Agenda 21: The End of Western Civilization

“Global sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
Professor Maurice King   Birth of an Abomination

In simple terms Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the redistribution of America’s wealth to the global elite, it is the end of the Great American Experiment and the Constitution.  And, it is the reduction of 85% of the world’s population. In 1992, twenty years ago this summer, Agenda 21/Sustainable Development was unveiled to the world at the UN’s Earth Summit in Rio. (While Agenda 21 was introduced in June, 1992, it was installed as public policy in communities across the country as early as 1997.) In his opening remarks at the ceremonies at the Earth Summit, Maurice Strong stated: “The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.

It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.” If this is true, then he and his cohorts must be even more against individual sovereignty. Keep this quote in mind as you read about Agenda 21. George H.W. Bush was in Rio for the ceremonies and graciously signed on for America so that our Congress did not have to spend the time reviewing the treaty and learning then what dastardly deeds were in store for us — that protecting the environment would be used as the basis for controlling all human activity and redistributing our wealth.

…”protecting the environment would be used as the basis for controlling all human activity and redistributing our wealth.”

Definitions of Sustainable Development
U.N. definition of Sustainable Development: “meeting today’s needs without compromising future generations to meet their own needs.” In actuality, Sustainable Development is not sustainable unless the population actually is reduced by the 85% called for by the globalists. The true purpose of Sustainable Development and all of its policies is the control of all aspects of human life — economic, social and environmental (see 3 Es of Sustainable Development further into article). Here is how the UN described Agenda 21 in one of its own publications in a 1993 article entitled “Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save our Planet:”

“Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.” So George H.W. Bush signed the Rio Accord and a year later established his President’s Council for Sustainable Development which would render the guidelines of Agenda 21 into public policy to be administered by the federal government via all departments.

In doing this, Bush and Clinton set up Agenda 21 as ruling authority, i.e, implementing a U.N. plan to become U.S. policy across the whole nation and into every county and town. And every succeeding president has fully endorsed and implemented Agenda 21 through every department of the federal government. If one were to research the source of U.S. policy, one would find that much of our policy of the last few decades is the outcome of agreements we have entered into via treaties with the U.N.

And that policy has trickled, no gushed, down into every state and into almost every other jurisdiction — county, city, town — in the nation;  Sustainable Development is the official policy of our country even though many citizens are yet ignorant of its existence. And this policy encompasses an entire economic and social agenda.

So what is Sustainable Development?
According to its authors, the objective of Sustainable Development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity (the 3Es of sustainability). They insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.

Look at these words. They are part of the new vocabulary. Free trade, open space, smart growth, smart food, smart buildings, regional planning, walkable, bikeable, foodsheds, viewsheds, consensus, partnerships, preservation, stakeholders, land use, environmental protection, development, diversity, visioning, social justice, heritage, carbon footprints, comprehensive planning, critical thinking, community service, regional planning.
All of these words are part of the Newspeak, the altering of the English language as a tool to promote a global government through a diabolical agenda called Agenda 21.

Free trade, open space, smart growth, smart food, smart buildings, regional planning, walkable, bikeable, foodsheds, viewsheds, consensus, partnerships, preservation, stakeholders, land use, environmental protection, development, diversity, visioning, social justice, heritage, carbon footprints, comprehensive planning, critical thinking, community service, regional planning.

In fact, the world will be retooled from top to bottom through this agenda and using the new vocabulary. This is not just policy but a complete restructuring of life as we know it. We not only will be taught how we must live, but where we are allowed to live; taught how to think and what is acceptable thinking;  told what job we will be allowed to have; taught how we can worship and what we will be allowed to worship; and we will be brainwashed into believing that the individual must cede all to the collective.

Private property will be a sin that will be eradicated as will be free-market economics which will be replaced by public private partnerships and a planned central economy. Individualism will be rooted out and social justice will rule the land. Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.”

– in other words, the redistribution of wealth. This will be achieved through an organizational structure of land use controls; control of energy and energy production; control of transportation; control of industry; control of food production; control of development; control of water availability; and control of population size and growth. And all of this will be decreed under the guise of environmental protection.

The 3 Es of Sustainable Development The 3Es of sustainability which make up the Sustainable Development logo consists of three connecting circles labeled Social Equity; Economic Prosperity; and Ecological Integrity. These Es together encompass every aspect of human life.

First E – Social Equity Social Equity is based on a demand for “social justice.” — in non-Newspeak, redistribution of the wealth. Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.” Redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care is a social injustice.

Equity is a system of “social justice” that works to abolish the American concept of equal justice in order to pursue the globalist ideal of the “common good.” Individual rights must be abolished for the good of the collective, just as in Communism; in fact, Karl Marx was the first person to use the term social justice. Social justice is an unnatural leveling of all wealth (other than that of the global elites); no one person is supposed to profit more than another.

Second E – Economic Prosperity From Wikipedia comes this discussion of economic prosperity promoted under Sustainable Development: Economic growth is often seen as essential for economic prosperity, and indeed is one of the factors that is used as a measure of prosperity. The Rocky Mountain Institute has put forth an alternative point of view, that prosperity does not require growth, claiming instead that many of the problems facing communities are actually a result of growth, and that sustainable development requires abandoning the idea that growth is required for prosperity.

The debate over whether economic growth is necessary for, or at odds with, human prosperity, has been active at least since the publication of Our Common Future in 1987, and has been pointed to as reflecting two opposing worldviews. Keep in mind that almost every concept under Agenda 21 is written in Newspeak — words often have the opposite meanings of those in your Webster Dictionary so that the general public might be deceived, at least for a time (and it has been). Economic prosperity under Agenda 21 is anything but prosperity — other than for the global elites who are controlling the system.

It is economic ruin for the ordinary people of the entire globe. Agenda 21 proponents would have you believe that all of the wealth in the world was made on the backs of the poor and that the only way that this inequity can be corrected is to redistribute that wealth. While they claim that the wealth must be taken from the American middle class and given to the poor of the world, in actuality the money will be taken from that American middle class and given to the global elites  (as if they didn’t control most of the world’s wealth already — but that is not the issue; it is to reduce us to slaves at best).

The poor, in Africa and other parts of the world, will never see a dime of the redistributed wealth, they are only the pretense for taking our money. Agenda 21 encompasses the so-called free trade movement that created both NAFTA and Public/Private Partnerships which were incorporated into a government-driven economy called “corporatism.” These public/private partnerships are nothing more than government sanctioned monopolies — Mussolini style economics.

Third E – Ecological Integrity To understand the power of the transformation of society under sustainable development, consider this quote from the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty (which also was introduced at the Rio Earth Summit: “Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual and material) where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living creatures are considered equal. Therefore the natural way is the right way and human activities should be molded along nature’s rhythms”.

This quote says it all. That we humans are nothing special – just one strand in the nature of things or, put another way, humans are simply biological resources. No better than slugs or dung. In fact, in the eye of the globalist, we are of less value than slugs or dung. Their policy is to oversee any issue in which man interacts with nature – which, of course, is literally everything. This is necessary, they say, because humans only defile nature. And private property ownership and control, along with individual and national sovereignty, are main targets of Sustainable Development.

Consider this quote from the report of the UN’s Habitat I:
”Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributes to social injustice.” This mixture of socialism, fascism and corporatism (as Tom DeWeese so aptly pegs it), called Agenda 21, is the ruling force in our government today from the federal to the local.

Not one of those ingredients would be allowed by our forefathers and not one is in sync with the Constitution; so how have we allowed all three to be combined into a recipe for global government and served to our unwitting nation?


Agenda 21: The End of Western Civilization Part 2

In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.

As Tom DeWeese puts it, “The fact is, Agenda 21 is a blueprint to completely change our society to a top-down planned central economy in a strange mixture of Socialism, fascism and corporatism. This is a political movement led by those who seek to control the world economy, dictate development and redistribute the world’s wealth. They use the philosophical base of Karl Marx, the tactics of Adolph Hitler, and the rhetoric of the Sierra Club.”

…”They use the philosophical base of Karl Marx, the tactics of Adolph Hitler, and the rhetoric of the Sierra Club.”

The next order of business for the globalist was to convince the general public that the fate of the world was at stake, that we had to do something right now and that “something” would require us to not only give up our standard of living but would have us give up our basic freedoms. But what could they come up with to achieve all this — a big order even for the Maurice Strong’s, Al Gore’s and George Soros’ of the world. In the past we were hit with everything from a new ice age to global food shortages and starvation. But those dire threats didn’t pan out; not enough people were willing to swallow the Kool Aid yet.

But all those New Age forecasters were not ready to give up on scaring the bejesus out of us. How else would they achieve their ends? Heidi and Alvin Toffler, John Naisbitt, Amatei Etzioni, with the Club of Rome and the Rand Corporation among others, have been looking for that exact universal scare to make us beg them to take control of the world; to have people crying, “just protect us.” And what did they come up with? A biggie. Environmental Armageddon.

Stop everything you are doing and the world might be able to correct itself; go on using natural resources and we doom not only ourselves but the entire rest of the world. What could be better? Put on your hair shirt, get rid of your middle class home and become one with the earth, i.e., throw out God and turn to Gaia worship and then maybe, just maybe, the globalists can steer us into a safe harbor of post-carbon existence. (Note that we will be living in a post-carbon world, but the globalists will still be using carbon because they have to live comfortably so they can better rule over us.

Like other extremists, i.e. communists and animal rightists, as soon as they get the world in control {set up Utopias,free the animals} they will then join us in the post-carbon nightmare. (In their dreams.) Do you doubt what I am saying, then consider this quote by Alexander King, co-founder of the Club of Rome: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…”

All of these dangers are caused by human intervention…the real enemy then, is humanity.” Do these scenarios sound familiar? Water shortages, famine, global warming — all in the news daily; all to make humanity the enemy of Mother Earth, Gaia. We are constantly being bombarded with news stories (like the threat of global warming) that make man the evil doer, a cancer on the face of the earth in spite of evidence to the contrary.[1] Now that the globalists have decided how to make this “wrenching transformation of society” according to Al Gore, they have been moving quite swiftly and efficiently.

The transformation is to get humans first out of the rural areas, then out of the suburbs, and when they have us in the human settlement areas, to reduce our numbers by civil unrest, natural attrition, and eventually starvation. How will this come about? In conjunction with NGOs (Non-governmental Organizations affiliated with the United Nations) as well as corporations and private individuals, our state and federal governments are working to promulgate rules, regulations, fees and taxes that trickle all the way down to the smallest town, community and individual citizen.

Our local bureaucrats are either ignorant (or pretending to be) of the fact that this is all coming down from above — from the mighty UN and the global elite. They, the bureaucrats, tell us that they are just working hard to design a template for our future, creating the necessary planning that will take us and our progeny into the next century with sustainability for even future generations and centuries. They claim that none of what they are doing has anything at all to do with the UN; that they are coming up with these cityscapes with stack-em and pack-em housing connecting to public transportation on their own.

They claim any talk to the contrary is just the claptrap of right wing radical conspiracy theorists; they figure if they tell this lie often enough, as Nazi Joseph Goebbels said, people will believe it and drink the Kool Aid. People are waking up to the dishonesty and collusion, enough so that the powers-that-be, the NGOs and the global elite, are having to rename things to try to hide them again. Consider this quote from J. Gary Lawrence, a planner for the city of Seattle, and an advisor to the President’s Council for Sustainable Development: “Participating in a U.N. advocated planning process would very likely bring out many…who would actively work to defeat any elected official…undertaking Local Agenda 21.

So we will call our process something else, such as “comprehensive planning,” “growth management,” or “smart growth.” Do you see what I mean? In his new Sustainable Development Manual, Tom DeWeese pulls these quotes from the UN’s Our Common Future: Sustainable Development involves “. . . a progressive transformation of the economy and society (p.43), . . . international interdependence (p. 47), . . . redistribution of wealth (p.50), . . . less material and more equitable growth (p.50-52), . . . ensuring a sustainable level of population (p.55), . . . merging environment and economics in decision making (p.62), . . . and a new ethics that will include the relationship between man and nature above all (p.71).

Clearly there is more to Sustainable Development than good stewardship of natural resources.[2] Put that all together and it equals what we so-called conspiracy theorists have been saying all along: this is a plan to control every aspect of our lives, economic, environmental, spiritual, educational, reproduction. The state will not only be in our pocketbooks and our bedrooms, but in our schools and churches. They will decide what foods we can eat (food-sheds), if we can have children, how much education each child will be allowed, how much space we can inhabit, and what we will worship — Jehovah or Gaia or something else entirely.

So how is Al Gore’s wrenching transformation going to transpire?
There are five paths being used to transform America from the land of the brave to the pen of the slave, they are: For the rural areas it’s the Wildlands Project. For the cities it’s smart growth. In business it’s Public/Private Partnerships. In government it’s called stakeholder councils and non-elected boards and regional government – or reinvented government.

And in the schools it is called No Child Left Behind. Wildlands Project Dave Foreman, formerly of the Wilderness Society and the Nature Conservancy, first dreamed up Earth First!, the club of eco-terrorists, then decided to play “grown up” and along with Arne Naess (Norwegian deep-ecologist), drew up the plans to re-wild North America. I say that he was playing at being grown up because no sane, reasoning person would want to take civilization back to a primitive stage.

The Wildlands Project literally calls for the “re-wilding” of 50% of all the land in every state – back to the way it was before Christopher Columbus set foot on this land. In 1983, when Foreman first dreamed up the scheme for the Wildlands Project, he said: “It is not enough to preserve the roadless, undeveloped country remaining. We must re-create wilderness in large regions: move out the cars and civilized people, dismantle the roads and dams, reclaim the plowed lands and clearcuts,– reintroduce extirpated species.” In order to re-wild America, the people must go somewhere else.

They must be driven from their farms and rural homes (and even cabins) and crammed into cities, in Newspeak, human settlements. Human settlements is a much more descriptive word for the globalists plans than cities, as cities as we know them will be mutated into holding areas for great numbers of human beings. (See Smart Growth below.) The Wildlands Project (the product of a very disturbed mind, as I intimated before) actually became the blueprint for the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty.

So ow we have an eco-warrior’s sick idea of Utopia becoming the prototype for international re-wilding of the world and it has the power of law. And what kind of person gleefully says, “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrial nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” That was Maurice Strong basically praising Foreman’s folly at the Earth Summit. Smart Growth The second path to Sustainable Development is Smart Growth. According to the Wildlands map, certain areas have been designated as human habitat areas; those are the larger cities of our country.

You might want to look human habitat areas this way: it is rather like at a zoo. Creatures are penned and other creatures are free to roam and look at the penned creatures; this time it will be humans in the pens and the animals having the run of the country There are many ways in which the globalists are achieving this scenario. One was the U.S. Conference of Mayors in San Francisco. On June 5 (World Environment Day), 2005, two documents – the “Green Cities Declaration” and the “Urban Environmental Accords” – were presented. Every mayor in attendance signed them.

The two documents are part and parcel of the United Nations’ Agenda 21. The first is the declaration that the mayors of all the cities of the United States and the world are going to be the implementers of Agenda 21. The second explains how it will be implemented, closing with the statement “The goal is for cities to pick three actions to adopt each year.” (more about this in a future article°. Smart Growth cities have stack-em and pack-em housing often connected to public transportation; there will be no garages or parking lots other than for bicycles. Yes, I said connected.

Often a train line comes right under the building. You can see examples of this in Seattle, Portland, Oregon and San Francisco. We once thought that living near a freeway or railroad was undesirable. I still do, but it is in the plans for all of our futures — railroads that is, freeways must go the way of the dinosaur because in Newspeak, “think elevator not automobile when you think of transportation to work.” That is, you will be riding the elevator up from your living quarters to your work in the dream (nightmare) world of Sustainable Development.

All this seems overwhelming and you want to holler, “stop, enough.” Regretfully there is more. In part 3, I will finish up the overview of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development and then will go into more depth on the important areas of A21 and bring in other relevant pieces of the puzzle.

Notes 1. Simon, Julian, The Ultimate Resource, Princeton University Press, 1981. p. 45. “Environmental, resource, and population stresses are diminishing, and with the passage of time will have less influence than now upon the quality of human life on our planet. These stresses have in the past always caused many people to suffer from lack of food, shelter, health, and jobs, but the trends is toward less rather than more of such suffering. . . . Because of increases in knowledge, the earth’s “carrying capacity” has been increasing throughout the decades and centuries and millennia to such an extent that the term “carrying capacity” has by now no useful meaning.”

2. DeWeese, Tom. Sustainable Development Manual/Stop Agenda 21, p.122 Kathleen Marquardt has been in the freedom movement since before it was called that. She was founder and chairman of Putting People First, a non-profit organization combatting the animal rights movement. Her book, AnimalScam: the Beastly Abuse of Human Rights, was published by Regnery in 1993. Kathleen has been Vice President of American Policy Center since 2000 and is the Agenda 21/Sustainable Development expert for Rocky Top Freedom Campaign.

She is a contributing writer and researcher for Freedom Advocates.
Website: E-Mail:
New Strategies in the Fight to Stop Agenda 21 by Tom DeWeese September 28, 2011 Plantation, Florida has just voted to NOT renew its ICLEI contract. That’s the eighth community in eight months to take such action. Plantation joins the growing list that includes Carroll County, MD; Amador County, CA; Edmond, OK; Las Cruces, NM; Spartanburg, SC and Albemarle, VA.

This is wonderful, positive news, indicating that more and more elected officials are starting to hear our arguments against this wrenching transformation of our country. For the first time I’m getting calls and letters from elected officials asking for more information. I am getting invitations to appear on new radio shows that havenever aired this issue before. In June, I was contacted by the Glenn Beck show as he prepared an entire program on Agenda 21. He even linked APC information to his blog.

I’ve now been contacted by one leading presidential candidate, along with a possible major donor who is considering helping us fund the fight. In addition to all of that, daily I hear from an ever growing list of activists working in their communities to stop Agenda 21. A revolution is certainly under way across the country. However, as we are gaining success, we are also beginning to face stiffer resistance from the proponents of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development. More than ever we are hearing their charges of “conspiracy theories,” “fringe nuts,” and “extremism.”

It’s to be expected. We are openly challenging them and they are feeling the heat. That means, as we move forward, it’s vitally important that anti-Agenda 21 activist be very careful with how they approach local government to express their opposition. I’m finding that there is a bit of a misconception in regard to one of the main proponents of Agenda 21, and it is hurting our ability to make progress in the fight. It is vitally important that we all get the following facts right when launching our attacks against ICLEI.

Please read carefully. The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) has been a main target by the anti-Agenda 21 forces. We targeted ICLEI because it has a clear United Nations connection, making it easier for us to make our case to elected officials about the UN connection to Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development policy. However, some have misunderstood the ICLEI role and have misrepresented who it is and what it does. The result, in some cases, is that our legitimate arguments have been be ignored and even laughed at. Let me try to set the record straight and provide some ideas on how to deal with the ICLEI situation.

First, the following facts are certainly true and need to be understood by all anti-Agenda 21 activists: ICLEI is a UN NGO organization that helped write Agenda 21 for the 1992 Earth Summit and then set, as its mission, to bring Agenda 21 policy to every city in the world. It does this by meeting with local officials, signing contracts with them to set standards for energy and water use, building and development codes, farming policy, etc.

It brings in training for city hall staff; soft ware to manage the programs; guidelines for legislation; networking with other communities, other NGO and Stakeholder groups and other agencies of state and federal government. They reach out to other public officials in the communities, including newspaper editors, school superintendents, local college presidents, and chamber of commerce leaders – all designed to assure everyone who helps make decisions and policy in the community are on board.

And of course, ICLEI leads the officials to the most important ingredient to impose Agenda 21 – money – grant money that comes with specific strings to guarantee that Agenda 21 is enforced. That grant money is like heroin in the veins. Once there, the addiction and dependency is in force. Once ICLEI has done its job, the community is hooked, and an entirely new attitude and community atmosphere of top-down control is enforced by the government. ICLEI’s influence basically creates an entirely new culture in the community where it becomes natural and basically unquestioned to expect local government to be involved in every aspect of your property, job, family and your whole life.

Now, that’s what ICLEI does and that’s why we targeted it and why it is so dangerous. However, the manner in which we expose and oppose ICLEI is very important and I have heard some enthusiastic activist go about it in a damaging and ineffective way. First, ICLEI is NOT the United Nations, as I have heard some charge before city councils. It is a private organization with its own agenda – of course it is promoting Agenda 21. But to say the city council is paying dues to the UN is just not accurate.

Another misconception is that ICLEI IS Agenda 21 and if the community stops paying dues and ends their contract with ICLEI the battle is over. I am receiving messages from people who are dismayed to learn their community is still moving forward with Sustainable Development programs even after they ended the contract with ICLEI. The fact is, ending the contract with ICLEI is just the first punch. From there you must be active in an effort to undo any programs ICLEI helped put in place. That includes changing the very culture of City Hall and its ICLEI-trained staff. It means an active campaign to dismantle non-elected boards and councils that are the prime source for enforcement of policy.

It means removing your community from regional government councils. And it probably means electing new officials who oppose the Agenda 21 policy and have the ability and courage to stand up to an assault by federal and state agencies who will not be happy that you are rejecting their agenda. And through all of that you will have to be prepared to counter the attacks from the entrenched NGOs and the lackeys down at the local paper. Withdrawal from the drug of Agenda 21 can be deadly. Finally, I believe there is a more effective way to attack Agenda 21/ Sustainable Development polices in your community, at least initially. You may be fired up about the UN, but others are not.

As I wrote a few months ago in my article “How to Fight Back Against Sustainable Development,” rather than rushing into city hall and immediately start accusing them of implementing a UN program, take some time to research the policy being proposed or implemented. Determine the effect it will have on the community or your property. Who else will be affected and how? These are the victims of the policy and the most likely to support you efforts to stop it. In that way, you will recruit new people to the cause. You will find it much more effective than sounding like a rabid bear growling about the UN. For example, smart meters or energy audits affect everyone in town.

What is the problem: government is dictating your energy use that you are paying for. It is a violation of your right to choose how much energy you are willing to buy. It denies you the right to determine how warm or cool your house will be. It denies you the choice of taking a hot shower or not. It even affects your health if you can’t get warm enough – or if you are denied access to hot water, allowing germs to grow. I believe such an argument will gain more support for your cause across the city and across party and philosophical lines than rushing to bring up the UN?

Yes, the policy certainly did originate in the bowels of the UN. But why are we opposed to it – because of what it does to us. And that is the place to start to oppose it. As people come to your side, if they want to know more, then will be the time to teach them the rest of the story about Agenda 21 and its UN origins. So, focus on the victims and the impact the policy will have on the well being of the community and you. Question how they intend to enforce the policy (such as having government agents come into your home).

Make your officials explain that. They won’t want to. This will show the heavy hand of control required to make the policy work. Put the officials on the defensive over their enforcement efforts and watch them retreat as it’s exposed. The same approach can be used effectively in dealing with plans to put meters on private wells, or in dealing with plans for historic preservation schemes that suddenly disallow private property owners to change or improve anything on their house because “Robert E. Lee didn’t see that change.” (You have to live in Virginia to understand that reference.)

Ask your County Commissioners this question: “name one thing I can do on my property without your permission.” To answer that question honestly will force them to admit that under these policies there is no private property. The important message here is to keep your fight local to stop their global agenda. Agenda 21 is a vast, complicated structure. The organizations promoting it number in the thousands and include Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), public policy groups, federal state and local agencies, self-proclaimed “stakeholders,” Congress, the White House, 50 state houses, and your local officials.

You can’t fight them all individually. Instead, fight the policy and watch them come out of the woodwork to challenge you. By attacking the policy you have made them defend it and you will have shaped the debate. Then we’ll see who is really wearing the tin foil hats!

Related Articles: 1- Tea Party Candidate Warns of UN and Obama’s Agenda 21: Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence. A native of Ohio, he’s been a candidate for the Ohio Legislature, served as editor of two newspapers, and has owned several businesses since the age of 23. In 1989 Tom led the only privately-funded election-observation team to the Panamanian elections. In 2006 Tom was invited to Cambridge University to debate the issue of the United Nations before the Cambridge Union, a 200 year old debating society.

Today he serves as Founder and President of the American Policy Center and editor of The DeWeese Report For 40 years Mr. DeWeese has been a businessman, grassroots activist, writer and publisher. As such, he has always advocated a firm belief in man’s need to keep moving forward while protecting our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. The DeWeese Report , 70 Main Street, Suite 23, Warrenton Virginia. (540) 341-8911 E-Mail: E-Mail: Website:

Sustainable Development; Means Transformation of Your Life by Tom DeWeese September 16, 2011 Rebuttal by Tom DeWeese Recently W. Cecil Steward, dean emeritus of the UNL College of Architecture(Lincoln, Nebraska) launched what can only be described as a diatribe against a talk I gave recently in Lincoln. My topic was Sustainable Development and how it is transforming out nation. In his article, Mr. Steward, rather than provide any substance on the issue, prefers instead, to use words designed to paint me as an extremist playing on people’s fear.

Specifically, Mr. Steward accuses me of misrepresenting Lincoln’s local Comprehensive Development Plan, and it’s imposition of Sustainable Development as a “cover for a United Nations based international conspiracy…” I have worked on this issue for more than eighteen years and have routinely experienced similar attacks against my message and my character in cities where I have appeared. For some reason those working to enforce Sustainable Development policies scramble to discredit me and blow a well orchestrated smokescreen to cover their work. Apparently honest debate and disagreement are not part of their plans.

But debate and discussion is the traditional American way. I’ll present my case point by point. First, there is a very clear connection between the United Nations and local Lincoln comprehensive development plans. The very term “Sustainable Development” first appeared in a 1987 report entitled “Our Common Future,” produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. The term was first offered as official UN Policy in 1992 at the Earth Summit in a document that is today simply referred to as Agenda 21.

In their own words here is what proponents of Agenda 21 said it is: “Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities if ALL people…Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced…” Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1992). At that Earth Summit, President George H.W. Bush signed American acceptance of the Agenda 21 plan. The next year, in compliance with Agenda 21, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12858 establishing the “President’s Council on Sustainable Development” in order to “harmonize” US development policy with UN policy as outlined in Agenda 21.

The Executive Order directed all agencies of the Federal Government to work with state and local community governments in a joint effort to “reinvent” government using the guidelines outlined in Agenda 21. What are these guidelines and policies, and do you see them today in Lincoln? Agenda 21 calls for reduction in energy use; reduction in water use; enforcement of alternative energy use, specifically wind and solar; controls over development, specifically the creation of mixed use neighborhoods that contain high-density housing units (high rise or extremely small lots) along with office space, stores and open space that will eliminate the use of cars; development of public transportation and high speed, light rail trains; etc.

All of these policies are based on the scare tactic that man is creating global warming, a charge that is now in great disrepute throughout the world. Yet, proponents continue to press these policies. Literally everything related to sustainable policy leads to higher prices, shortages of goods and calls from planners for sacrifice by citizens. In Lincoln, literally all of these Agenda 21 guidelines can now be found. Lincoln has “smart-growth” policies that enforce high-density housing with a mix of commercial and residential properties, bike-friendly streets, and walking space.

The goal is to eliminate the use of cars as much as possible. Residents are instead encouraged to walk and ride bikes to work and shopping. Electric companies are now installing smart meters which take away homeowner control of electric use. Energy audits are being conducted to determine the energy efficiency of homes. If Lincoln follows suit of other cities that are using this practice to set energy reduction goals, then soon city government will set strict standards for energy use.

Homeowners will have to spend thousands of dollars to comply. Non-compliance will bring fines. To enforce alternative energy schemes, there are plans to force homeowners to cut back trees in their yards in order to allow open access to solar panels on roofs. And, of course, there is the very important policy to force drivers to “share the road” with bikes – the “complete street,” they call it. In short, Lincoln sustainable policies match perfectly those outlined in Agenda 21. Coincidence?

The bottom line is, city planners, and those like Mr. Steward, have set themselves up as an elite force which believes it knows better how the rest of us should live. They have “reinvented” Lincoln government as top down control to enforce a life style on us, rooted in a one-size fits all international policy called Agenda 21, on the excuse of a questionable environmental risk called Global Warming. And they certainly don’t want to be questioned by anyone as they do it. Well, here are some very specific questions I would suggest every citizen of Lincoln ask their planners who are busying themselves in your personal lives:

Ask them to name a single thing you can do on your private property without their permission. Ask them what guarantees for protection of private property rights they have included in their comprehensive plans. And above all, ask them, especially Mr. Steward, how often they ride their bikes to work.

Agenda 21 in One Easy Lesson by Tom DeWeese  April 6, 2011 Awareness of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development is racing across the nation as citizens in community after community are learning what their city planners are actually up to. As awareness grows, I am receiving more and more calls for tools to help activists fight back. Many complain that elected officials just won’t read detailed reports or watch long videos. “Can you give us something that is quick, and easy to read that we can hand out,” I’m asked.

So here it is. A one page, quick description of Agenda 21 that fits on one page. I’ve also included for the back side of your hand out a list of quotes for the perpetrators of Agenda 21 that should back up my brief descriptions. A word of caution, use this as a started kit, but do not allow it to be your only knowledge of this very complex subject. To kill it you have to know the facts. Research, know your details; discover the NGO players in your community; identify who is victimized by the policies and recruit them to your fight; and then kill Agenda 21. That’s how it must be done.

The information below is only your first step. Happy hunting. What is Sustainable Development? According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction. Social Equity (Social Justice) Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.”

Redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care is a social justice. All part of Agenda 21 policy. Economic Prosperity Public Private Partnerships (PPP). Special dealings between government and certain, chosen corporations which get tax breaks, grants and the government’s power of Eminent Domain to implement sustainable policy. Government-sanctioned monopolies.

Local Sustainable Development policies Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, STAR Sustainable Communities, Green jobs, Green Building Codes, “Going Green,” Alternative Energy, Local Visioning, facilitators, regional planning, historic preservation, conservation easements, development rights, sustainable farming, comprehensive planning, growth management, consensus. Who is behind it? ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (formally, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). Communities pay ICLEI dues to provide “local” community plans, software, training, etc.

Additional groups include American Planning Council, The Renaissance Planning Group, International City/ County Management Group, aided by US Mayors Conference, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, National Association of County Administrators and many more private organizations and official government agencies. Foundation and government grants drive the process. Where did it originate? The term Sustainable Development was first introduced to the world in the pages a 1987 report (Our Common Future) produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environmental and Development, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland, VP of the World Socialist Party.

The term was first offered as official UN policy in 1992, in a document called UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21, issued at the UN’s Earth Summit, today referred to simply as Agenda 21. What gives Agenda 21 Ruling Authority? More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy during a signing ceremony at the Earth Summit. US president George H.W. Bush signed the document for the US. In signing, each nation pledge to adopt the goals of Agenda 21. In 1995, President Bill Clinton, in compliance with Agenda 21, signed Executive Order #12858 to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development in order to “harmonize” US environmental policy with UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21. The EO directed all agencies of the Federal Government to work with state and local community governments in a joint effort “reinvent” government using the guidelines outlined in Agenda 21. As a result, with the assistance of groups like ICLEI, Sustainable Development is now emerging as government policy in every town, county and state in the nation. Revealing Quotes From the Planners “Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced… ” -Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993). Emphases – DR Urgent to implement – but we don’t know what it is! “The realities of life on our planet dictate that continued economic development as we know it cannot be sustained…Sustainable development, therefore is a program of action for local and global economic reform – a program that has yet to be fully defined.” -The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996. “No one fully understands how or even, if, sustainable development can be achieved; however, there is growing consensus that it must be accomplished at the local level if it is ever to be achieved on a global basis.” -The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996. Agenda 21 and Private Property “Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social justice.” -From the report from the 1976 UN’s Habitat I Conference. “Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological and aesthetic consequences…The key to overcoming it is through public policy…” -Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, page 112. “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” -Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992. Reinvention of Government “We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, and more sensible use of human, natural and financial resources in achieving our goals.” -Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development “Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” -Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project “We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for Capitalists and their projects – we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres or presently settled land.” -Dave Foreman, Earth First. What is not sustainable? Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paves and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment.” -UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report. Hide Agenda 21’s UN roots from the people “Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.” -J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development. Fight Agenda 21 or Lose Your Freedom by Tom DeWeese May 11, 2010 Randall O’Toole Misses the Fine Print At a recent property rights conference in Bozeman, Montana, anti-Smart Growth spokesman Randall O’Toole was taking part in a panel discussion when he was asked a question concerning my opposition to Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development. Said the questioner, “DeWeese calls the sustainability doctrine ‘a complete agenda of control,’ that has been largely embraced by most aspects of the government.” O’Toole was asked to comment on that. O’Toole responded by downplaying the significance of the UN and Agenda 21. Whether it is true or not, he said, it is not relevant in the process of addressing the issues, and in fact, will most likely diminish credibility because it starts sounding like a “black helicopter” conspiracy. Instead, O’Toole said, the focus should be that “they are taking away our rights.” He then said, “it really isn’t the UN. It is our own urban planning profession and the American Planning Association.” O’Toole’s comments have actually enlightened me to an issue that has been a puzzle for years. Why do so many in the Washington, D.C. conservative/libertarian movement ignore Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development? I’ve witnessed their passion to oppose the combined scams dealing with global warming and Cap and Trade. Sustainable Development is totally based on the premise that global warming is destroying the earth and that reducing green house gases through sustainable policy is the only way to prevent it. Of course, O’Toole, with his ties to the CATO Institute and the Reason Foundation, aggressively opposes Smart Growth policy, which is one-fourth of Sustainable Development policy – yet he never mentions it. How can he be so involved in parts of the puzzle and yet leave out the major pieces? Now he tells us – to do otherwise would make him and his cohorts seem “silly” to the powers in government. We wouldn’t want that. O’Toole wants to be taken “seriously!” So, he will just deal with the immediate policy in front of him and ignore its roots. Got it. Well, I beg to disagree with Randall O’Toole on so many levels. Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development are about much more than planning commissions and development. It is an entire philosophy that encompasses every aspect of our lives. To ignore Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development is to disregard the REASONS behind and the EFFECTS of the policy in our daily lives. For example, O’Toole says we should just “focus on explaining the importance of our property rights.” Here’s one problem with that “simple” approach. Today’s public school education curriculum no longer teaches the importance and virtues of property rights. So chances are we will find ourselves dealing with planning commissions, city councils and even congressmen who have absolutely no concept of property rights. So simply arguing property rights in a council meeting will label you as a “tin hat” just as fast as bringing up the UN – in fact, I’ve seen it happen. To simply focus on development policy without the reasons behind it leaves one puzzled as to why government would want to implement policy that makes no economic sense. In deed O’Toole’s remarks reveal his failure to grasp the root of such policy. In a recent interview, O’Toole said, “The big problem is political. We’ve had this huge anti-automobile, anti-sprawl movement for the past several decades, and it has just been building up. The Obama Administration has bought into it.” Those comments show a complete lack of understanding by O’Toole about where such dangerous policies come from. What is this anti-sprawl “movement” that has been building up? Ignore the UN and you miss the thousands of non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) that operate within its structure that are the root of that “movement.” That is where the policies are conceived and written. It isn’t just some magical ignorance on the part of planners. The NGO’s don’t think the UN is a far-out conspiracy – it’s their bread and butter to enforce this outrageous policy. Further, ignore the UN and its Agenda 21 policy and you miss events like the UN’s 2005 World Environment Day in San Francisco, where Mayors from around the world were hosted and recruited to impose Sustainable Development in their communities. The Mayors were asked to sign two documents to pledge their commitment to sustainable policies, to be implemented on a specific time table. These Mayors didn’t think this was some kind of black-helicopter conspiracy – they signed the documents and are now implementing the policies. Right behind them was the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which met in Chicago just one week after the UN San Francisco meeting, focusing on the same Agenda 21/Sustainable Development policies. Unlike Randall O’Toole, the largest and most official organization in the nation representing Mayors had no trouble supporting the “conspiracy” of the UN. And then there is ICLEI – the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. ICLEI helped write Agenda 21 and now works to implement the policy on the local level. At least 544 American cities now pay dues to ICLEI for it to help implement Agenda 21 in their cities. ICLEI is quite proud of its UN connection and to Agenda 21 and says so clearly on its website. If you want to fight Smart Growth in those 544 American cities then it is quite necessary to take on ICLEI and that means exposing its ties to the UN. How, then, Mr. O’Toole is it helpful to just tell them they are violating property rights? Finally, the full concept of Sustainable Development is rooted in what we call the three E’s – Social Equity, Economic Prosperity, and Ecological Integrity. To simply focus on the planning aspects of Sustainable Development is to miss the entire social aspect of it. Another term for social equity is the “Third Way.” The term is used to explain Sustainable Development as an economic scheme different from Capitalism and Socialism. In the comparison, Sustainable Development is defined in near utopian terms as Capitalism is dismissed as ownership by the wealthy elite which care nothing for protecting the environment; and Socialism, according to the Sustainablists, is inefficient and run by a political elite. Instead, say the Sustainablists, the third approach is “anticipatory,” which controls problems today to avoid them tomorrow. That, they say, is accomplished though strict environmental regulations, financing “green” industries, and planning for future generations. And that doesn’t simply entail local development, but a comprehensive plan to control every aspect of our lives, from population control to food intake, to health care. Sustainable Development’s Social Equity plank is based on a demand for something called “social justice,” a phrase first coined by Karl Marx. Social Equity means that individuals must give up selfish wants for the needs of the common good or the “community.” Through such a policy, everyone has the right to a job with a good wage, a right to health care and a right to housing. To assure those rights, wealth must be redistributed. Property ownership is a social injustice which brings wealth to some. Business and property are to be controlled by all of society. How can a self-proclaimed property rights advocate like Randall O’Toole simply dismiss or ignore such policy, especially when it is now entrenched in every government planning decision? The third plank of Sustainable Development is Economic Prosperity – implemented through the creation of Public/Private Partnerships (PPPs). I call PPPs government-sanctioned monopolies because they create an elite of specially chosen businesses that are granted “non-compete” clauses and Comprehensive Development Agreements to guarantee profits. That is not free enterprise. Incidentally, two of the most powerful forces in the nation working to implement PPPs are Randal O’Toole’s CATO Institute and the Reason Foundation, both heavily funded by corporations which are the direct beneficiaries of PPPs. Could that be the reason he refuses to use the term Sustainable Development in a derogatory way? All of these issues are equal parts of the UN’s Agenda 21 and its policy called Sustainable Development. Leave out one part and you cause confusion and lack of understanding. Yet, O’Toole says discussing Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development “is not relevant.” And that is why we are losing the fight against top-down government control – lack of understanding of where the policy is coming from. If O’Toole and his partners at CATO and Reason would join our forces to expose Agenda 21 and the evils that come out of the UN, local civic officials would stop laughing about black-helicopter conspiracies and unite to stop it. If you don’t know who or what you are fighting, you are already at a disadvantage. Mr. O’Toole, you said you don’t care if you are right – jut that you win. Well, I don’t want to just win a skirmish; I want to completely defeat them. The marriage of religion, nature, and politics: The “why” behind the new world order By Rebecca Capuano Roanoke Homeschooling Examiner March 30, 2010 Freedom of choice and basic individual rights are being sacrificed in the interest of the common good, under the United Nations’ agenda for the 21st century, called Agenda 21. Under the veil of feel-good terms like “sustainable development” and “social equity”, a self-described “new world order” is being systematically implemented around the globe, that is organized around the principle that nature is the most fundamental truth, and which requires all spheres of society to conform to that principle, under the government of a ruling elite (the United Nations and the organizations that support it). When faced with evidence of this unbelievable agenda, the natural question that comes to mind is “Why?” Two Major Forces There are really two major engines driving the new world agenda: a quest for control, and fundamental religious belief. What makes this paradigm so dangerous, and effective, is that it merges both forces together under the stated goal of taking care of the environment. The religious background to this environmental agenda is called Gaia, or the worship of the earth. Based on the gaia hypothesis, originally proposed by James Lovelock, this new age religious movement, cosmology, is woven throughout all of the major initiatives, forums, and organizations of the sustainable development agenda. To begin to understand the reasons behind the agenda for a new world order, it is critical to investigate the religious beliefs of the organizations and individuals behind it, and how those convictions undergird an agenda of control. The new age spiritual movement of Gaia One of most influential NGOs (Non-governmental organizations) allied closely with the U.N. and intimately involved in their creation of agenda is the Temple of Understanding (TOU), located in The Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City. This organization’s objectives are, according to its website, “developing an appreciation of religious and cultural diversity, educating for global citizenship and sustainability, expanding public discourse on faith and ecology, and creating just and peaceful communities”. Most importantly, although not explicitly stated by the TOU, the cathedral is the center of cosmology, or the worship of Gaia. The Cathedral of St. John the Divine is not only home to the TOU, but has also previously housed the National Religious Partnership for the Environment, the Lindesfarne Association and the Gaia Institute, which are all proponents of the gaia hypothesis. Among its many globally-influential board of directors members is the Reverend Thomas Berry, the most prominent evangelist for the gaia hypothesis. The Wanderer Forum Quarterly describes the man’s religious philosophy: “Thomas Berry, C.P. claims that it is now time for the most significant change that Christian spirituality has yet experienced. This change is part of a much more comprehensive change in human consciousness brought about by the discovery of the evolutionary story of the universe. In speaking about a new cosmology he reminds us that we are the earth come to consciousness and, therefore, we are connected to the whole living community – that is, all people, animals, plants and the living organism of planet earth itself”. In Berry’s own words, according to The Florida Catholic (February 14, 1992), “We must rethink our ideas about God; we should place less emphasis on Christ as a person and redeemer. We should put the Bible away for 20 years while we radically rethink our religious ideas. What is needed is the change from an exploitative anthropocentrism to a participative biocentrism. This change requires something more than environmentalism.” Gaia has become much more than simply a scientific hypothesis. It has transformed into a religious movement which is the driving force behind global social change. To help illuminate the beliefs of Gaia, as propogated by the TOU and many U.N. leaders and organizations behind the new world order agenda, it is helpful to review a U.N. report called Shared Vision, from the 1988 Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders for Human Survival, which was founded by the Temple of Understanding. In summarizing the speech given at the conference by James Lovelock, founder of the Gaia hypothesis and author of Ages of Gaia, the report details, “…Lovelock’s contribution is to suggest that life on earth regulates its environment as if it were one huge organism. The name given to the organism – and the idea – is that of Gaia, the Greek earth goddess.” According to the report, Lovelock said, “She is of this Universe and, conceivably, a part of God. On Earth she is the source of life everlasting and is alive now; she gave birth to humankind and we are a part of her.” The report indicates that Lovelock…”…likened the current global warming to the first signs of a fever, but is worried that we are not allowing Gaia to recuperate”. In other words, Earth, as one huge organism, is seen as one with God. By doing damage to the Earth, humans are, according to this belief, damaging God. It is this spiritual conviction which provides the rabid determination behind the environmental movement, and the objectives of sustainable development. Global Forum: Where religion of nature meets the politics of control The 1988 Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders for Human Survival began the marriage between religion and environmental objectives on a worldwide scale. From this conference, many additional forums around the world were organized to bring together world leaders in government, environment, religion, and science for the purpose of collaborating around the goals of sustainable development. The National Religious Partnership for the Environment (NRPE), created in 1993, came out of these global meetings. The NRPE developed a plan for “integrating issues of social justice and the environment” which included education and action kits to religious congregations around the world, training programs for religious students and leaders, and a variety of other worldwide actions specifically targeted to ensure that religious groups adopted the goals of this globalist environmental agenda. Worldwide religion, the objectives of sustainable development, and the Gaia movement all became wedded together into a tapestry which could only be woven effectively through broad-scale, worldwide control. Religion of nature meets politics: Robert Muller, former Assistant Secretary General to the U.N. and member of the Board of Advisors to the Temple of Understanding (which founded the Global Forum), gives evidence to the marriage of Gaia with the movement of sustainable development in his paper A Cosmological Vision of the Future from 1989: “Now we’re learning that perhaps this planet has not been created for humans, but that humans have been created for the planet…We are living Earth. Each of us is a cell, a perceptive nervous unit of the Earth. The living consciousness of the Earth is beginning to operate through us…We have now a world brain which determines what can be dangerous or mortal for the planet: the United Nations and its agencies, and innumberable (sic) groups and networks around the world, are part of the brain. This is our newly discovered meaning…we are a global family living in a global home. We are in the process of becoming a global civilization…The third millennium should be a spiritual millennium, a millennium which will see the integration and harmony of humanity with creation, with nature, with the planet, with the cosmos and with eternity.” This key U.N. leader, in charge of creating policy on a worldwide scale, shows how cosmological faith drives an agenda for a global community, in the interest of protecting the god of nature. When the scope of this religious conviction becomes clear, it is easy to understand how it leads to an agenda of globalized control, in order to align the actions of human society toward elevating the goals of taking care of Gaia above all else, including the people who are a part of her. Muller won the UNESCO Prize 1989 for Peace Education for his World Core Curriculum, an educational initiative to make students into global citizens who take care of the planet. According to Muller’s website,, Muller says, “The entire humanity must be reprogrammed through a right global inducation (Latin ex-ducare, to lead out, in-ducare, to lead into)”. Just what is this U.N.-endorsed global education, as created by this proponent of Gaia? Muller explained the reasons behind his World Core Curriculum in a 1995 speech to the College of Law at the University of Denver: “I’ve come to the conclusion that the only correct education that I have received in my life was from the United Nations. We should replace the word politics by planetics. We need planetary management, planetary caretakers. We need global sciences. We need a science of a global psychology, a global sociology, a global anthropology. Then I made my proposal for a World Core Curriculum.” The first principle of the curriculum is: “Assisting the child in becoming an integrated individual who can deal with personal experience while seeing himself as a part of ‘the greater whole.’ In other words, promote growth of the group idea, so that group good, group understanding, group interrelations and group goodwill replace all limited, self-centered objectives, leading to group consciousness.” Muller’s influential philosophy is the perfect example of how nature-centered spirituality and an agenda of worldwide control go hand in hand with the United Nations and its supporting organizations. Religion of nature meets politics: Maurice Strong This religious conviction and political agenda of control is shared by, according to many accounts, the most powerful man in the world. Maurice Strong was Secretary General of the U.N.’s Rio Earth Summit in 1992 (where Agenda 21 was adopted), and former Executive Director of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). According to Henry Lamb, one of the most researched writers that exists on the issues of globalism, “He, perhaps more than any other single person, is responsible for the development of a global agenda now being implemented throughout the world.” Strong, a billionaire and a brilliant, phenomenally influential U.N. bureaucrat, is a devotee of earth-bound spirituality aligned with the Gaia movement. To help illuminate the scope of his influence, consider that he has served in a multitude of key international positions, including Director of the World Economic Forum Foundation, Chairman of the Earth Council, Chairman of the Stockholm Environment Institute, Senior Advisor to the President of the World Bank, Chairman of the World Resources Institute, and, most interestingly, Finance Director at the Temple of Understanding. Strong and his wife, Hanne, created the Manitou Foundation in 1988 “to provide land and financial support to qualified spiritual organizations, earth stewardship programs, and related educational opportunities for youth and adults” according to the Crestone Institute. Their 200,000 acre ranch near Crestone, Colorado, known as Baca Grande, is now a new age spiritual center run by Strong’s wife. Strong co-founded the Earth Charter Commission with Mikhail Gorbachev in 1997. This document, which has been endorsed by the U.N., reveals the spiritual nature of the agenda for sustainable development. In its preamble, the Earth Charter states, “We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace…The protection of Earth’s vitality, diversity, and beauty is a sacred trust”. After addressing the fact that “the benefits of development are not shared equitably…” (the communistic principle of redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have-nots), the preamble goes on to express: “The emergence of a global civil society is creating new opportunities to build a democratic and humane world. Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge inclusive solutions…The spirit of human solidarity and kinship with all life is strengthened when we live with reverence for the mystery of being, gratitude for the gift of life, and humility regarding the human place in nature”. Strong’s comments in his opening address at the Rio Earth Summit summarize his philosophy clearly: “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.” This is not simply an idealistic agenda, but a deeply rooted spiritual belief about nature as god. And it is an agenda, driven by religious conviction, and intricately interconnected with a plan for a tightly controlled global society, that is being propagated by the most influential individuals and organizations on the planet. The modern face of Gaia and the environment: Al Gore Former Vice President Al Gore is a devotee of Gaia, and the modern face of the environmental movement. Gore has been involved with the Temple of Understanding, including giving a sermon at its annual celebration of St. Francis, a ceremony whose Blessing of the Animals included blessings for an elephant, algae, and a bowl of worms and compost. According to a 1994 publication by the Cathedral at St. John the Divine, at this sermon Gore asserted, “God is not separate from the earth”. Gore’s famous book, Earth in the Balance, has three chapters devoted to the “Earth Goddess”, and on page 259 he writes, “”This we know: the Earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the Earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites us all.” The theme repeats itself: a pantheistic, new age belief that the earth is god, and humanity is here to protect her above all else. Why does this matter to homeschoolers? Fundamentally, the new world order is about global control, driven by an environmental paganism. Few people realize that the deceptively attractive goals of “taking care of the environment” are fueled by new age religion. A religion that, despite all of the politically assuaging terms like “social justice” and “religious inclusiveness”, is being force-fed into every arena of society, in environmentally friendly green bites. The religious agenda behind this agenda is anti-Christian at its core, and anti-democracy. Many Christians choose to homeschool specifically because of the freedom it provides to ensure that their spiritual values are inculcated in their children. For example, Laura Griffith, Director of the local Botetourt chapter of the homeschool group Classical Conversations, expresses her reasons for educating at home: “We homeschool because we believe it is the responsibility of the parent, not the civil government, to train their child in the way they should go. We want to have a biblical worldview incorporated in teaching our child. All subjects point to God and to leave Him out of the learning process would go against our beliefs.” This agenda not only leaves God out of the process, it redefines god completely. It exchanges monotheism (the belief in one God) for animism (the belief that everything has a soul) and pantheism (that all things are manifestations of God). And, as evident by its universal policies of control, it is not content to be “inclusive”. Homeschoolers, and all Americans, (Christian or not), must wake up to the driving forces behind the agenda of sustainable development, before the entire world is forced to bow down to the god of the earth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.