As described by one of the chief strategists behind the agenda for sustainable development, the "new world order" of globalization promises to transform every aspect of society as we know it. Previous articles have addressed how religious conviction, based on the new age religion of Gaia and the worship of nature, along with a desire for socialistic principles of control, have driven an agenda, under the guise of "taking care of the environment", to create one world government which will ensure that "global citizens" comply with its beliefs and objectives. And these articles have addressed that those objectives include the redistribution of wealth, global indoctrination through education, acquisition of private property, and control of industry, agriculture, and trade, all in the interest of "social justice" and "sustainable development". But just how is it possible that an agenda of this scope, magnitude, and danger to liberty could be successfully implemented in society? The response to that question is complex and involves first understanding the organizations involved in promoting the agenda, and then investigating the process by which these organizations implement their objectives for a new world order.
The Players - The United Nations
The United Nations is the heart of the globalist agenda. There are over 130 organizations and agencies around the world which comprise the United Nations, and currently 192 member states (or nations). Three prominent U.N. organizations serve as the valves for the heart of this globalist agenda: UNEP, UNESCO, and UNDP. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) is the most fundamental group which promotes the agenda of sustainable development on an international scale. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is a second major player, as the world's Board of Education, through the utilization of the arena of education to promote the agenda. And the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), which focuses on implementing "social justice" through economic, technical, and social development of third world countries, is the third key policy-making body for the globalist objectives. Although the agenda of globalization is woven throughout every United Nations organization, these three groups are by far the most influential policy-making bodies toward implementing the new world order.
The Players - NGOs
Just as important to the implementation of globalism, however, is the influence of NGOs, non-governmental organizations, who serve as official consultants to the United Nations. The United Nations functions effectively due to funding, policy ideas, and action implementation of NGOs, which were given consultative status through UN resolution #71. In 1996, Resolution 1996/31 expanded the power of NGOs, including a process of "accreditation", to the point that these organizations now carry nearly the same power as member nations in their ability to create policy. U.N. Resolution E/1996/L.25 (69) calls for "simple and streamlined procedures", as well as improved access to U.N. meetings and documents, in order to facilitate "broad based participation" of NGOs in U.N. decision-making. So just who are these non-governmental organizations, with such power and influence in the creation of U.N. policy?
NGOs are private, self-governing organizations, organized around a shared purpose, which are officially sanctioned by the United Nations for aligning with their goals. As part of the U.N.'s "civil society", NGOs are considered by the U.N. to be representatives of the people of the world, as they work alongside government officials and "stakeholder councils" to create and implement policy. In reality, NGOs are special interest groups with agendas that align with the goals and objectives of the United Nations. The most prominent international NGO is the IUCN, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. This NGO is organized around a variety of commissions, whose focus is preservation of nature. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), now called the World Wide Fund for Nature, was created to fund the IUCN, and then the World Resources Institute (WRI) was developed not long afterward. It is these three NGOs which are the driving force behind the policies, initiatives, and treaties of the sustainable development agenda. Henry Lamb, prominent writer on the issues of globalism, describes these NGOs as "the 'supreme command' for the Biodiversity-sustainable-use army", and writes that "UNEP is the UN Administrative unit that holds the official authority to carry out the orders of the supreme command".
It is impossible to overstate the influence of these three organizations over the implementation of the agenda for sustainable development. Three of the most influential documents related to the agenda, World Conservation Strategy, Caring for the Earth, and Global Biodiversity Strategy, were published by the United Nations as a joint effort with these NGOs. As the originators of policy, these three NGOs influence the agenda of the UNEP, and coordinate thousands of affiliated international and national NGOs around the world. For example, according to its website, the IUCN has more than 1,000 member organizations, including 800-plus NGOs and over 110 government agencies. Some of its members include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Philosophy of Implementation - Conversion
The process by which the agenda for globalization is being implemented is one of conversion, not conquest. NGOs play the central role at all levels: as Tom DeWeese, President of The American Policy Center writes, "Most U.N. policy is first debated and then written by the NGOs and presented to national government officials at international meetings for approval and ratification". Once policy has been sanctioned by the United Nations, NGOs work to influence governments to create laws that will implement those policies. The process has been a slow one, over time. What are initially rejected as radical concepts when they are introduced, once reiterated over and over again and brought into public consciousness by the work of NGOs, become socially accepted truths. Through the process of incremental steps by virtue of treaties and agreements that affect only a small part of the population at a time, and become successively more legally binding, the globalist agenda has become interwoven into every part of American society, without Americans even knowing it.
The method of implementation: Soft law to hard law
The general outline followed by the U.N. and its NGOs is to draft a "soft law" document, which is not legally binding, detailing its plan and objectives in relatively vague goals. Soft law documents are not treaties which require ratification, so they are useful for more easily gaining international support for potentially controversial initiatives; for paving the way for more binding treaties. Soft law initiatives are critical for bringing agenda-based principles into the mainstream of global society because they can be immediately applied through local legislation without having to be internationally ratified, a process which requires considerable agreement (for example, for a treaty to be ratified in the United States, it must pass through Congress by 2/3 Senate approval). Once support has been garnered for the soft law document, the principles are then incorporated into "hard law" treaties, which are internationally binding and action-specific.
This same method has been used again and again in the implementation of the globalist agenda. Agenda 21, a soft law document, was distilled into the Convention on Biodiversity and the Framework Convention on Climate Change, both of which are internationally binding treaties. Another example is the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, a soft law document, which was reinvented in the form of the more U.N.-controlled International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Other examples: The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer a non-binding treaty adopted in 1985, was the forerunner to the Montreal Protocol, adopted in 1987 but continually revised for years afterward with more legally-binding provisions; also the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, a soft law treaty adopted in 1992, was the predecessor to the legally binding Kyoto Protocol. The procedure for implementation of the globalist agenda is the same: get the concepts of globalization "out there" in a non-legally binding form which requires less support to begin moving into policy, and later revise or distill those generalized concepts into a more specific, legally binding treaty that nations will ratify (because the concepts in it have already become policy), and by which they are required, by international law, to abide.
Changing the front of implementation: From international to national and local levels
After policies for globalization have been accepted and ratified on an international level, the task becomes to disseminate these actions and laws on the national and regional levels. How is this accomplished? The first step in the process is laid out in Chapter 28 of Agenda 21: the expectation that local communities establish a "local Agenda 21", because "as the level of governance closest to the people, [local authorities] play a vital role in educating, mobilizing and responding to the public to promote sustainable development". This chapter of the larger document has become known as Local Agenda 21, or LA21, and essentially sets the expectation that countries establish task forces, from partnerships between local governments, local groups, and U.N. organizations, for the purpose of implementing the sustainable development agenda throughout their nation.
This is being done with the help of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), now simply called "Local Governments for Sustainability". According to its website, ICLEI's purpose is "...to help local government achieve their sustainable development goals (e.g. air quality, climate, water) through a step-by-step process that begins with generating political awareness of key issues, establishing action plans toward defined, concrete, measurable targets, and meeting targets through project implementation and evaluation". ICLEI was critical to the creation of Agenda 21, specifically with its involvement in drafting Chapter 28, LA21, in preparation for the Rio Summit where Agenda 21 was unveiled. ICLEI, in conjunction with UNEP, and the International Development Research Centre, created The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide: An introduction to Sustainable Development, a guide "on the planning elements, methods, and tools being used by local governments to prepare their Local Agenda 21s" (according to the Guide itself). It is this guide which has been the roadmap for disseminating the sustainable development agenda throughout every major community in America.
Key to the ICLEI's LA21 plan is building partnerships among "stakeholders" who are responsible for transforming localities according to the objectives of sustainable development. However, none of these stakeholders are elected officials, but carefully selected "partners" who align with the sustainable development agenda. These bioregional councils are guided and directed by conservation NGOs, also known as Green Advocacy Groups (GAGs) - professionals trained and paid to ensure implementation success, with a rabid environmental agenda. Section 2.2.6 states, "The proper selection of participants for the Stakeholder Group is perhaps the most critical step in establishing a partnership planning process", and that the "visioning process should identify key principles or values that all stakeholders can agree to as fundamental to their notion of sustainability". In other words, these groups who are a part of the implementation process must embrace the sustainable development agenda. Therein lies the success in the plan for implementation of a global agenda: those in charge of transforming America according to the sustainable development initiative are hand-picked, unelected "stakeholders", under the guidance of U.N.-aligned (and also unelected) Green Advocacy Groups, who already share in the collective vision of a sustainable America. Working together according to ICLEI's LA21 Planning Guide, these local councils create and enforce laws that further the agenda of globalization, preventing the public from ever connecting the dots of local individual policy initiatives (which are "just trying to help the environment") to the larger global agenda behind it.
To ensure success of these initiatives, funding is provided, often in the form of grants. For example, the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), created under Bill Clinton to implement Agenda 21 in America, provides financial incentives for localities that participate in developing sustainable communities, and penalties for those who do not comply. One example of how financial disincentives are achieved comes from Chapter 2 of the PCSD's publication Sustainable America A New Consensus for the Prosperty, Opportunity and a Healthy Environment for the Future: "Taxes and fees can add the value of environmental effects to the costs of materials and products, making them relatively less preferable in the marketplace". The federal government provides grants to help localities begin the process of envisioning ways to make their community sustainable. The federal grants for sustainability planning often go either to the local government or to an NGO, who then begins putting together the council of stakeholders. Funding also comes from foundations, businesses, and Green Advocacy Groups, and is usually coordinated through the Environmental Grantmakers Association (EGA). Often, the leaders of these NGOs who guide the local implementation process are trustees or board members of the organizations which fund their work. So the movement from international to national to local occurs as local biodiversity councils, specifically chosen to embrace the agenda of sustainable development, work under the guidance of NGOs allied with the U.N. (and its agenda), and receive money to support their success from those intent on transforming every community according to the objectives of sustainable development. When one understands the process by which it happens, it is no surprise that the sustainable development agenda has been implemented so successfully throughout America.
International agenda driven by an elite few
It is important to understand that the implementation of this international global agenda is driven by a relatively small cadre of powerful individuals who strategically place themselves in multiple critically influential positions on the national and international levels. The overwhelming majority of people at the local level who support green initiatives have no connection to or awareness of the larger agenda for global control; they simply have well-intentioned goals to take care of the environment. According to globalism researcher Henry Lamb, "An incredibly small handful of people are actually driving the biodiversity-sustainable-use paradigm, but their efforts have been phenomenally successful". Many of the same people hold key influential positions on national and international levels - for example, those in charge of NGOs also crop up as the heads of state in U.S. government as well as in key positions within the United Nations.
For example, Brooks Yeager, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment and Development of the U.S. State Department, has also been Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs for the Department of Interior, Vice President of a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) program in 2005, director for the National Audubon Society (an NGO which funded the Wildlands project), and led environmental campaigns for the Sierra Club (an NGO involved in numerous land acquisition projects and population control efforts). Likewise, Julian Huxley, who founded UNESCO, (and was also President of the British Eugenics Society; now called the Galton Institute), was a founding member of the WWF, and was instrumental in the creation of the IUCN. George Frampton, who served as senior environmental policy advisor to President Clinton, has served as Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and President of the Wilderness Society (an NGO key in the passage of The Wilderness Act). Gustave Speth served as Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality in the Executive Office of the President under Jimmy Carter, founded the WRI (one of the "big three" NGOs mentioned above), was Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme from 1993-1999, and served on the President’s Task Force on Global Resources and Environment. Jay Hair was head of the National Wildlife Federation (an accredited NGO), Advisor to the President of The World Bank, and President of IUCN. The same pattern repeats itself: key new world order activists reappear in multiple positions of power through which they are able to advance the global agenda throughout the nation and throughout the world.
Agenda implementation in Roanoke
How has the global agenda and LA21 been implemented locally? In surprisingly effective ways. Roanoke is a regional member of ICLEI, which it joined in 2006. Under the guidance of ICLEI, Roanoke is moving forward with a clear agenda for sustainable development, following the process of implementation mentioned above. According to an article on Roanoke.com from 2006 entitled "Roanoke's Policies Turn Green", "ICLEI...is providing Roanoke with technical assistance, software and training. The plan is to measure the city's current greenhouse gas emissions, set targets for reducing them, adopt an action plan...and monitor the results".
Roanoke's large scale initiative for implementing LA21 is its 2001-2010 Comprehensive Master Plan, which can be found here. Roanoke City's website details the purpose of this plan: "Our mission is to ensure a sustainable balance of growth, public safety, quality urban design and environmental responsibility through long range community development planning, housing programs and administration of land development codes for the City's neighborhoods, the City as a whole, and the region". It goes on to detail incredibly specific plans for the regulation of multiple facets of society within Roanoke, in the interest of controlling growth. Examples of this regulation include: guidelines about "tree canopy coverage" (the number of trees that must exist) both along public streets and private property; rezoning to increase "housing clusters" to facilitate "greater densities while still maintaining... green space"; guidelines for Roanoke's streets and roads that encourage a "compact urban form" and encourage "pedestrian activity"; the preservation of large blocks of land (upon which development is prohibited) as green space; regulation of the design, structure, distance from the street, appearance and landscaping of businesses as well as private residences; and the achievement of a "sustainable balance of housing" through creating high density "villages", organized around downtown Roanoke. The plan explains how to accomplish this last task: "As private market assembly of property is not always feasible, proactive public initiatives may be necessary to assist in packaging land". In other words, it will be the government which will take the necessary actions (including taking over land) to implement the objectives of sustainable development. Therein lies the danger behind these seemingly positive environmental initiatives: the implementation of fundamental government control.
The Comprehensive Plan is not the only way LA21 is being implemented in Roanoke. In 2008, Roanoke also established a Citizens for Clean and Green Committee to further implement the objectives of sustainability, including measuring Roanoke's "carbon footprint" and reducing it by 2% every year. Sample resolutions from Roanoke City and Roanoke County for reducing Roanoke's carbon footprint can be found here. There also exists a Roanoke chapter of the Sierra Club, (one of the oldest and most radical NGOs in existence) which has developed the Roanoke Valley Cool Cities Coalition, a group of organizations formed for the purpose of reducing "greenhouse gas emissions". Roanoke Valley Greenways has developed a plan for setting aside large areas of greenways, or open space, which are tightly regulated to prevent development in the interest of preserving the natural environment. Likewise, the Roanoke Alleghany Regional Commission, a planning district commission of local governments, interweaves the themes of sustainable development throughout its comprehensive planning for the region. The clearest example of this is The Ozone Early Action Plan, which specifies that the "hourly peak ozone concentration" must stay "below 125 parts per billion". Furthermore, Roanoke's Urban Forestry Plan indicates that "Roanoke’s economic future will depend on its perception as a 'green'...sustainable and liveable city", and sets an objective to increase Roanoke's tree canopy to 40%. The overflowing number of examples within our local community shows just how effectively the agenda for sustainable development has been implemented, not just on an international scale, but here in Roanoke.
Why is the implementation of this global agenda a problem?
All of these groups and initiatives give evidence to just how thoroughly the agenda of sustainable development has permeated the local level. Yet the vast majority of people have no idea of the connection between these green objectives and the vast agenda of governmental control behind it, and most of the environmental protection efforts appear, on the surface, as very worthwhile activities. It is only when one connects the seemingly unrelated and innocuous environmental dots to the driving agenda of control underneath that a disturbing global image of a new world order emerges.
Almost no one would disagree with the idea of taking care of the planet upon which we live. The fundamental problem with the implementation of sustainable development is that it seeks to do it through the creation of a globally managed society where individual freedoms are sacrificed, under socialistic principles, for the common good. Where government, rather than the citizens who are governed, makes the determinations in all aspects of society as to what that common good is. Where the role of nature is misprioritized; with mankind being created for nature rather than nature being created for mankind. Homeschoolers, more than the average public, have a stake in ensuring that government has a limited role in citizens' lives. In order to protect their right to educate their children according to the means, methods, and values they deem worthwhile, homeschoolers must oppose the global movement toward centralized control of society.
The success of the implementation of this new world order has been defined by the fact that no one puts together the individual pieces to see the larger picture. Through brilliant marketing ("taking care of the environment") and clever conversion tactics to disseminate policy over time through "soft law to hard law" initiatives from the international to level to the local level, the United Nations and its NGOs have successfully implemented their campaign to transform the world. Most tragically, the majority of the world is capitulating to the agenda without having any realization that it is there. Conscientious citizens are being taken as willing captives in a war they do not even have any idea is being fought. It is now time for America to begin fighting against the battle for the transformation of society, before they lose the rights to fight at all, under the all-powerful general of global government.
To read Globalism: The environmentally friendly threat to freedom, click here.
To read The new world order of sustainable development: How will it affect us?, click here.
To read The global agenda for education: The World Innovation Summit for Education, click here.
The marriage of religion, nature and politics: The "why" behind the new world order, click here.
To read Behind the U.N.'s global agenda: The driving forces of socialism and control, click here.
Like this article? Become a subscriber and receive e-mail alerts when new articles are available. Just click "subscribe" under the article title, above. Rebecca enjoys hearing from her readers. Leave a comment below and let her know what you think!
Sources:
Towards a Sustainable America: Advancing Prosperity, Opportunity, and a Healthy Environment for the 21st Century. (1999, May). President's Council on Sustainable Development. http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/index.html
http://www.un-documents.net/ch-10.htm
http://www.un.org/esa/earthsummit/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11365927/Understanding-Agenda-21-About-Sustainable-Development-
http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom162.htm
http://www.freedom.org/reports/srbio.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consultative_Status
http://habitat.igc.org/ngo-rev/1296.html
http://www.un.org/documents/ecosoc/res/1996/eres1996-31.htm
http://www.freedom.org/el-96/elmar96.htm#ngo
http://www.globalpolicy.org/un-reform/ngos-9-25.html
http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos.html
http://www.gdrc.org/ngo/ncafe-ph.html
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=14942
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/may_2001/un_commission_on_sustainable_development_report.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification
http://www.freedom.org/el-95/logicmar95.htm#treaty
http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/theunsdirty.htm
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ncuLhVrgkIsJ:www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/conference_GWS07/bio_yeager.pdf+Brooks+Yeager+Audubon+society&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESifWwHW0fsKEwv9jm5Vz_EivYO91SVGyXAyuF3frHcmRtjYmr2fCuvsD4xRGGTBTWWt9RbzVwyTdvx3ATxhtxWwKSfJIrrmjWOicBzZKjWphMoLBeCV7DwDFnUWuxIkzhJTrat2&sig=AHIEtbTao25pU23GJvgDnKduQthJPHq6IQ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Speth
http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/96688_jayhair22.shtml
http://sovereignty.net/p/ngo/ngotut.htm
http://www.freedom.org/el-95/logicmar95.htm#treaty
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/radmacher/wb/238874
Comments