Sustainable Development, fabricated by the United Nations Brundtland Commission and global elites, is a new livability and religious paradigm that seeks to entrench its core values into every person, business, and locality in the world. Imminent global environmental catastrophe is being used as a catalyst to precipitate a change in human behavior for the good of the planet and the survival of future generations.
When researching Sustainable Development it is important to study the words and understand the ‘newspeak.’ The connotations behind Sustainable Development terms deviate significantly from our Judeo-Christian culture. If more Americans understood this, they would admonish it.
Globalists state that for development to be sustainable it must “ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This sounds reasonable but it is vague and wide open for interpretation. In fact, practitioners spend more time defining what is not sustainable than what is.
“…current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”~Maurice Strong
Sustainable Development is actually social engineering and is supported by the following three pillars: Social, Economic, and Environmental Justice. What does this mean?
Social Justice means equal outcome, not equal opportunity.
Environmental Justice means all humans should have access to land and the state manages it for everyone, not all humans have the right to own land.
Economic Justice means wealth redistribution ranging from local tax revenue sharing to global tax revenue sharing, not free-markets and economic class mobility.
Using the United Nations as their platform, globalists are pushing for the world to embrace a standard global civic ethic or religion and they are extremely frustrated that Americans are not willing to abandon their Constitution and rule of law and their Judeo-Christian values and rights.
The United Nation’s global civic ethics were published in 1998 in Our Global Neighborhood. Their ‘newspeak’ value system is incompatible with American values.
Respect for Life means equal respect for all life (including humans, organic creatures, and inanimate objects found in nature); all life is equal and has equal rights.
Justice and Equity means a more “balanced distribution of opportunity around the world”; especially inter-generationally.
Mutual Respect means that individual achievement and personal responsibility are not values. Rather we should “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 a group consciousness.”
Caring means the United Nations would implement “policies and mechanisms that facilitate co-operation to help those less privileged or needing comfort and support in the world.” The UN wants to know who you are so that it can foster a personal relationship with you.
Secure Life means that the United Nations would not only assign itself the duty of protecting its member states but would also include the individuals within the borders of those member states.
Fair Living does not mean fair opportunity. According to their value system, “it is not fair, for example, for the developed countries, which contain 20% of the population, to use 80% of the natural resources. It is not fair for the permanent members of the Security Council to have the right of veto. It is not fair for one segment of the population to be rich while another segment of the population is poor.” [source]
The UN wants this ‘newspeak’ to be the ethical standard—the new global covenant. Americans believe all humans are given free-will; to preserve it we must act, engage, and resist those who wish to usher in this kind of fundamental change.