|
The
presented definition of sustainable development by those who are misleading
you is:
“Development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It
contains within it two key concepts: the concept of "needs", in
particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding
priority should be given; and the idea of limitations imposed by the state
of technology and social organization on the environment's ability to meet
present and the future needs. (Brundtland Commission, 1987). ...”
This popular phrase (above) is a political
statement wrapped in a blanket of environmentalism. It is socialistic in nature and addresses
redistribution of wealth.
The truth in what I have said is found in Maurice
Strong’s address to the opening session of the Rio Conference (Earth
Summit II) in 1992, when he stated that industrialized countries have:
“…developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of
production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. 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. A
shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging
consumption patterns."
The United Nations produced a product to
address the Brutland Commission and Maurice Strong, it is called Agenda 21. It is forty chapters consisting of over
three hundred pages and the commission the UN formed to implement Agenda 21
is; the Commission on
Sustainable Development.
Therefore, the real definition of ‘sustainable
development’ is: Agenda 21, the United Nations plan for the future of the
world.
Agenda 21 and sustainable development are one
and the same, make no mistake in thinking otherwise. The words ‘sustainable development’ just
sound less ominous than Agenda 21.
Sustainable development will force a “re-think”
in your community, by local citizens, of every aspect of American
life. It will happen during open
dialog and because it does, change will become inevitable as change then
becomes the “rule of life”. The
“rule of life” is: Every idea irrepressibly breeds its opposite and the two
merge into a synthesis which in turn produces its own contradiction. This
is called the “Hegelian Dialect” of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. It will be called: “reaching
consensus”.
Its goal then is to change the way society
‘thinks’, especially about individuality.
It directs you toward community thinking which will then undermine
individual liberties.
Think about it; when you are the freest country
in the world and change is forced upon you, you can only end up less
free. Therefore, sustainable
development, which forces change upon us, means we will only become less
free.
You could say sustainable development’s
definition is a blue print on how to remove individual liberties through
misguided consensus.
Further: some time ago an interested party queried me regarding this
definition. Part of my response is
below. This response does nothing to
further the above stated definition; however, it may give you a glimpse
into why this definition is the correct definition.
4/23/2007
Our Founding Fathers, whose history lay in Europe, came to America
with the idea that mankind was meant to be free. Unfortunately, some also brought the
concept of what race qualified and that cost over 500,000 Americans their
lives and left many lives destroyed.
But in the end the concept of freedom for all would prevail. 142 years later we are still trying.
They (the Founders) believed and agreed that man was born with
certain unalienable rights and founded our freedom and liberty on the fact
that man’s rights come from GOD, not the government, and that is the crux
of our freedom and liberty. They
also knew that if the time came that man accepted that his rights were
handed down by government, then freedom would be lost. Governments must respect the rights of
man and of those rights property rights are the foundation for liberty.
[James Madison
March 29, 1792
Property:
“This term in its particular application means
"that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external
things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."
In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces
every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which
leaves to every one else the like advantage.
In the former sense, a man’s land, or
merchandize, or money is called his property.
In the latter sense, a man has a property in
his opinions and the free communication of them.
He has a property of peculiar value in his
religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.
He has a property very dear to him in the
safety and liberty of his person.
He has an equal property in the free use of his
faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.
In a word, as a man is said to have a right to
his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.
Where an excess of power prevails, property of
no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his
faculties, or his possessions.
Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect
is the same, tho’ from an opposite cause.
Government is instituted to protect property of
every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as
that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of
government, that alone is a just government, which impartially
secures to every man, whatever is his own.” ]
I know and understand that society must have laws, ordnances and
rules so we can exist together in some sense of harmony, safety and respect
and I too am appalled at the levels of disrespect one man has for another’s
rights to exist and of that disrespect is included pollution. But pollution is relevant and to expect
the entire world to change to correct pollution locally is absurd. It boils down to a matter of
respect. If someone craps in their
own drinking water source global cooperation will not help?
I respect you for wanting to make a difference and commend you for
the time and energy you are putting forth, but just as science has now
learned that hydrocarbons can and are produced geologically not everything
you accept as fact may be true. (Hydrocarbons includes oil) There are still billions and billions of
gallons of unpolluted clean water.
There are still millions of uninhabited acres. There is clean air and every year they
find more oil sources. There are
scientists driven by capitalism working diligently hour after hour
developing solutions to today’s dilemma.
Have faith in future man to find solutions through technology.
(Brundtland Commission, 1987) Development that meets the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs. What should we save? What will be the needs of future
generations that you are convinced won’t exist and that future man will be
incapable of over coming? What
should my children be deprived of to better serve a future that we cannot
see?
Sustainable Development means Agenda 21 and if you read my
definition of Sustainable Development I said: “You could say sustainable
development’s definition is a blue print on how to remove individual
liberties through mis-guided consensus.”
http://www.middletownca.com/SUSTAINABLE-DEVELOPMENT-DEFINITION.htm
Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, was produced and is promoted by
an organization, the UN, which has a history. A history that embraces socialism,
resents the United States, does nothing to protect the world from vicious
dictators who murder their own people, is filled with corrupt people who
stole food from poor people, sidetrack medical supplies to those in need
and is guilty of rape and so many atrocities they are un countable and you
ask me to embrace and support this Agenda 21. Are you sure you wish to align your
allegiance with this group.
Maurice Strong told the opening session of the Rio Conference (Earth
Summit II) in 1992, that industrialized countries have:
"…developed and benefited from the
unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced
our present dilemma. 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. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less
geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns."
These opening remarks and the actions that followed is where you
want to hang your hat. Maurice
Strong, along with most UN folks, turned out to be corrupt and he was
snagged in the oil for food scandal. Do you really think he gives a rip
about you and yours when he and his cronies willingly screw over the poor and
disadvantaged?
Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, is about control, control of
your life and your property. That's
it.
You asked about my comment regarding the UK. - In one phrase you implied that as an
American I might fear losing our position in the world scheme of things and
I do not. Touché
Re: global warming and the boogieman: I won’t argue that the Earth may not be
warming but I seriously doubt we can stop it from happening if it is and I
also seriously question our mortal ability to cause it. Over my life I have watched science and
government manipulate information to suit their needs and I am very
skeptical of tagging any global warming or cooling with it being caused by
human activity. My first thought is;
who caused all the heating and cooling before man? Even a little more modern, who caused the
last ice age? And then too, if Earth
hasn’t been warming since the last ice age how did we get from there to
this temperature? But making it the
boogieman does advance the cause of those who have an agenda no matter what
the science and facts may be.
Man is so arrogant we like to believe we are in control. We like to think that if something is
going on we must have caused it because if we admit we didn’t cause it then
we are conceding we aren’t in control.
Ooops. © Bill Wink Feb. 2006, 2007, 2008
***
· The very worst thing about “Agenda 21”
is, they are implementing it in an un-American way because it is anti-
American. They know if we the people
were asked to vote on it and ratify it by each state, it would never pass.
· They are all guilty. This is not about being a Democrat or a
Republican it’s about being an American.
Every elected official who is sneaking this past the citizens of this
country is not worthy of calling themselves an American.
· There is no middle road here. You either support implementing Agenda 21
or you oppose implementing Agenda 21.
· Make “Agenda 21” an election issue for
your Congressman.
· “Agenda 21” should be a public debate
issue. Let’s bring “Agenda 21” out of
the closet and shine the bright light of scrutiny on the subject so all
Americans know what’s happening.
· Become an anti-soviet, become a Freedom
21 Fighter.
· To be a Freedom 21 Fighter you don’t have
to join anything. You don’t have to
pay any dues. You don’t have to
attend any meetings. You just have
to learn about Agenda 21 because you can’t fight something you know nothing
about. Then you must share your
knowledge with your friends and neighbors.
And the next time you meet someone who is running for elected
office, any office, ask them where they stand on Agenda 21 “sustainable
development”. Be a Freedom 21
Fighter!
· May GOD Bless the United States of
America.
LINKS:
· Maurice
Strong Architect of Agenda 21
· Local
Agenda 21 – The U.N. Plan for your community
· ICLEI Members
· Henry Lamb @ World Net Daily
· Freedom 21 – Advancing the Principals of Freedom in the 21st
Century
· U. N.
Watch
· The Earth Charter and the Ark of the Gaia Covenant
· Sirolli Institute and Lake County, CA ‘Lake County’s Spirit of
Entrepreneurs’
· HOME
· INDEX OF PAGES ABOUT
AGENDA 21
© copyright Bill Wink July 1, 2005
|
