Wednesday, November 19, 2014

A Brief Examination of "Our Common Future": The Report That Gave Birth To Agenda 21

To understand the complexity of the United Nations Agenda 21 Program of Action, a serious study needs to be conducted not only of the Agenda 21 plan itself, but also of the various reports, conventions, treaties, etc., that are referenced throughout Agenda 21 literature.  The World Commission on Environment and Development, also referred to as the Brundtland Report, or "Our Common Future", is one of the essential reports, related to the Agenda, that needs to be read, to further develop an understanding of the ideas, and goals, of the planners, who are implementing this massive agenda for the world.  (To view the 300-page online .pdf version of Our Common Future, off of the United Nations website, click here.)

According to the description on the back cover of the hard copy version of "Our Common Future":
"The World Commission on Environment and Development, headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway, was set up as an independent body in 1983 by the United Nations.  Its brief was to re-examine the critical environment and development problems on the planet and to formulate realistic proposals to solve them, and to ensure that human progress will be sustained through development without bankrupting the resources of future generations"
We know this report played a key role in the creation of Agenda 21, from references to it, in various Agenda 21 affiliated literature.  For example, in the Introduction section of the children's version of Agenda 21, Rescue Mission: Planet Earth, the Brundtland Report, Our Common Future, is credited with "set[ting] out the idea of Sustainable Development."  Of course the term 'sustainable development' is key, as nearly every chapter of the Agenda 21 Program revolves around the idea of creating, what they refer to as, "a new global partnership for sustainable development."

Another example to show this report's connection to Agenda 21 comes from a newsletter released by a highly-influential organization in the area of regional planning, the American Planning Association (APA).  In an article titled, How Sustainable Is Our Planning?, land use planner Robert Odland, discusses the origins of the term 'sustainable development', how it is being used more frequently by planners, and it's connection to Agenda 21.
"[A] new family of terms is appearing more frequently in planning : sustainable development, sustainable cities, and sustainable growth.  What do these terms mean and what are the implications for planners?   The concept of sustainability and sustainable development came into the public debate with the publication of the World Commission on Environment and Development report, Our Common Future, (often known as the Brundtland Report).  This report defined sustainable development as the ability to meet the needs of the current population without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
Continuing with the article written by Robert Odland in the APA newsletter, Odland goes on to explain the connections with sustainability and Agenda 21:
"Vice President Gore’s book, Earth in the Balance addressed many of the general issues of sustainability. Within the past year, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development has been organized to develop recommendations for incorporating sustainability into the federal government. Also, various groups have been formed to implement Agenda 21, a comprehensive blueprint for sustainable development that was adopted at the recent UNCED conference in Rio de Janeiro (the ‘Earth Summit.’).”
Providing a full, detailed analysis of Our Common Future, would be a futile task, as nearly every concept proposed in this report, is also proposed in Agenda 21, and the report A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action does a sufficient job of describing, and analyzing, those key concepts.  It is important, though, to highlight certain excerpts, and details of the Brundtland report, that may help in providing a greater understanding of the overall Agenda.

There were 21 members on this commission, all representing different countries, including such prominent figures as the previously mentioned former Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Harlem Brundtland, former EPA administrator and FBI director, William Ruckelshaus, and Canadian businessman Maurice Strong.  Another notable member of the Commission, representing Guyana, is Shridath S. Ramphal, who is quoted in the children's version of Agenda 21 promoting population control, and criticizing anti-abortion groups like the Catholic Church.  Separate, extensive studies should be conducted on the different members of the Commission, especially on Gro Brundtland and Maurice Strong, to find various interesting connections, but for the sake of brevity, we will move on from looking at the particular members of the commission.

Land Collectivization

In order for the planners of this Agenda to achieve their ultimate goal, which includes having control over all of the land in the world, the power of eminent domain, or the power of government to take a person's private property, needs to used, and strengthened.  The original Agenda 21 report mentions land collectivization, though the Brundtland report appears to focus a bit more on the topic, and the Brundtland report's recommendations on land collectivization deserve focus.

As discussed in the analysis Go To Work and Give The Government Your Children: The Feminist UN Agenda 21 Plan To "Empower" Women, the United Nations is philosophically a collectivist organization, viewing the good of the community, over the desires of the individual.  Various UN connections to Communists, and the representation of Communist ideals in UN literature, are also discussed in the analysis, and helps to explain the Agenda's ultimate goal of collectivizing land.  Of course, one of the goals of Communism, as laid out in the Communist Manifesto, is to abolish all private property in land.

Connecting this to the Brundtland report, it is stated in the report that "there is a general need to find innovative and effective ways of pooling land for the common good."  The report also advocates another Communist goal, a centrally planned economy:
"In centrally planned economies, the ability to plan and implement plans for urban development has been significant. The priority given to collective goods over private consumption may also have increased the resources available for urban development."
 In order to achieve this goal of "pooling land for the common good", the Brundtland report recommends for governments to take peoples private property, or "redistribute land and resources":
  • "The redistribution of land is particularly important where large estates and vast numbers of the land-poor coexist."
  • "...ecologically disadvantaged areas and land-poor rural masses have not benefited from advances in technology and will not until governments are willing and able to redistribute land and resources, and give them the necessary support and incentives." [emphasis added]
As detailed in the analysis Agenda 21: The Rockefellers Are Building Human Settlement Zones In Connecticut, moving people off of rural land, and into densely packed cities, is another aspect of this land collectivization scheme of Agenda 21.  The Brundtland report suggests for governments to make it harder for people to obtain rural land, and says that "many governments maintain unrealistically low taxes on rural land."  Thus, by increasing the cost of owning rural land, governments will discourage ownership, and occupation.

Indoctrinating children, through "education", to be tolerant of growing up in densely populated communities is also recommended, as the report states "schooling should enhance the levels of tolerance and empathy required for living in a crowded world."

Lower Standard of Living

A central theme of reports involving 'sustainable development' include the idea that the high standard of living of those people living in industrialized countries, is not only causing damage to the environment, but causes people living in the developing countries to remain poor.  The planners use words like 'social equity' to give the impression that they want things to be more 'equal' in the world.  Equality can be a tricky concept though.  Equality can mean increasing the standard of living of the poorest countries to match the level in the industrialized countries, or it could mean dropping the standard of living of the industrialized countries down to the level of the poor countries.  The UN Agenda 21 plan appears to favor the latter method.

One excerpt from the Brundtland report to show that the plan is indeed to lower the standard of living of industrialized countries to create equality, and not vice versa, comes from part 4 of 'The Policy Directions' section of the report, which states:
"To bring developing countries' energy use up to industrialized country levels by the year
2025 would require increasing present global energy use by a factor of five. The planetary
ecosystem could not stand this, especially if the increases were based on non-renewable fossil
fuels. Threats of global warming and acidification of the environment most probably rule out
even a doubling of energy use bared on present mixes of primary sources...Any new era of economic growth must therefore be less energy intensive than growth in the past." 
Of course, most people will not voluntarily allow their standard of living to be lowered, and that is why the planners cannot be completely honest about what their true goals are.  It is stated in the Brundtland report that when it comes to implementing sustainable development, "[w]e do not pretend that the process is easy or straightforward.  Painful choices have to be made."  Important to note is the use of the word 'straightforward', which, when defined, could mean 'going straight ahead', but it could also mean 'free from crookedness or deceit', and 'honest'.

This lowering of the standard of living will be achieved through increases in regulations and taxes, on essential items, such as energy.  In the "Energy Conservation Measures" section of the report it is discussed how the high oil prices of the 1970's, caused the industrialized countries to be more energy efficient.  The report then calls for governments to artificially manipulate the price of energy to a high enough level that would encourage more energy efficient homes and vehicles:
"It is doubtful whether such steady improvements can be maintained and extended if energy prices are held below the level needed to encourage the design and adoption of more energy-efficient homes, industrial processes, and transportation vehicles. The level required will vary greatly within and between countries, depending on a wide range of factors. But whatever it is, it should be maintained. In volatile energy markets, the question is how."
The report goes on to give examples of how governments can artificially inflate the price of energy, which include increasing "domestic taxes" and "duties on imported electricity, fuel, and fuel products".

Interestingly, the Brundtland report admits that this goal of having a 'common interest', the poor getting 'their fare share', and having 'equity', may result in a reversal of technical innovations.  Attempting to make the case that individuals need to be persuaded, through law enforcement, to act in the 'common interest', the report gives examples of situations where a collective community can be harmed by the actions of individual entities, and describes the results of a government policy which would restrict the property ownership rights of individuals, in favor of the community:
"This enforcement of the 'common interest' did not necessarily impede growth and expansion though it may have limited the acceptance and diffusion of technical innovations."
Expanding further on this concept of sustainable development leading to a lack of technological advances, the Brundtland report appears to discourage governments from favoring projects that would advance technology, like automatic waste recycle plants, if it would put people out of work, like garbage pickers:
"In many cities, literally thousands of people already make a living sorting through wastes by hand on municipal tips.  Investing in a more capital-intensive, automatic recycling plant could be doubly counterproductive if it unnecessarily consumes scarce capital or if a plant would destroy many people's livelihoods."
The idea that technology can be a bad thing, because it takes away peoples jobs, can be a dangerous concept.  Imagine that argument being used when something like construction equipment was first invented; "Don't use any excavators, you'll put the hundreds of men with shovels, out of work!"  Technology can be highly beneficial by freeing people up to do other, more productive things, with their time.

Population Control

Another aspect of the Agenda 21 sustainable development program, that is constantly discussed in UN literature, is the idea that governments need to take an active role in controlling the number of people living, or population control.  The Brundtland report states that "many governments must work on several fronts to limit population growth."  It is no coincidence that literature relating to sustainable development will consistently have a section on population control/reduction, the two are intimately linked, as stated in the report:
"However a nation proceeds towards the goals of sustainable development and lower fertility levels, the two are intimately linked and mutually reinforcing."
The Brundtland report also states that sustainable development can only be pursued when population size is kept in 'harmony' with the ecosystem:
"...sustainable development can only be pursued if population size and growth
are in harmony with the changing productive potential of the ecosystem."
There are various questionable tactics that the UN has promoted, in an effort to reduce population growth, including different birth control methods, such as abortion, however there is one suggestion made in this report that is worth mentioning.  Former Executive Secretary to the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, Adebayo Adedeji, is quoted in the Brundtland report as suggesting governments set up their tax system to control migration, and encourage population reduction:
"One issue of relevance that requires further research is the use of the tax system as a means for controlling population growth and discouraging rural-urban migration. To slow down population growth, should families without children be given a tax incentive or tax break? Should a tax penalty be imposed for each child after a fixed number of children, considering that the tax system has not solved the population migration problem?"
In this passage, Adedeji appears to be specifically speaking about suggestions for African countries, however, as quoted from the report, "...'sustainable development' becomes a goal not just for the 'developing' nations, but for industrial ones as well."

An important connection to mention, when discussing the United Nations and population control, is billionare Ted Turner, and his highly influential support of the United Nations, which includes a donation of $1 billion dollars.  Ted Turner is constantly promoting his belief that the world is over populated, and how drastic changes need to occur.  One drastic change envisioned by Ted Turner is a global one-child policy.

Loss of Sovereignty 

For a one-world government to truly work, and be legitimate, there can not be any smaller governments, or nation states, that claim to have sovereignty, or decision making power, over the world government.  This is why the agenda is to remove any decision making authority that individuals have through their local, democratically-elected governments, and transfer that authority over to the non-elected bureaucrats at the world government of the United Nations.

In the Brundtland report, it is described how global environmental issues cannot be effectively combated against if national governments are allowed to make their own decisions, and how these issues can only be addressed by a world government.

The report states that "[t]here is a growing need for effective international cooperation to manage ecological and economic interdependence", and says "[t]he traditional forms of national sovereignty are increasingly challenged by the realities of ecological and economic interdependence."  The report also states how these "challenges" are complicated by those entities who act in an "independent" manner:
"The integrated and interdependent nature of the new challenges and issues contrasts
sharply with the nature of the institutions that exist today. These institutions tend to be
independent, fragmented, and working to relatively narrow mandates with closed decision
An excerpt from the foreword section of the book, written by Chairman Gro Brundtland, provides further validation of the disdain that these planners have for national sovereignty, and different ways of thinking:
"These challenges cut across the divides of national sovereignty, of limited strategies for economic gain, and of separated disciplines of science."
Finally, it is stated how sustainable development combines environment and development in such a way that borders can no longer be relevant, nor can nations that act unilaterally:
"Each area of change represents a formidable challenge in its own right, but the fundamental
challenge stems from their systemic character. They lock together environment and
development, once thought separate; they lock together 'sectors' such as industry and
agriculture; and they lock countries together as the effects of national policies and actions spill
over national borders. Separate policies and institutions can no longer cope effectively with
these interlocked issues. Nor can nations, acting unilaterally."
Foundation Funding

One last aspect of this report that deserves mention is the role that The Ford Foundation played in its creation.  The report lists the Ford Foundation as a significant financial contributor, along with the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.  The role that tax-free foundations have in the implementation of Agenda 21 are a constant theme throughout each aspect of the plan.  A more intricate analysis, exploring the connections between the Ford Foundation, Agenda 21, and Connecticut, such as their association with the One Region Funders Group, is needed, and should be documented.

Related Articles:
  • In Response To Michael Nicastro's Criticism of Agenda 21 Conspiracy Theorists - October 15, 2014 (link)
  • Agenda 21: The Rockefellers Are Building Human Settlement Zones In Connecticut - March 26, 2014 (link)
  • Children's Edition of United Nations Agenda 21: Blatant Anti-Human Propaganda - February 02, 2014 (link)
  • Parents Beware: The United Nations Looking To Give Children of Connecticut Special "Rights" - December 28, 2013 (link)
  • A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action - November 01, 2013 (link)