Article: The Trouble With "Sustainable Development"

[LibertyEagle]

What are you talking about? Are you really scared of your local town council? Get real. The Rockefellers and Rothschilds need bigger guns than your local Board of Adjustments.

Ben, check out the document I posted above. You really don't understand what is being talked about here. This is not about individual farmers and how they choose to farm.

 

[DapperDan]

is this just as big as Codex Alimentarius? cause that's quite hush hush as well...

 

[BenIsForRon]

Ben, check out the document I posted above. You really don't understand what is being talked about here. This is not about individual farmers and how they choose to farm.

I read the article, and it is full of strawmen. The author references no individuals. He talks about no individual policies that local governments have taken. He's just speaking in broad, unfair generalizations.

For example, he said that "Sustainablists" believe that resources must be taken from the rich to help the poor. That is bullshit. Most proponents of SD believe that we should take steps to help the poor become self sufficient, not just give them money or food. This can be done with things like NGO's and microloans, no need for government. Many SD proponents have a very limited view of governments role in this reformation.

My major concentration is sustianable development, so please, don't tell me I don't know what I'm talkin about.

Basically, I'm pissed of that this article is on C4L's website. C4L would do WAY better to adopt sustainability into it's platform, and talk about free market ways of achieving sustainable goals.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I read the article, and it is full of strawmen. The author references no individuals. He talks about no individual policies that local governments have taken. He's just speaking in broad, unfair generalizations.

For example, he said that "Sustainablists" believe that resources must be taken from the rich to help the poor. That is bullshit. Most proponents of SD believe that we should take steps to help the poor become self sufficient, not just give them money or food. This can be done with things like NGO's and microloans, no need for government. Many SD proponents have a very limited view of governments role in this reformation.

My major concentration is sustianable development, so please, don't tell me I don't know what I'm talkin about.

Basically, I'm pissed of that this article is on C4L's website. C4L would do WAY better to adopt sustainability into it's platform, and talk about free market ways of achieving sustainable goals.

Did you read this?
http://www.magic-city-news.com/textfiles/sd-guide.pdf

Sustainable Development is fine if you want to exercise it yourself. But, if you want to use government force, then I'm sure you understand that it is not ok.

I think you are very wrong about this. I encourage you to check further into the UN's Agenda 21 and how your local laws have been harmonized to fit its requirements.

 

[amy31416]

Personally, I think the largest obstacle to stopping Agenda 21-like mandates is that it is a good thing to be a conservationist, an environmentalist (not the wacky ones, you know what I mean), to recycle (usually), and to not take resources like water for granted. People who are unaware of the bad implications of A21 will think that we are, like many other Republicans, all for destroying everything in our path for things like oil.

We all know that is not the case, as many people here are conservationists, local food and alternative energy proponents.

But if we are aligned with the ordinary Republicans and even many Libertarians, who would easily destroy any efforts we make to increase awareness of such things. The mainstream environmental movement is huge and self-righteous. If we want to stop A21's goals, then we have to be careful how we go about it.

Thanks for starting this thread Nancy--I'll admit that I was only barely aware of what it was about.

 

[LibertyEagle]

All good points, Amy. Thanks.

 

[InterestedParticipant]

I read the article, and it is full of strawmen. The author references no individuals. He talks about no individual policies that local governments have taken. He's just speaking in broad, unfair generalizations.

For example, he said that "Sustainablists" believe that resources must be taken from the rich to help the poor. That is bullshit. Most proponents of SD believe that we should take steps to help the poor become self sufficient, not just give them money or food. This can be done with things like NGO's and microloans, no need for government. Many SD proponents have a very limited view of governments role in this reformation.

My major concentration is sustianable development, so please, don't tell me I don't know what I'm talkin about.

Basically, I'm pissed of that this article is on C4L's website. C4L would do WAY better to adopt sustainability into it's platform, and talk about free market ways of achieving sustainable goals.

Talk about your manufactured dialectics!!!! This entire concept of scarcity is right up there with UFO's and little green men.... it is utterly contrived in order to ram Agenda-21 down the publics throats and justify population reduction.

Environmentalism: cult of death
http://www.the-thinking-man.com/environmentalism.html

Make no mistake: environmentalism, with its attendant army of politicos all armed to the teeth with environmental laws, is the highroad to hell.

Before going all the way green, I urge you to take a longer look into exactly what horse you're backing here: it may very well turn out to be a horse of an entirely different color than you think.

Environmentalism is a philosophy that upholds a profound hatred of humankind. And here is what I mean:

"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs" (John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal).

"Mankind is a cancer; we're the biggest blight on the face of the earth" (past-president of PETA and environmental activist Ingrid Newkirk).

"If you haven't given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species…. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental" (Ibid).

Quoting Richard Conniff, in the pages of Audubon magazine: "Among environmentalists sharing two or three beers, the notion is quite common that if only some calamity could wipe out the entire human race, other species might once again have a chance.”

Environmental theorist Christopher Manes (writing under the nom-de-guerre Miss Ann Thropy): "If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human population back to ecological sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS."

A speaker at one of Earth First!'s little cult gatherings: "Optimal human population: zero."

“Ours is an ecological perspective that views Earth as a community and recognizes such apparent enemies as ‘disease’ (e.g., malaria) and ‘pests’ (e.g., mosquitoes) not as manifestations of evil to be overcome but rather as vital and necessary components of a complex and vibrant biosphere … An antipathy to ‘progress’ and ‘technology.’ We can accept the pejoratives of ‘Luddite’ and ‘Neanderthal’ with pride…. There is no hope for reform of industrial empire…. We humans have become a disease: the Humanpox” (Dave Foreman, past head of Earth First!)

"Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn't true. Somewhere along the line we … became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth…. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." (Biologist David Graber, “Mother Nature as a Hothouse Flower” Los Angles Times Book Review).

“The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty ‘Good riddance!’” (Paul Taylor, "Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics").

"If we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism. I don't think it is possible under capitalism" (Judi Bari, of Earth First!).

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" (Maurice Strong, Earth Summit 91).

David Brower, former head of the Sierra Club and founder of Friends of the Earth, calls for developers to be "shot with tranquilizer guns.”

Why?

"Human suffering is much less important than the suffering of the planet," he explains.

Also from socialist Sierra Club: "The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope."

From the green party's first Presidential candidate Barry Commoner:

"Nothing less than a change in the political and social system, including revision of the Constitution, is necessary to save the country from destroying the natural environment…. Capitalism is the earth's number one enemy."

From Barry Commoner again:

"Environmental pollution is a sign of major incompatibility between our system of production and the environmental system that supports it. [The socialist way is better because] the theory of socialist economics does not appear to require that growth should continue indefinitely."

So much for your unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

“Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective” (Harvey Ruvin, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, Dade County Florida).

Sierra Club cofounder David Brower, pushing for his own brand of eugenics:

"Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."

That, if you don't know, is limited government environmentalist style.

"There's nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win. Then you write history" (Sierra Club board member Paul Watson).

Again from Paul Watson, writing in that propaganda rag Earth First! Journal: "Right now we're in the early stages of World War III…. It's the war to save the planet. The environmental movement doesn't have many deserters and has a high level of recruitment. Eventually there will be open war."

And:

"By every means necessary we will bring this and every other empire down! Mutiny and sabotage in defense of Mother Earth!"

Lisa Force, another Sierra Club board member and quondam coordinator of the Center for Biological Diversity, advocates "prying ranchers and their livestock from federal lands. In 2000 and 2003, [Sierra] sued the U.S. Department of the Interior to force ranching families out of the Mojave National Preserve. These ranchers actually owned grazing rights to the preserve; some families had been raising cattle there for over a century. No matter. Using the Endangered Species Act and citing the supposed loss of 'endangered tortoise habitat,' the Club was able to force the ranchers out" (quoted from Navigator magazine).

Further proof of the Sierra's hatred of humanity can be found in their 1995 attempt to block an Animas River water diversion project, which project was designed to bring water to Durango and the nearby Ute Indian Reservation.

Dams and irrigation are often life-and-death matters in the arid west, a fact of which Sierra is well aware. Thus, after successfully getting the project slashed by more than 70 percent, thereby depriving the Ute Reservation of much-needed water, the Sierra Club lawyers went for the jugular: they demanded the project be cut still more.

Fortunately for the rest of us, they overplayed their hand.

Their shady methods and motives prompted the following quote from Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell:

"The enviros have never been interested in a compromise. They just simply want to stop development and growth. And the way you do that in the West is to stop water."

From a chairwoman of the Ute Indian tribe: "The environmentalists don't seem to care how we live."

Greenpeace is worldwide the largest and wealthiest environmental group.

Of their co-founder Dave McTaggart, fellow co-founder Paul Watson said this:

"The secret to David McTaggart’s success is the secret to Greenpeace’s success: It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true. You are what the media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth, and a myth-generating machine."

And since, rather than addressing the actual data, environmentalists believe that citing the source of funding is the only argument one ever needs to refute a counterargument, they should be extraordinarily persuaded by this very partial list of Greenpeace's funding found here.

Most people have no inkling that throughout Greenpeace's tireless campaign against "Frakenfood" (i.e. biotech food - "Frakenfood" is a word coined by Greenpeace campaign director Charles Margulisto, who hates technology), the Third World has steadily perished from malnutrition and famine, as a direct result thereof.

Quoting Tanzania’s Doctor Michael Mbwille (of the non-profit Food Security Network):

“Greenpeace prints and circulates lies faster than the Code Red virus infected the world’s computers. If we were to apply Greenpeace’s scientifically illiterate standards [for soybeans] universally, there would be nothing left on our tables.”

For an example of how to successfully expose Greenpeace's lies and environmental rodomontade, please read this relevant article.

Candidly, I haven't even begun.

And yet from this small sampling, you can probably get an idea of what an exceptionally gracious and non-politically motivated folk these environmentalists and environmental leaders are. Indeed, environmentalism is a benevolent and life-affirming philosophy, and the people who populate it are a kind, non-violent people, whose reasoning is sound and scrupulous, and who believe unreservedly in the individual's inalienable right to life and property.

There is of course only one real problem with all that: these people are pigs, and environmentalism worships at the shrine of death.

The entire movement, replete, as it is, with its politicos and environmental politics, is not simply "wrong." That would be too easy.

The environmental movement is criminal.

Reader, if you have even a vestigial love of freedom within you, you must denounce environmentalism with all your heart. You must see it for what it actually is: a statist philosophy of human-hatred and enslavement.


Enviromentalism is neo-Marxism at its blackest.

 

[BenIsForRon]

Did you read this?
http://www.magic-city-news.com/textfiles/sd-guide.pdf

Dude, the pdf is by the SAME organization! Listen, sustainable development is covered by the UN just like human rights and economic development are. Doesn't mean human rights or economic development are issues invented by the UN.

Anyways, in America, sustainable development is mostly about local initiatives. Like the agricultural exension of Watauga county, where I live. Their main agenda is to inform local farmers about the advantages of adopting sustianable farming practices, and helping them find the resources to make the transition. There is also the Boone Bike Initiative, which is a non-profit that rents bikes to people and helps develop biking infrastructure so that people don't have to use their cars to get everywhere.

My point is: STOP FOCUSING ON AGENDA 21!! It really has very little to do with what is happening in America, or many other regions for that matter. Sustainable development is a school of thought totally independent of the UN.

As far as government roles, there are varying opinions within the movement on policies and such. Many agree that zoning laws should be updated to reduce things like suburban sprawl. For example, Portland has an "urban development boundary". This prevents urban development from happening outside a certain distance from the city. Therefore, outer areas are reserved for agricultural use or nature preserves. I'm totally cool with policies like that. I'm not cool with multinational governmental regulations like Cap and Trade, there is a difference.

 

[InterestedParticipant]

“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 these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

Chapter V - The Vacuum
First Global Revolution
Club of Rome (1991)
http://www.archive.org/details/TheFirstGlobalRevolution

 

[FunkBuddha]

Basically, I'm pissed of that this article is on C4L's website. C4L would do WAY better to adopt sustainability into it's platform, and talk about free market ways of achieving sustainable goals.

I approve this message.

 

[BenIsForRon]

Interested Participant, would you please shut up. You always try to pretend like you're on a level of discourse above everyone else, but you're not.

Do you really think there is no scarcity? Are you really that fucking stupid? If there was no scarcity, then there would be no problem with the Fed printing a fucking trillion dollars every day, because there would be enough capital and resources to back up the money. Please stay out of this conversation.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Why are you getting so upset, Ben?

 

[InterestedParticipant]

Interested Participant, would you please shut up. You always try to pretend like you're on a level of discourse above everyone else, but you're not.

Do you really think there is no scarcity? Are you really that fucking stupid? If there was no scarcity, then there would be no problem with the Fed printing a fucking trillion dollars every day, because there would be enough capital and resources to back up the money. Please stay out of this conversation.

There is no scarcity. You are a victim of a long term propaganda campaign which was established to help ensure power's control over the world.

I could try to point you to documents where these plans were made, I could show you why scarcity was important to manufacture from a cybernetics (systems theory) point of view, but it seems you do not want to learn from someone who has already done the hard slog through this learning curve.

You want to believe what you want to believe, and you are going to kick and scream and plug your hears so that you don't have to believe otherwise. Well, I don't respect children who respond with temper tantrums, and I am certainly not going to take crap from an indoctrinated member of the public who seeks nothing other than to perpetuate these socially engineered falsehoods.

 

[BenIsForRon]

Why are you getting so upset, Ben?

I'm not upset at you, just at IP. He always derails threads. It's incredibly annoying, I want him to disappear and go to infowars or something.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Ok, but since it's my thread )), I'd really like to have a discussion about this topic. No offense or anything, Ben. If you don't want to participate, just go find a different thread that interests you more.

 

[InterestedParticipant]

Here is an excerpt from a post I made in the Peak Water thread referencing a cybernetics perspective into "scarcity"

Yes, I am certain about this.

Not only is this view supported by elite think tanks, but it is also supported by cybernetics theory (ie. systems theory). In cybernetics view of the world, you and I are just nodes in a large system (ie global society). To maintain order, one must be able to develop feedback-control techniques that accounts for every node in this system, resulting in each node being "predictable" and therefore "controllable." However, each additional node in this society presents the risk of it being an anomaly... something that is not predictable and therefore not controllable by existing feedback-control techniques. Hence, to reduce the risk of an out-of-control condition, one must reduce the number of nodes in the system thereby reducing the risk of a system anomaly.

 

[BenIsForRon]

Ok, but since it's my thread )), I'd really like to have a discussion about this topic. No offense or anything, Ben. If you don't want to participate, just go find a different thread that interests you more.

That's the thing, I do want to have a discussion on the merits and agenda of sustainable development, but then IP comes in and says that scarcity is a myth. I think we would all agree that scarcity is most certainly not a myth, because if it was everything in the world would be free.

Anyways, you can look on the previous page and see my response to your last posts. My basic point was that sustainable development has virtually nothing to do with the UN in the real world, and that most of the progress is occurring outside of government. I also made an argument for appropriate use of local governments. You can look at both points and ask more questions. Like I said, SD is my main area of interest, I can talk about it all day, or at least until I go pick blue berries later this afternoon.

 

[LibertyEagle]

There is no scarcity. You are a victim of a long term propaganda campaign which was established to help ensure power's control over the world.

I could try to point you to documents where these plans were made,

Ok. Point me.

 

[InterestedParticipant]

Ok. Point me.

Start with chapter 5 of "The First Global Revolution" cited in my earlier post (but you're going to have to see through the double speak). In the mean time, I'll go through my notes and collect some links and references.

That's the thing, I do want to have a discussion on the merits and agenda of sustainable development, but then IP comes in and says that scarcity is a myth. I think we would all agree that scarcity is most certainly not a myth, because if it was everything in the world would be free.

Anyways, you can look on the previous page and see my response to your last posts. My basic point was that sustainable development has virtually nothing to do with the UN in the real world, and that most of the progress is occurring outside of government. I also made an argument for appropriate use of local governments. You can look at both points and ask more questions. Like I said, SD is my main area of interest, I can talk about it all day, or at least until I go pick blue berries later this afternoon.

We live in two worlds, the world of universal truth and the Simulacrum. The Simulacrum tells us that there are scarcities in economics, food, energy, water, etc. While the real, the real that has yet to be murdered, shows us that all of these scarcities are manufactured.. that there are oil fields all over north america that are capped or undrilled, that CO2 has nothing to do with some unknowable trend in climate, that food scarcities are being directed by global operators who worked to destroy domestic farmers while investing in foreign farm land, and that these fiat debts were perpetrated by wall street string pullers who hired unemployed physicists to manufacture huge instruments called derivatives that would create fictional debt that could be transferred onto the real economy by deceiving the public.

There is much evidence of the real, but the murders of the real will never tell you this. Once must look beyond easily accessible media sources to see behind the facade of the Simulacrum. But to do this, one must have the will to do so.

 

[dannno]

It is amazing to realize that if we obeyed property rights and let market forces take over, sustainable development would be built right into a system based completely on liberty and freedom.

The only reason we don't develop sustainably right now is because of the Federal Reserve, government subsidies and lack of respect for private property rights as well as a lack of respect for sovereignty of other nations.