|The word “agenda” has left behind it something of a troubled etymological trail.
Once defined as a list of things to be done or considered, ‘agenda’ today, has come to represent something more covert and sinister involving ulterior motives and driven by considerations hidden from the usual realm of common experience.
The promulgation of the U.N’s Agenda 21 might have had something to do with that change in definition.
Agenda 21 was a program first disseminated at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit), held in Rio de Janeiro on June 14, 1992, where 178 governments voted to adopt it. The program laid out what the gathered representatives of the world governments agreed needed to be done to reduce wasteful and inefficient consumption patterns in some parts of the world while encouraging increased but sustainable development in others. In a 40 chapter document, Agenda 21 outlined its plan for the control of the Earth and its resources, offering no less than the complete recalibration of human society and a re-structured approach to managing over-population, over-consumption and the Earth’s life-supporting capacity.
This, in turn , was built on the premises of General Assembly Resolution 44/228 of 22 December 1989, which was adopted when the nations of the world called for the commission of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, and on the acceptance of the need to take a balanced and integrated approach to environmental and development questions.
Yet over the past 17 years the implementation and the influence of the Agenda has been neither balanced nor integrated. Rather it has been used as a tool of an elite multinational bureaucracy to undermine national sovereignty, suppress individual rights, increase restrictions on indivudal mobility , squlech opportunity and raise the needs of the environment above that of humanity.
With the stamp of a supposedly multilateral consensus, the Agenda is now spreading throughout the world under the mantle of the Education for Sustainability Movement. This movement, through a variety of plans and designs, calls for an end to the structure of western civilization as we know it. The elimination of private property, the restructuring of the family unit, the negation of national sovereignty, a proscription on growth, increasing restrictions on mobility and access to opportunity and the control of human procreation – are all matters addressed by the sustainability movement.
Moreover, it addresses a host of features of modern society which it deems unsustainable. What are they? According to the Global Biodiversity Assessment Report, a publication of the United Nations Environment Program ( UNEP) and as reported by Freedom Advocates, they include golf courses, ski runs, scuba diving, synthetic drugs, railroads, paved roads, consumerism, fish ponds, modern hunting and irrigation. All are, in one way or another, prohibited by the sustainability agenda in the interests of an earth which will be protected from the hand of human degradation.
There can be few doubts of the rapid spread of this environmental dogma throughout educated elites of the Western world.
The sustainability movement is also inordinately pagan in its practices and outlook. In 1992, Maurice Strong, the Secretary-General of the Earth Conference, hinted at the overtly religious agenda proposed for a future Earth Charter, when in his opening address to the Rio delegates he said, “It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light…….We must therefore transform our attitudes and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.” Strong finished with unanimous applause from the crowd.
In anticipation of the conference, his wife, Hanne Strong, held a three-week vigil with Wisdomkeepers, a group of “global transformationalists.” Through round-the-clock sacred fire, drumbeat, and meditation, the group helped hold the “energy pattern” for the duration of the summit.
As if to prove the wild eyed ambition of this New Age millenarianism, authors of the Earth Charter, an environmental manifesto promulgated at a UNESCO meeting held in Paris in March, 2000 commissioned the building of The Ark of Hope , a latter day replica of the Ark of the Covenant as a place of refuge for the Earth Charter document.The Ark was later brought on foot to New York City from Vermont (just as the Ancient Israelites had once carried their Ark) and exhibited at the United Nations.
Is it any wonder that Strong would commentafter the promulgation of the Earth Charter: “The real goal of the Earth Charter is that it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments.”
Or that Mikhail Gorbachev, one of the world’s leading proponents of sustainability could state: “ Do not do unto the environment of others what you do not want done to your own environment….My hope is that this Charter will be a kind of Ten Commandments, a ‘Sermon on the Mount’, that provides a guide for human behavior toward the environment in the next century.”
There is little doubt this drive towards sustainability is part and parcel of the general environmental movement – embraced by such seemingly benign NGOs as the Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation and even our own National Parks Service. These institutions, over the past twenty years, have become wholly radicalized by environmental elites who view themselves as the guardians of an earth pledged to protect us against human environmental degradation. But because sustainability presents itself under the mask of environmentalism, few people question its underlying motives. They fail to understand that their “Green movement,” so apparently in keeping with responsible management of our planet and its resources, has morphed into a pseudo-religion, with its own definition of heretics and apostates and supported by communists, anarchists and New Age acolytes who, locked in an unholy alliance, want to change our lives.
The movement, however, is not marching forward without its watchdogs and robust critics. Holly Swanson, founding director of an Oregon-based organization called Operation Green Out that works “to get Green politics out in the open and out of the classroom,” and the author of Set Up and Sold Out: What Green Really Means is a brilliant advocate within the anti-sustainability movement. The National Association of Scholar’s Ashley Thorne reports regularly on the NAS’ website on developments in sustainability education.
Today, environmentalists, academics, celebrities and even multi-national corporations are touting “going green” as synonymous with social responsibility. Yet as we enter the second decade of this century, we would be well advised to take a cynical view of this movement and understand that the “Green” they are endorsing, rarely represents the drive for environmental excellence. Instead it is an attempt to impose a revolutionary social order upon humanity, inspiring a new form of religion observance and seeking to elevate the importance of environmental concerns well above humans needs.
If you value the life you live today, then you better understand all of this – no matter what’s on your own agenda.