pursued if population size and growth are in harmony with the changing productive potential of the ecosystem.” It further states that “Yet in the end, sustainable development is not a fixed state of harmony, but rather a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change [EM] are made consistent with future as well as present needs. We do not pretend that the process is easy or straightforward. Painful choices [EM] have to be made. Thus, in the final analysis, Sustainable Development must rest on political will [EM].” So in essence, human development has to do with “enriching” or “persuading and coercing” people to facilitate those choices that relate to their own demise through the avenue of Sustainable Development.

Sustainable Development – Implementation

The implementation of Sustainable Development is to be considered very closely as well. There have been several high level World conferences since the late 1960s, in which the United States has been a big part of, held for the purpose of drafting a uniform and comprehensive strategic plan. This plan has come together in the form of declarations, worldwide programmes, public policy plans, “institutional change” policies, and more … all this to be secured in a specific manner on a specified time frame. This agenda has been driven by high level think tanks established by very high profile people, prominent men in positions of power and influence particularly in banking, government and business. These people have enlisted very smart people to be leaders in the crafting of policy. The Rockefeller family has been integral. They have established and have funded – and continue to fund – high profile think tanks producing case studies and policy change recommendation reports which have been instrumental in persuading policy makers. One such document was the Global 2000 Report and another, the Global 2000 Revisited report. These compilations make a misleading case regarding the so called impending threat of over-population, including case studies, graphs, charts and the such. there have been many whom have fought hard against this. There continues to be efforts to warn policymakers and the general public of the impending dangers of such anti-human policies and the false premises they are based on, but the efforts have either been met with contempt or the people bringing awareness to it have been marginalized.

Among others, the 1972 Stockholm Conference and the 1992 Rio Summit were two main conferences which have been pivotal in developing the movement and its implementation including Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is the agenda to implement Sustainable Development worldwide. In the year 2000, at the Millennial Summit of the United Nations, the Sustainable Development ideas were more clearly defined into 8 agenda items called the Millennial Development Goals (MDGs).

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are based on the 8 Millennial Development Goals (MDGs). They are generally the same except the SDG’s are expanded into seventeen. The Millennial Development Goals (MDGs) are targets to accomplish the following:

To eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

To achieve universal primary education

To promote gender equality

To reduce child mortality

To improve maternal health

To combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases

To ensure environmental sustainability

To develop a global partnership for development

The 2015 targets were not met and to their disappointment the target date has been reluctantly extended to the year 2030 under a new name: The Post-2015 Agenda (or the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development). This whole year has been full of chatter amongst the think tanks and architects regarding their determination to get them done by that year come hell or high water! It is important for Americans to consider this because a coercive Tsunami of political, educational, economic and social pressure for its implementation is on the horizon, including disarmament, and it must be resisted and rejected!! This author will argue that this pressure is already here.

Sustainable Development and Subversion

How they are attempting to persuade the general populous to voluntarily commit to these goals is key to combating their agenda. There is an exemplary phrase used to teach children on the importance of being grammatically correct. The phrase is “commas save lives”. The example that is typically used to illustrate this is the contrast between the following two sentences. One is “Let’s eat Grandma“. The other is “Let’s eat, Grandma“. The comma makes all the difference in how the same three words together can mean, depending on whether a comma is used or not. A KGB defector from the early 70’s, Yuri Bezmenov, who for many years helped Americans understand Soviet strategies and tactics, said in an 1985 interview that only 15% of resources of the KGB were used in espionage against their enemies. The remaining 85% were used in what the Soviets called “active measures”, or “psychological subversion”. In this interview and throughout his life, he warned Americans that psychological subversion was actually being applied to the American people by American Communists who were in positions of power, and frankly continue to be. This was back in 1985. He defined active measures as subversion that was overt, being able to be seen but put out in such a way that even though it was overt, there was enough deception masking the real meaning and intent of the subversion to deceive and indoctrinate a generation of useful idiots.

In the same way, this strategy is being applied to further Sustainable Development today. Even though the real intent is being heralded openly by the masterminds and engineers in all their literature and seminars through the World’s most influential think tanks, there still remains a cloak of deception regarding it which is mostly embraced by politicians, the intellectual community on both sides of the isle, and the general public.

They mask their agenda in pseudo compassion. The strategies of Sustainable Development tug at the “heart” to altruistically persuade the average person in order to deceive them of its true intent. America, because of Liberty, and the premise that government is instituted to protect the rights of the People, is a big problem to these oligarchs. So the emphasis is on attacking the United States. Why? Because Americans are the only free people in the World. Christianity is the foundation of Liberty. In order for them to convince Christians to buy into global governance, the American People have to be psychologically tricked into surrendering to it, all the while being told global governance is benevolent. This is where the idea of Sustainable Development comes in. It is a strategy to bring in the nefarious system the social engineers envision. This is why the goals are what they are.

Sustainable Development and Environmentalism

There is also a connection between the environmental degradation cry and Sustainable Development. This connection is the reason why environmental policy, which again is one of the entry points to Sustainable Development, has been so successfully enshrined into law. The environmental degradation pseudo-crisis is the cry and excuse being used to force the enactment of environmental policy. However, abortion, euthanasia, sterilization, gender equality, starvation and such are the means by which the architects of Sustainable Development openly write and state as the primary and necessary solution to curbing so called environmental degradation, because these reduce the population as Malthus called for. They are also calling for the use of force and coercion to achieve the SDGs and the MDGs. The Post 2015 Agenda aka the 2030 Agenda (the reduction of poverty, eradication of violence, prosperity, equality, etc) are the cloaks. This is why making their cloaks legal is critical because they can and intend to force (and I’ll argue that is is currently being used) Sustainable Development into all public policy, and use the force of law and treaties to achieve their urgent goal. Once Sustainable Development is law worldwide, then the decimating process of drastically reducing the population can be done and done “legally”, justifying the use of force to achieve it.

Environmental theory, which is solely based on Malthusian Theory, is prominent in all Common Core education material nationwide. Some environmental awareness ideas have been in the textbooks for over 30 years. They did not exist in textbooks in the early 1900s. Any textbook today or curriculum which has environmental theory and environmental awareness and sensitivity is Common Core material. As of this writing the Paris Summit on Climate is pushing for the Post 2015 Agenda for Sustainable Development which includes as several of it’s goals the indoctrination of children worldwide to environmental sensitivity and Global citizenship. The environmental sensitivity includes Sustainable Development.

Bill Gates is an open advocate of de-population and has publicly stated that sterilization through vaccines is one main avenue. He is the largest funder of vaccine research, development and implementation in the world. He is very active in funding vaccinations in third world countries. He claims there is a global warming crisis brought about by dangerous levels of CO2 emissions and advocates, as the solution, the reduction of these CO2 emissions to near zero percent. His claim is that by drastically reducing the population of the world, CO2 emissions are normalized and the climate change crisis is thwarted. His proposed method of reducing carbon emissions to near zero is to reduce the population in his words through “womens reproductive rights, vaccines and health-care”.

 The link between environmentalism and depopulation cannot be more clear, and it even gets more clear in later examples. It would be naive for Americans to dismiss it. Doing so would have catastrophic consequences for the near future.

 Sustainable Development and Property Rights

What is the connection between property rights and Sustainable Development? Property rights today are understood mostly in terms of real property, real estate, tangibles or intangible in which one holds title. Although this inclination is true, our Founding Fathers had a broader understanding of property rights. Fredrick Bastiat, a French political theorist from the 1800’s, maintains this notion in his book “The Law” when he wrote in the first chapter “But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we can convert them into products, and use them. The process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course. Life, faculties, production – in other words, individuality, liberty, property – this is man.” John Locke also understood this notion well when he wrote in the Two Treatises of Government, “Whether we consider natural reason, which tells us, that men, being once born, have a right to their preservation, and consequently to meat and drink, and such other things as nature affords for their subsistence…” Further he writes: “Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his.” James Madison said, “As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.” Calvin Coolidge, 30th President of the United States, stated that “Ultimately property rights and personal rights are the same thing.” These statements point to a relationship between a person’s body and property, as one in the same. Our faculties reside in our bodies. We need our bodies to maintain life. As Locke pointed out, without our bodies we cannot sustain ourselves or give our Creator what is due him. The Apostle Paul in his epistle to the Church in Rome writes that our bodies are a temple of the Lord (I Corinthians 6:19). This means our bodies belong to the Lord, which in essence is what Locke was getting at, and no man has a right to steal it from another.

John Locke points out further on in the treatise the relationship between natural resources and subsistence by the capturing of natural resources which in turn becomes part of man, his property. It becomes clear in the reading of Chapter V entitled “Of Property” that property is necessary for the preservation of man’s life and as such has a right to it by appropriation of natural resources through the labour of his body and the work of his hands. Our Founding Fathers shared this idea.

Also, our Founding Fathers knew that by being a “subject”, they were slaves to the British Crown, whom considered their subjects “property”. The Kings have always conveniently claimed the divine right of Kings, being that they convinced themselves they had the sole God-given power, authority and ownership on Earth of “body and soul” of their subjects, thus giving Monarchs, in their perverted minds, the so called “right” to do as they saw fit with their “property”. King James I, in his speech to parliament in 1601, made that clear when he stated “And to the King is due both the affection of the soul and the service of the body of his subjects”. Earlier in his speech he claimed that as body and soul are due to God, so is that due to Kings. Because of Christianity, and our Founding Fathers being as Christian as they were, recognized that body and soul did not belong to the Kings of the Earth, but to God in Heaven, through Jesus Christ. So when the Declaration of Independence was written, the original draft included certain unalienable right including “life, liberty and “property”. It was later changed to the pursuit of happiness which meant the pursuit of the freedom to fulfill life with their body and souls and live their lives accordingly, as they saw fit by spiritual conviction in their worship of Jesus Christ our Savior, not by the permission of men or government.

One of the intended fall-outs of Roe vs Wade was that women are given legal permission, under the guise of the right to privacy, to destroy a human life. It is clear when looking at the history of this case is that the attorneys understood this well and used it to rob the unborn of their God-given right to life and property, in order to futher their agrenda. Even though the fetus is attached in the womb by divine design, the mother does not have the moral right to take its life because the child belongs to God. The State is not ultimate in this regard. The parent is entrusted with the child by divine ordinance until adulthood. Further, the State cannot claim a right to the life of that child because it comes from an authority higher than the State. The body, soul and spirit of every human being belongs to Jehovah God’s through Jesus Christ. “…individuality, liberty, property – this is man”, as John Locke put it. Can’t then a case be made that there is a connection between property rights and abortion? If the case can be made, then it behooves individuals to hold the protection of property rights as a moral imperative!

It is important to note that Justice William O. Douglas, who sided with the majority in the Roe vs Wade ruling, believed that trees should have legal standing under the law. In his dissenting opinion in Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972), Justice Douglas argued that “inanimate objects” should have standing to sue in court:

 “The critical question of ‘standing’ would be simplified and also put neatly in focus if we fashioned a federal rule that allowed environmental issues to be litigated before federal agencies or federal courts in the name of the inanimate object about to be despoiled, defaced, or invaded by roads and bulldozers and where injury is the subject of public outrage. Contemporary public concern for protecting nature’s ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation. This suit would therefore be more properly labeled as Mineral King v. Morton.[17] ”

 He continued:

 “Inanimate objects are sometimes parties in litigation. A ship has a legal personality, a fiction found useful for maritime purposes. The corporation sole—a creature of ecclesiastical law—is an acceptable adversary and large fortunes ride on its cases…. So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life. The river, for example, is the living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes—fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it.[17] ”

John Holdren, the current Director of the Whitehouse Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Obama Administration, advocated the same thing… that trees should have legal standing to sue in court. Also, John Holdren and Robert Ehrlich, in their collaborative writing “Ecoscience – Population, Resources, Environment” written in the late 70’s, were very open about the idea of compulsory abortion and forced and mandatory sterilization by the State, birth licenses, mandatory vasectomy, which in their minds was necessary for the public good. Also, in 1957, Aldous Huxley wrote a non-fiction follow-up book called the “Brave New World Revisited”. In the last chapter, after meticulously detailing in previous chapters all the problems facing the world at the time, he offers a solution. That solution was depopulation.

In 2012 Bill Gates, an open advocate of depopulation, payed a visit to MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), one of the most prestigious schools in the World. Upon his visit, it was reported by the MIT Technology Review on July 14, 2014 regarding a contraceptive remote controlled microchip implant that “To conceive, women turn off the implant with a remote control; another click of the remote restarts it. After 16 years, it could be removed. Doctors could also adjust dosages remotely. Currently, no hormonal birth control lasts over five years. The idea for the device originated two years ago in a visit by Bill Gates and his colleagues to Robert Langer’s MIT lab. Gates and his colleagues asked Langer if it were feasible to create birth control that a woman could turn on and off and use for many years. Langer thought the controlled release microchip technology he invented with colleagues Michael Cima and John Santini in the 1990s and licensed to MicroCHIPS might offer a solution.” He then decided to fund the research and development by means of a grant to the tune of 11.3 million dollars!! This is exactly what Holdren and Ehrlich were calling for more than 30 years earlier. So there is no question this agenda is on the forefront of the very powerful people in the world who not only engineer policy but also fund the elite think tanks by which all governments, including the United States Government, receive policy direction from. David Rockefeller is another who is an open advocate of depopulation. Both him and Bill Gates make the connection between environmental degradation and population, which is why the environmental movement is so important to them and why the environmental awareness is so embedded in thought today. It is imperative for them to inculcate into this generation children environmental sensitivity and awareness as a moral imperative.

The architects of Sustainable Development understand property rights fully and understand that in order to control man, they have to have jurisdiction over his body, his property. They are currently stealing our real property rights and personal rights. They mean to continue to until there are none left, and hence take full control of our bodies. As the late former President Coolidge said, “Ultimately property rights and personal rights are the same thing.”

 Malthus’ work by the way was instrumental in the passing of the Census Act 1800 in England, also known as the Population Act 1800, passed December 3, 1800. That same year, the Acts of Union were also passed and took effect January 1, 1801. This is significant because the Acts of Union 1800 was said by many scholars as being the roots of the Great Famine in Ireland.

“…Pre-famine Ireland was shaped by a variety of factors. First the Act of Union of 1800 changed the political face of Ireland. Before the Act of Union, Ireland had its own Parliament in Dublin and was therefore, somewhat autonomous. After the Act of Union was passed on January 1, 1801, Ireland ‘lost her own parliament and was formally integrated into the United Kingdom” (Cannily 24)….’”

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebstork/famine.html#anchor24222

Jack O’Keefe PhD, author of “Survivors of the Irish Hunger 1845-1850”, quotes Francis Boyle in his book as saying “Clearly, during the years 1845 to 1850, the British government pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland with intent to destroy in substantial part the national, ethnical, and racial group known as the Irish People…

Also, according to Christine Kinealy in her book “This Great Calamity”, “The government had to do something to help alleviate the suffering, the particular nature of the actual response, especially following 1846, suggests a more covert agenda and motivation. As the Famine progressed, it became apparent that the government was using its information not merely to help it formulate its relief policies, but also as an opportunity to facilitate various long-desired changes within Ireland. These included population control and the consolidation of property through various means, including emigration… Despite the overwhelming evidence of prolonged distress caused by successive years of potato blight, the underlying philosophy [EM] of the relief efforts was that they should be kept to a minimalist level; in fact they actually decreased as the Famine progressed.”

Kinealy, Christine (1994), This Great Calamity, pp 353, Gill & Macmillan, ISBN 0-7171-1881-9 – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29

Sustainable Development and Education

One of the insidious strategies applied for its implementation is the introduction and training of Sustainable Development and global citizenship to the young. Global citizenship is to be achieved through Sustainable Development. They need to convince a generation that individual interest is secondary to the interest of the whole, including the State and including the right to life. It includes the surrender of the protection of God-given rights (unalienable rights). If the young are taught that there is a population crisis and subsistence is at risk, then there must be self-sacrifice of life and rights for the greater good of the greater number. The engineers envision a society of self sacrifice for the betterment of the whole, and are tirelessly working to persuade a generation into a new ideal of self-sacrifice of life. This may sound to some readers as preposterous, but the engineers are not only very open about these intentions, these ideas are already found in modern day curriculum. Charles Galton Darwin made this cry in his book from 1952 “The Next Million Years”.

The architects of Sustainable Development understand and also follow the philosophy proposed by Bertrand Russell and Aldous Huxley in the 50’s; conditioning the masses into voluntarily conformity. Common Core is today’s avenue by which to stream into the minds of the young the social architect’s ideals and vision. Common Core is always promoted to the masses and defended by its proponents as being about raising the bar in education by the implementation of higher standards, making it almost impossible for the average person to argue against it. Who would dare argue against “standards” in education? The problem though, is that what the Common Core designers mean by standards means something completely different that what the average person perceives the definition of standards to be. This becomes very clear in the statements and writings of the architects. Bill Gates has single-handedly been the muscle behind Common Core, funding it to the tune of more that two billion dollars of his own money for it to be written, promoted and implemented. Jeb Bush has been a recipient of this windfall and has been instrumental in the implementation of Common Core, particularly in Florida. He has an iron grip on the legislative, executive and judicial bodies of Florida to the point where it is virtually impossible for any repeal of Common Core to be entertained. Regardless, the tireless efforts of Florida activists are slowly penetrating the evil stronghold.

Sustainable Development – Subverting Christianity

 Unfortunately for them and a blessing for us, there is a big obstacle to their vision: Christianity. Because at the heart of Christianity is the sanctity of life, this becomes a stumbling block for the architects of Sustainable Development. So as part of their efforts, they also have targeted Christianity. Using the established mindset in Americans which has resulted from the work of the Frankfurt School, they now are taking it to the next level. Even with all the efforts of the Frankfurt School, Christianity in America has taken a blow but has not been annihilated as had been their objective. Most of the surrender to progressive thought inculcated into Americans by the Frankfurt School has been a combination of the surrender of values by some who were unwilling to stand on moral principle, and the subversion of thought through the revisionism that was implemented in the higher education system by the very same architects who are building a global society. The Frankfurt School captured the colleges and universities and used the power they had gained to implement progressive thought into all subjects. These subjects included science, business, philosophy, medicine – history, primarily American History – civics and the arts! That progressive thought is also deeply embedded in undergraduate and graduate course studies in theology of prominent Ivy League schools nationwide.

Another, and probably the most concerning of all, is the persuasion for Sustainability by means of environmental sensitivity within the Christian community. Christian materials today are being poisoned with the heretical claim that God created the earth and man was created to be a steward of that Creation. Several biblical passages are used and taken out of context to justify this claim including Psalms 24:1. The heretical logic is, since the earth belongs to God, then man’s mandated function in relationship to the creation which belongs to God is “stewardship”. This passage does not say or imply stewardship. God created the Earth for man to rule over and subdue it and for it to be a “resource” for man to sustain man’s life as Genesis 1:28 reads “God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”. That means the earth is subject to man, not the other way around. Psalm 115:16 also clearly states “The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, But the earth He has given to the sons of men”.

This author will not argue the unfounded claim of human abuse of the earth. There is no biblical mandate to be stewards of the Earth. The scriptures that are used to justify Earth stewardship are either creating an implication that is not there, or are completely out of context. Men, whether good or evil, will never destroy their own means of sustaining themselves. It has never happened historically and never will! Unfortunately, many leaders in the Christian community, solid men of God, some of whom I know personally, have compromised on this issue and have fallen prey to the manipulation of the architect’s purposeful heresy. These leaders, in their ignorance of the agenda towards Global Governance through Sustainable Development, have failed to understand the false doctrine and the evil behind it. As a result of the deception, they see no reason to stand guard against it but instead embrace it. This heresy of man being a steward of God’s creation was designed by the intellectual elite of the social engineers of today to persuade a generation to elevate the value of the Creation over the value of humanity. The heretical logic is: if the value of the planet is higher than the value of human life, then human life is expendable for the greater good of Mother Earth, the excuse to justify abortion, euthanasia, sterilization and genocide which are elements of Sustainable Development under the guise of care and concern. So Christians need to be aware because ignorance or sloppy and perverted subversive theology enables loss of innocent life. What makes us think we won’t come into judgment if we turn a blind eye?

Biblical Christianity is the 800 pound gorilla they have to overcome, in their evil minds. By the exploitation of what Christians care about such as poverty, economic well being, health, the eradication of violence and the such, they figure that by applying the inside-out progressive (Communist) strategy, they can manipulate Christians into going their way. Ernesto Cortes Jr., who is a well known community organizer (social change agent), has been very public in the past about organizing around people’s values. Even though he does not admit it publicly, social change agents in practice move people from an existing order to an envisioned new order. However, their true agenda is always cloaked in care and concern for what the people they use care about … but in the end, it is never about what the people they deceive care about.

Sustainable Development – Global Government as the Goal

The true goal of Sustainable Development is to create a Global Governance system that is, in the minds of the architects, streamlined with very little complexity, including a very small “conforming” world population which is enslaved to the Global ruling class. This global ruling class is to control and is to be above the World State. The engineers of Global government envision themselves as the rulers of the world (emperors). The World government is designed to control the slaves. This is why it is generally identified amongst the architects of it as World governance. They would be above the law (World government). The current hatchet men that are on the ground persuading governments and the people of all the nations are the big think tanks of the world whose policy are controlled and funded by powerful world elite, including monarchs and central banker heads. These people bypass sovereign states world wide and use their influence and money to manipulate countries by destabilizing their economies, their political systems and undermining their educational institutions. All the benefits that they claim will come to the people around the world will in practice only benefit the global planners. The whole Sustainable Development idea is designed to do just that.

David Rockefeller, in his book “Memoirs” 2003 wrote on page 405, the chapter entitled “Proud Internationalist”, that “For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Sustainable Development – In Their Words

All the information presented are not conclusions drawn by this author. They are a summary of documented information written by the architects of Sustainable Development and their intellectual elite, with some excerpts of their writings and statements. So what is being said about Sustainable Development by its architects, advocates and supporters? What are their claims?

Here are some quotes from those architects and proponents of Sustainable Development.

“The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the world’s time-bound and quantified targets for addressing extreme poverty in its many dimensions-income poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter, and exclusion-while promoting gender equality, education, and environmental sustainability. They are also basic human rights – the rights of each person on the planet to health, education, shelter, and security.”

UN Millennium Project website: HTTP://antidisestablishmentarianism/goals/

“Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world.”

Malthus T.R. 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population. Chapter VII”

“It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class, involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”

Maurice Strong – 1992 UN Rio Earth Summit – In his opening speech

“Family Planning should be a priority for Sustainable Development.”

Kori Anna, former UN Secretary General (1997-2006) from Population Matters

“Rapid population growth is at the center of many of the world’s pressing environmental, economic and security problems…The antidote is family planning, which is not only a universal need but also a basic human right. It is not about telling people what to do; it is about listening to what women want. Having worked internationally for almost 50 years, I have learned that whenever women are offered a range of family planning methods, backed up by honest information about side effects, family size always falls. Smaller families mean that parents are able to keep their children in school and put enough food on the table. When family planning is made available on a wide scale, as in South Korea and Brazil, not only do birthrates fall but entire countries grow more prosperous.”

Malcolm Potts MB, Chirp, PhD, FRCOG – Professor in Maternal and Child Health and the first and former (1992 – 2013) holder of the Fred H. Bibby Endowed Chair in Population and Family Planning of the School of Public Health, University of California – Berkeley

“Those who fail to see that population growth and climate change are two sides of the same coin are either ignorant or hiding from the truth. These two huge environmental problems are inseparable and to discuss one while ignoring the other is irrational.”

James Love lock CH CBE FRS Ph. D – Originator of Gaea Theory

Gaea Theory

“Overall, the Gaea Theory is a compelling new way of understanding life on our planet. It argues that we are far more than just the “Third Rock from the Sun,” situated precariously between freezing and burning up. The theory asserts that living organisms and their inorganic surroundings have evolved together as a single living system that greatly affects the chemistry and conditions of Earth’s surface. [EM]”

HTTP://anthropomorphic/overview/

“We need to recognize that slowing population growth is one of the most cost-effective and reliable ways of easing pressure on our environment and securing a sustainable future for us all.”

Lionel Shriver – Journalist and author – from underpopulation

“There’s no point bleating about the future of pandas, polar bears and tigers when we’re not addressing the one single factor that’s putting more pressure on the ecosystem than any other — namely the ever-increasing size of the world’s population.”

Chris Pack ham – Naturalist, nature photographer, television presenter and author

“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”

Eco science: Population, Resources, Science – John P. Holden, Paul R. Ehrlich , Anne H. Ehrlich

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

Eco science: Population, Resources, Science – John P. Holden, Paul R. Ehrlich , Anne H. Ehrlich

“Rockefeller Brothers Fund Mission Statement:

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund advances social change that contributes to a more just, sustainable, and peaceful world.”

Rockefeller Brothers Fund Website: http://www.rbf.org/content/about-fund

“Rockefeller Brothers Fund Sustainable Development Program:

The Sustainable Development program advances global stewardship [EM] that is ecologically based, economically sound, socially just, culturally appropriate, and consistent with intergenerational equity. Human activity is causing global warming, rapid loss of biodiversity, and accelerating degradation of Earth’s life support systems. With the recognition that the impact of unchecked climate change threatens all other conservation efforts, the program focuses its grantmaking on advancing solutions to climate change.”

Rockefeller Brothers Fund Website – http://www.rbf.org/program/sustainable-development

“We cannot confront the massive challenges of poverty, hunger, disease and environmental destruction unless we address issues of population and reproductive health.”

Thoraya Ahmed Obaid – Executive Director of the United Nations Population Fund and an Under-Secretary General of the United Nations from 2000 to 2010. – from population matters

“Population growth patterns are linked to nearly every challenge confronting humanity – including poverty reduction, urban pollution, energy production, food and water scarcity and health.”

Babatunde Osotimehin – Executive Director of UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund – from population matters

“With the world confronting a host of major crises relating to climate, energy, severe poverty, food, the global economy and political instability, why should anyone be concerned about population? The simple answer is that virtually all of the major problems that confront the world today relate in some critical way to population growth.”

Population Institute Website https://www.populationinstitute.org/resources/whypopulationmatters/

Countering Sustainable Development

So you see, we have a real big problem on our hands. However, we have something on our side that clearly defeats them: Jesus Christ. As mentioned before, Christianity is the 800 lb gorilla which stands between us and them. America will surely collapse if and only if we surrender our Christianity!

The solution is really for Americans to stay the course with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and now more than ever not deviate or neglect it. We need not neglect our Christian responsibilities particularly within our families, especially those with children and teenagers. We need to be bold in our stand for the Gospel and for “moral principle”. By standing firm on moral principle they will never achieve their agenda. Biblical truth must be protected at all costs and must not be compromised. The Cultural Marxists well understood this! Georg Lukacs, the main founder of the Frankfurt School made it clear when he proclaimed “I see the revolution and destruction of society as the only solution. A world-wide overturning of values cannot take place without annihilation of the old values and a creation of new ones.” The architects of Sustainable Development understand Cultural Marxism very well and they clearly understand that it is a “world abandoned by God” which needs to be created in order for them to fill the vacuum. This is how Russia fell to Lenin, how Germany fell to Hitler and how Europe is inevitably falling to Islam. These cultures allowed leftist zealots to persuade them to abandon God. When that happens, the surrender of moral principle is inevitable. It is moral principle which keeps a society civil “and” from becoming barbaric. Moral principle only comes from the God of the Bible though Jesus Christ. It was also Georg Lukacs who promoted the idea that in order to bring Bolshevism to the west, a “world abandoned by God” through a collective model had to be created.

culturalmarxismAll of us Americans need to recognize that Sustainable Development poses a real threat to our Liberty. Environmentalism and Sustainable Development are not benign ideas left to hippie-like tree huggers. These are very dangerous ideologies embraced and engineered by high profile powerful elite. Left unchecked, ignored or enabled will bring about deadly consequences. The architects of this evil are not only very serious, they are determined to fully implement it. The fact that “World” leaders have gathered (and continue to gather) to strategize on how to implement this worldwide cannot be ignored. Since when do governments get together on issues that are important to the people? They don’t. We must take this seriously. We do not want to make the same mistake that many conservatives made 50 or even 80 years ago with regard to Cultural Marxism. At that time Cultural Marxists were openly making claims that seemed illogical, even far from being achievable. We have to remember that it was people like Bertrand Russell, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Hebert Marcuse, Aldous Huxley, George Orwell and the such in the 20th Century whom were involved in planning and furthering social change. They manipulated the intellectual community to completely revolutionize our culture … and many scoffed at the idea that they could be successful. Unfortunately, they were.

We need to counter their efforts in a very aggressive way “now” before they indoctrinate yet another generation. A new generation of loyal environmentally minded people is what they need. People who, because of a ill-conceived zeal to curb a supposed threat of environmental degradation, will prioritize environmental protection over human life. To further illustrate how serious they are, on September of 2015, twenty climate scientists from several universities wrote a letter to President Obama demanding the prosecution of whom they called “global warming skeptics”. A global warming skeptic, or climate change denier, is one who rejects the claims of catastrophic climate change/man-made global warming as a real threat and who rejects the pseudo science it is based on.

The United Nations and the Council on Foreign Relations are no friends to America nor a friend to the founding principles of this Godly nation. These organizations are the source of all policy relating to Sustainable Development. Our politicians avoid the subject of America’s involvement with the UN and CFR like the plague because the power elite who control the UN fund and hand pick those very politicians … and the majority of those seated in positions of government at the highest levels and administrative office, are CFR members, hand picked to be in those influential positions. There needs to be a concerted effort to distance ourselves from the Council on Foreign Relations and to pull out of the United Nations.

We also need a new breed of representatives who not only understand America, Liberty, Constitution and the Christian foundational principles, but also understand how tyranny works and the deception that is always associated with its implementation. All they have to do is read founding documents to get it. If we are able to get a majority of liberty minded, Constitutional God fearing people who truly are there to represent the people, then something can get done.

By getting out of the United Nations, which is at the root of all the tyranny, then we can have at least a generation or two of a continued free people in America. We have to repeal all educational policies that come from UNESCO, funneled through the federal and state agencies, and restore parental and local control of education.

Is this possible? Yes. Educating the public is key. This way all Americans can truly understand the subversion we are currently under and quit catering to collectivists. These groups are evil and enemies of Liberty. They are dangerous enemies and intend only to destroy America and it’s way! They must be stopped. The global elites are behind the changes in laws to suit their goals. If the laws are all in their favor, the government will inevitably come for the “whole” people. There is no doubt they are coming for us. Let us not allow it get to that point.

An Essay written and researched by Armando Escalante

(c) Copyright 2016 by Armando Escalante – all rights reserved.

Share
Source: