By: Brent Parrish
Sustainable Development … it’s all the rage! You can’t go anywhere it seems these days and not run into some form of Sustainable Development propaganda. But what is Sustainable Development? Is it a good thing or a bad thing?
While researching this subject matter over the past four years, I stumbled across a presentation by Walter J. Veith on YouTube entitled “The Beamable Sustainable Princes – Rekindling the Reformation.” Now, to be sure, Veith’s views are coming from the Seventh Day Adventist Christian perspective; he deals with how the current and past globalist movements relate prophetically to the Revelation of John found in the New Testament. Naturally, some will find his conclusions controversial.
Regardless of your opinion of Veith’s beliefs concerning the forces in the world who push for global governance, he is quite the scholar and has provided some fascinating quotes in his presentation regarding major figures on the global scene today who are pushing the Sustainable Development mantra.
By the way, I’m not dealing with prophecy or religion in this article per se–strictly the globalist strategy of Sustainable Development. Additionally, anytime one deals with the issue of globalism, and the murky forces who push for global control, in my opinion, it is easy to wander off into the giggleweeds with your tin foil hat on. I will do my best not to do that in this article and simply stick with the facts, as known, concerning the philosophy of Sustainable Development.
The Purposeful Folly of Green Economy
Creating more infrastructure has always been a big goal of the Obama Administration. There is also a big push to pack people into ever smaller spaces (“communities”) coming from Obama and his ilk. For example, Breitbart reported a photo of President Obama talking to Building One America’s President Mike Kruglik was promptly removed just days after a book exposes the agenda to eliminate suburbia:
A photo of President Obama was suddenly pulled from the website of the group Building One America, whose goals were documented extensively in Stanley Kurtz’s book Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities. The book, which was released ten days ago, reveals what Kurtz refers to as Obama’s plan to undercut the political and economic independence of America’s suburbs. Kurtz connects current Obama administration policy with his personal history, and with groups like Building One America in particular.
This website shows a cached view of how the BuildingOneAmerica.org site looked on July 19th, 2012 — with a photo of President Obama talking to Building One America’s President Mike Kruglik, which was taken during a 2011 meeting held at the White House….
Recently, while listening to a local radio talk show (WIBC), I discovered our state government was seriously considering a proposal to bring light rail to Indianapolis, Indiana–never mind the fact that light rail has failed everywhere it has been tried. Shortly thereafter, a caller to the show extolled the virtues of public transportation and constricting the movement of vehicles within the city center. The caller introduced to me to a new term–“traffic calming.” It always sounds so nice, doesn’t it? Traffic calming? But, in reality, it only drains the local coffers and restricts commerce within the city limits. When implemented, such public systems herd the masses (people) ever closer to the city center, thus making life in the suburbs more and more untenable.
We hear more and more how the government can “uplift the community” from the progenitors of Sustainable Development. What this effectively means is the government cooperates with businesses to “uplift the community.” In reality, it is the collusion of business and government that leads to public-private entities that eventually dominate and devour the “community”–effectively enslaving the individuals into predetermined communities. This sort of neo-feudalism is facilitated by controlling the movement and freedom of the so-called masses.
Bonnie Prince Charles and Mother Gaia
Catastrophic Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming (CAGW) alarmists have dramatically ratcheted up the rhetoric of panic and fear amongst the global populace for several decades now regarding mankind’s alleged destruction of the atmosphere and environment. We have long been fed a smorgasbord of horrors and terrors that will be visited upon humanity–out-of-control median global temperatures, rapidly rising seas, devastating floods, melting ice caps, decimation of polar bear populations, catastrophic hurricanes, lethal levels of Co2 in the atmosphere, large carbon footprints, etc.–by the self-appointed environmental advocates of the world–the alleged experts of all things “climate”–the so-called climatologists; it is a crisis that must be solved now or else humanity will face certain “catastrophe,” sayeth the worshipers of Mother Gaia.
One such votary of all things “environment” is Bonnie Prince Charles of England–in service to the Crown. The late author Joan M. Veon wrote in a commentary retrieved from womensgroup.org:
In 1990 he formed The Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum in Charleston South Carolina.Over 100 CEO’s of U.S. met to discuss their role in a changing world. They concluded that (1) Chief Executive Officers have a critical role to play in setting company values and listening to concerns of community leaders, (2) ensuring that corporations adopt sustainable development practices, and (3) assist community leaders in inner cities and in rural areas to regenerate neighborhoods.
Up until the recent World Economic Forum meeting in New York, this organization has had no exposure on the local level.On the global level the Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum has become the key originator and broker of new innovative corporate policies and practices, supporting the structural change in government to partnerships with business.Many popular corporations are a part of this including3M, Cable and Wireless, TRW, Coca-Cola, BMW, Volkswagen, CIGNA, DHL Worldwide Express, Levi Strauss, U.S. West and the Ford Foundation.
As a result of public-private partnerships, the growing role of corporations is expanding. The balance sheet of many multinational corporations is fatter and healthier than most third world countries.Corporations have the ability to produce wealth and increase the power of any impoverished nation to lift its citizens out of the gutter. For all of these reasons, the CEO is now moving into the visible position of statesman.…
The International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF) is a conglomeration of “leading businesses” from around the world who are committed to the ideology of Sustainable Development–the bringing together of government and big business in cooperation with the “community.”
Joan Veon describes the philosophy behind Sustainable Development in her book Prince Charles, The Sustainable Prince:
In the executive summary of the book Business Partners in Development: Creating Wealth for Countries, Companies and Communities, the authors write: “In most cases, the debate is no longer about extreme alternatives–about communism versus capitalism, the free market versus state control, democracy versus dictatorship–but about finding common good.” (“Prince Charles, The Sustainable Prince Chapter 4” 1997, 1998 By Joan Veon)
Walter Veith states (emphasis mine):
According to Joan Veon, James Lovelock, formulated the Gaia Hyothesis, which today is known as the worship of the earth. It propagates holism, which perverts and inverts Genesis 1.
Holism is evolution at its finest–man evolves to the where his equal with the earth, the plants, and the animals and the environment is elevated to a position of dominance over man….
Implementing the plan for Sustainable Development is being carried out through a plethora of initiatives and organizations in cooperation with “leading businesses” and various governments:
This [sustainable development] is being done through the UN’s Agneda 21, The Biodiversity Treaty, The Law of the Sea Treaty, The Earth Charter, The World Bank, The World Health Organization, not to mention dozens of smaller agreements between natnions such as NAFTA, GATT, NATO, The Treaty of Rome, etc., while groups such as The Royal Institute of Affairs, The Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderbergers function as the overseers and watchdogs of the whole sordid affair. The whole world is falling into the spider web of globalism from which no nation can extricate itself without prompting its own military and economc ruin. (“Prince Charles, The Sustainable Prince Chapter 3″ 1997, 1998 By Joan Veon)
Replacing the belief mankind has dominion over the earth is the major goal of soviets (councils) like UNCED (Earth Summit), whose goal is to give dominion to the environment, not man … the individual will now have to pay for the “benefit” of living under the dominion of the environment, according to the owners of the environment–the sovereign state (codenamed Mother Gaia).
The Soviet Constitution and the Environment
The sort of synthesis one sees between government and business in the philosophy of Sustainable Development, and its relationship to community and environment, is nothing new. The Soviet Constitution of 1977 contains the following articles regarding the individual’s obligations to the environment and the state (emphasis mine):
Article 18. In the interests of the present and future generations, the necessary steps are taken in the USSR to protect and make scientific, rational use of the land and its mineral and water resources, and the plant and animal kingdoms, to preserve the purity of air and water, ensure reproduction of natural wealth, and improve the human environment.
Article 42. Citizens of the USSR have the right to health protection. This right is ensured by free, qualified medical care provided by state health institutions; by extension of the network of therapeutic and health- building institutions; by the development and improvement of safety and hygiene in industry; by carrying out broad prophylactic measures; by measures to improve the environment; by special care for the health of the rising generation, including prohibition of child labour, excluding the work done by children as part of the school curriculum; and by developing research to prevent and reduce the incidence of disease and ensure citizens a long and active life.
The Hegelian Dialectics of Sustainable Development
As with every plan, strategy and tactics must be employed to ensure its success (victory). One favored tactic of the Left is Hegelian Dialectics–the method of persuasion used by Marx and Engels to promote their materialistic philosophy, among the masses, was dialectics–the theory that the basic law of nature is conflict. This became known as dialectical materialism–a hypothesis maintaining all creation within the universe comes about by conflict. Marx and Engels attempted to interpret the entire history of mankind through the lens of dialectical materialism.
In every society there exists groups of individuals (social compacts) whose traditions, values and beliefs are diametrically opposed to one another. In order to gain control of groups of people who are on opposite sides of the political and/or religious spectrum, Hegelian Dialectics introduces conflict into the equation by rubbing raw the resentments of both sides and playing one group off against the other–all in an effort to drive both sides toward a predetermined outcome.
The goal of Hegelian Dialectics is to take control of a group by introducing diversity (i.e. thesis v. antithesis, pro v. con, etc.)–diversity is required for conflict. The “authority” which employs the Hegelian Dialectic is attempting to bring the disparate groups to a consensus, or compromise. The authority can be thought of as a group facilitator (cf. “change agent“)–which brings both sides to a consensus, and appears to both sides as providing a solution to the never-ending conflict; when, in fact, it is the change agent introducing the conflict. This sort of obfuscation of true intent has been described by some as Soviet-Style Council Tactics.
A more complex example of applying the Hegelian Dialectic to a social issue–and it is always a social issue with the Left (e.g. socialists, communists, communitarians, Maoists, social democrats, etc.)–is a dialectical strategy created by the globalists and CAGW alarmists to forward Sustainable Development itself …
The above graphic was not created by the author; it is the actual Hegelian Dialectic model employed by the globalists to rationalize Sustainable Development. The Hegelian strategy of Sustainable Development is to play off the social, environmental and economic components of society. The society (social), economy and environment must be bearable, equitable and viable, according to the philosophy of Sustainable Development. Ultimately, it is the sustainability synthesis that controls all society, economy and environment–promising that all of these components are bearable, equitable and viable—sustainable.
There are two ways to look at the above model–from the outside in, or the inside out. It is the hope for the purveyors of Sustainable Development that the masses view the concept from the outside-in–meaning, the hope that Sustainable Development will change society, economy and the environment to something bearable, equitable and viable. But the creators of the Sustainable Development model look at it from the inside-out: sustainability is controlled by the sovereign authority–the central power who determines whether or not the social, economic and environmental factors are bearable, equitable and viable. Sustainability is all about control of all facets of society–supremacy over all, and all things!
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
The Fascism of Sustainable Development
The collusion of government and business–which promises to elevate the community–is fascism itself. My European friends get their feathers in a ruffle when I state that there is not a plug nickel’s worth of difference between fascism and communism in practice. But, in deference to the technical definitions of the two terms, I will at least pay homage to the fact there are technical vagaries between the two political ideologies.
Fascism, in its technical definition, does differ from the technical definition of communism, in the sense that fascism is a social movement of ultra-nationalism and social justice for the workers–the nation state rules supreme (fatherland); whereby, communism promises a classless, borderless society–a utopian workers’ paradise (motherland). But these differences are so infinitesimally small, in practice, that both systems ostensibly resemble each other–even down to their propaganda and art! The concept of individualism is wiped out in the fascist and communist systems; both desire total global domination, despite the costs and sacrifice the may be required of the individual citizen to achieve it.
Fascism + Communism = Global Synthesis
The roots of fascism started in the 1870’s in Italy. Left-wing radical social organizations used the word fascio in their names. In 1919, the left-wing Nationalist League borrowed some of the ideologies of these groups and formed the Fascio di Combattimento. It became “fascism” two years later; it prized violence, idealism, and anti-materialism, yet, at the same time, rejected extreme imperialism and racism. Sound familiar? Fascism is a left-wing thing—always has been.
Let’s just look at the recent government bailouts in the United States during the subprime mortgage fiasco, and the economic meltdown that resulted thereof. If the government bails out the banks, the auto industry and the mortgage industry … who owns them? The answer should be obvious: the government! There is an innocuous term for this sort of collusion with big business and the government–a government-sponsored enterprise (GSA).
For example, the giant mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are de facto GSA’s; whereby, the overlap of public and private is so indiscernible within these “entities” that it becomes virtually impossible for the average U.S. citizen to make any sense of it. Where does the private concern start? Where does the public concern end? And vice versa? Now, ask yourself this question: who owns the majority of mortgages in the United States right now?
The more ghastly definition of a government-sponsored enterprise is fascism itself … the individual will pay a levy to enjoy the benefit and privilege of living and working within the society, the environment and the economy of the all-powerful state. In return, the individual will receive nothing but serfdom. The collusion of national government and big business to bring about the “uplifting of the community” via Sustainable Development is just the old wolf of fascism in sheep’s clothing.