By Alan Mercer
The origin of the Earth Charter is described at the end of the pdf:
The Earth Charter was created by the independent Earth Charter Commission, which was convened as a follow-up to the 1992 Earth Summit in order to produce a global consensus statement of values and principles for a sustainable future. The document was developed over nearly a decade through an extensive process of international consultation, to which over five thousand people contributed. The Charter has been formally endorsed by thousands of organizations, including UNESCO and the IUCN (World Conservation Union). . . .
Note that the 1992 Earth Summit in Brazil produced Agenda 21. See http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/Agenda21.pdf (copy: http://canadianliberty.com/documents/Agenda21.pdf).
The Earth Charter’s message is basically that human beings are to LIMIT our rights (even more) for the supposed good of the earth. In effect, it implicitly grants rights to the ecology, to the animals, to the plants–“rights” that interfere with our requirements and desires as human beings.
However, it isn’t animals, bugs and plants that are bossing us around via the legal system. It is agents of the Earth Summit/Agenda 21/Sustainable Development system. People aren’t submitting to the “earth” of course. They’re submitting to the local planning agents–backed by governments–of a global governance system (embryonic world state). This is already happening through local “sustainability initiatives.”
Not only have freedoms and property rights been eroded by national and provincial/state/local governments who have been planning our lives, but for a long time, the erosion of these rights has proceeded under global coordination from the United Nations (including Agenda 21), following the same concepts expressed in the Earth Charter.
This document sugar-coats the poison it wants us to swallow, using language we can appreciate such as “peace,” “rights,” etc.–ethical and spiritual concepts we might agree with.
The document’s conclusion states:
Life often involves tensions between important values. This can mean difficult choices.
Whether or not we have heard about the Earth Charter, many of us won’t agree with certain values expressed in it.
This means that the people with power make these choices. The various private groups and governments involved tell local municipalities how to plan, and force those choices on us one way or another, through gradual indoctrination, through threats and fines, or through force. Most often, these decisions are not openly and clearly presented to us for discussion during elections.
The lack of understanding among the public about this system (in the face of the oligarchy’s propaganda about climate change, energy and other topics) means that no accurate information and effective alternative is available during elections.
Paying for our supposed environmental sins through TAXES AND FEES
Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price, and enable consumers to identify products that meet the highest social and environmental standards
INTERFERE WITH PRICE!! ARBITRARY AUTHORITARIAN SIGNALING AND DECISION-MAKING THROUGH PRICES.
By the way, here is a failed goal already: “enable consumers to identify products that meet the highest social and environmental standards” while governments fail to label (or ban) genetically modified food (corn with pesticide built in for example).
Sustainability means carbon taxes/fees or energy taxes (the long-desired objective of “technocracy”)–for rationing purposes– to punish us for buying “too much” of something, or the “wrong” thing.
“Respect for Nature” has precedence over Rights
“We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, …
Notice that “respect for nature” (referred to as “the sacred trust” in the document) is placed first before “universal human rights.” Rights suddenly become less important than “respect for nature.” “Respect for nature” means WHAT? What does “sustainable” mean? Whatever the ruling class want it to mean. In other words, it means doing what we are TOLD. It means we should stop taking up their space and using their resources.
It’s a lever of power over us–like a carbon tax or special energy tax. When they squeeze the lever, it will hit the poorest first–affected the most by illness, general demoralization, lack of employment opportunities, poor nutrition, and the loss of their home through inability to pay as the costs go up for artificially scarcer resources. Also the philosophical and pseudo-ethical (“lifeboat ethics”) and “spiritual” structure (“health, wealth and prosperity” or suffering for “past lives” or “not thinking positively”) is already in place to provide a system of justification and blame in order to explain how so-and-so fell off the edge of the financial cliff first before you did.
This means that a clique is going to decide how much of nature’s resources each of us is going to be allowed to access. In other words, a priesthood is going to insert itself between us and our personal needs–our ability to survive–and ration and tax those resources that we might otherwise have access to in order to stay fed and to keep warm (or to empower ourselves and our societies with better services and products). The logical result of carbon taxes is that “better” won’t be available for most of us any longer. Our reward for submitting to lies and self-declared “scientists” and mostly unelected authoritarians spewing wondrous words of public relations marketing will be a world of shortages–but we’ll be “educated” to believe in the system and we’ll be given ways of being “happy” in it.
Most of this has already been going on for decades. And we are meant to assume that the system’s motives are pure and genuine–the motives of this religious priesthood of environmental policy makers. And we are meant to assume that every statement of this mysterious body of “scientists” about “scarcity” of resources and “too many” people is true. And so we surrender–by force of propaganda–to authoritarians–in a world filled with war, torture, surveillance, secrecy, suppression of speech and lack of justice–these people are going to lecture us and compel us into limiting our energy use, our food use, our water use, and our offspring–as if we can afford to give up access to anything that we have, as if we can afford the slightest increase in debt, as if we can afford increased prices on food, as if we are all doing as well as these privileged elites.
Why should society be “global”? Why “must” we “join together” in an elaborate political power structure that rules over people living on the other side of the world who don’t know anything about our problems?
To realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities. We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world in which the local and global are linked.
Citizens of one world? For some reason, we end up tied to people thousands of miles away, because of insane secret “trade agreements” that have been imposed on us, to force us to be inter-dependent for resources and decision-making–instead of being independent.
INDEPENDENCE is one of the human-centered, freedom-centered VALUES that STAND IN OPPOSITION TO THE EARTH CHARTER’S AUTHORITARIAN VALUES.
Population and Reproduction
What they want us to believe:
An unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are threatened.
The document blames us, our population and the limited freedoms we have as the cause of “environmental devastation” and injustice, instead of blaming the elites and their corporations who actually engage in the activities that determine the systems we live under.
Why can’t we decide locally to have a workable justice system that protects our rights?
The document complains about the population. This is their religious mantra. This is because the globalists feel threatened by large numbers of people competing with them for what they see as their resources and their planet.
So one of the points they make is that we need to change the way we reproduce:
Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safeguard Earth’s regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being.
Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction
To the globalist imperialists, it’s very clear that “health care” is all about “reproductive health” and “responsible reproduction.” In other words, it’s about sterilization and abortion, and pressuring people to do one or the other if they decide it’s necessary. Already, most people have been indoctrinated to think that less children is a good thing. We should have learned by now that there are different modes of propaganda that induce the same effect as sterilization.
“Sustainably” means you’re taking up too much space. It means giving up your right to reproduce freely and submitting to interference about the size of your family. Even if you needed advice about that, would you want a bunch of strangers running a powerful government to force a birth license on you? We know that Westerners–Canadians for example–are having too few children and that the number of children is below the replacement rate. People should be figuring it out for themselves. Is all of this propaganda and social engineering going to work for you if your own family line just dies out?
Compromise Freedom and Rights for the “Common Good”
At the end it says,
we must find ways to harmonize diversity with unity, the exercise of freedom with the common good, short-term objectives with long-term goals
As if we never heard this justification for tyranny before! But collectivist doctrine could be more intense than ever under these types of religious dogmas.
The “common good” is decided by who? Not you or me. Not even by one person one vote. It means whatever an authoritarian clique has decided.
Our values are all wrong! We have to change our values! Life-Long Pervasive Cultural Indoctrination and Re-education to Promote THEIR VALUES
Fundamental changes are needed in our values …
In any case, many people have already lost the connection with their old, more natural and rational values–through the public school system and through the way society has been redesigned (a la Huxley) to separate children from parents and grandparents.
You’re going to change my “values”? What if I disagree?
Transmit to future generations values, traditions, and institutions that support the long-term flourishing of Earth’s human and ecological communities.
Their system (“long-term flourishing”) is meant to endure across generations. Instead of us teaching our own children our values, or how to rationally understand human moral values, these people will make sure–and it’s already happening–that we are indoctrinated with the arbitrary, authoritarian, “respect for nature” values of their new religion.
To fulfill this promise, we must commit ourselves to adopt and promote the values and objectives of the Charter.
Integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life.
a. Provide all, especially children and youth, with educational opportunities that empower them to contribute actively to sustainable development.
b. Promote the contribution of the arts and humanities as well as the sciences in sustainability education.
c. Enhance the role of the mass media in raising awareness of ecological and social challenges.
d. Recognize the importance of moral and spiritual education for sustainable living.
Note the reference to “spiritual education.” It’s a new religion and a new morality.
This re-education has been introduced gradually for a long time now.
Fear-Mongering: Submit or Face Destruction
…form a global partnership to care for Earth and one another or risk the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life.
If we don’t submit to their world government “partnership” solution, we face “destruction.”
Fascism, i.e. Public Private Partnership
Every individual, family, organization, and community has a vital role to play. The arts, sciences, religions, educational institutions, media, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and governments are all called to offer creative leadership. The partnership of government, civil society, and business is essential for effective governance.
This describes the Agenda 21 system, how every institution of prominence, backed by national and local media–has been infiltrated by this agenda. We should remember how H. G. Wells described his very old “Open Conspiracy.”
This document gives some lip service to the “individual” or “family,” but the whole structure of global governance discussed is actually a rule by private groups, councils and NGOs. It’s not just tax money that directly funds Agenda 21/Earth Charter government programs. Private foundations are heavily involved. It’s not a one-person one-vote system, even though the word “democracy” is used. As with the Agenda 21 document, the concept explicitly gives preference to quasi-private GROUPS and ORGANIZATIONS, to corporations, i.e. not to individuals (not to “one person one vote”).
Poverty / End of Consumer Society
Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world.
I’m not in favor of “consumerism” and materialism. I didn’t design the system in which the elite promote cheap products that wear out. But it should be for me to decide what priorities I have in my life. It’s easy to agree with concepts we can apply on a personal level using personal choice, but the outrage is that they want to push a system of authoritarian “governance” that decides what we need and don’t need:
We must realize that when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more.
Oh, that’s so “deep”! Someone’s going to decide when you’ve had enough to eat and when you’re house is too warm. Isn’t that nice? Time to “be more” when the rationing tax puts you over your budget!
“Sustainability” means giving up your lifestyle of being able to live as a consumer who can purchase what you need to make your family’s life more comfortable and convenient. Sustainability means cutting back. It means austerity and poverty.
Hypocrisy: “Eradicating Poverty”
Their system will create poverty for most people through its taxes, fees and regulations! But they have the nerve to list the following as a goal:
Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.
But if you interpret it long-term, it could also refer to reducing the population of relatively poorer people through controls on reproduction (licenses that are easier for the rich to obtain) (not to mention the other methods). The term they use is “sustainability.”
Making us slave away at recycling, brooding over our garbage for hours, the “evil fruits” of our consumerism, having us focus our time and energy on something that municipalities could do if they wanted (since we pay them taxes).
Did you know this is part of the United Nations sponsored Earth Charter?
Reduce, reuse, and recycle the materials used in production and consumption systems, and ensure that residual waste can be assimilated by ecological systems.
Act with restraint and efficiency when using energy, and rely increasingly on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.
Animals and Plants Supplant our Rights
…every form of life has value regardless of its worth to human beings.
Isn’t that convenient for totalitarian system with a privileged ruling class above us?
Really? Says “God”?
Every threatening thing in nature “has value”, does it? The grizzly bear on the mountain trail, the cougar on the bike path, the disease-spreading mosquitoes, the poison ivy, the crop-destroying pests and fungi?
Is that God saying that, or is it the World State–a bunch of human beings who’ve set themselves up as the new “God”–saying that? The ones who carve the friendly lions, bears and wolves in their coats of arms–with the claws and the fangs.
Years of indoctrination already about wildlife. We can decide things like that ourselves.
What this means is that our needs don’t come first any longer when someone has invented a law that puts the wildlife or plants first (sometimes old laws exist already with merciless penalties, such as the ones that control what we can fish and how we fish).
If we’re hungry or thirsty or poor, we’ll have to work around the legal, political and monetary obstacles placed in our way, because of some owl in our own pond, or because of a bunch of bugs or some trees that we want to cut down on our own land.
For thousands of years, we’ve already lived with this for most of our history. The KING owns the deer, he owns the FOREST. It belongs to him and his friends, his family and his corporations. The resources belong to the oligarchy supposedly, so they’ll decide.
Who decides “endangered species”? They do. Who decides when it matters? They do. How do we know some species is actually “endangered,” even if that was important. Who decides? Who puts the list together? They do. Someone said so. Are you involved in conserving the local resource? No. Just obey and do what you’re told. No, you can’t hunt that or eat that or fish that or use that land for what you need. You don’t know anything. Be poor and ignorant and shut up. They’ll “save” “us.” They’re not in it for the money (the tax money) or for monopoly control over resources, oh no! They’re not like us. They’re “experts”, they’re “guardians.”
Elimination of Private Property Rights
Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations that make environmental conservation and rehabilitation integral to all development initiatives.
Again, we’ve been experiencing the beginning of this for years.
As human beings, our hands are to be tied, our rights in other words are to be undermined. We forget the meaning of “rights”, never mind “property rights.” Every “development” initiative is collectivist, smothering the concerns–and means of survival–of individuals, families and small business owners. IT’S ALL ABOUT CENTRALIZED POWER, AND THE COLLECTIVE WILL OF AUTHORITARIANS.
Sustainability means the end of real property rights as they regulate your behavior towards animals and plants on what used to be your property (individually or communally) and treat you like you’re a little child with regard to what your plans are for your property and resources (yours no longer) with regards to water, energy, etc. This has already been going on in many places, for example in Ontario, which introduced various “greenbelt” and “clean water” laws to restrict what people can do with their own land.
Genetically Modified Organisms
Control and eradicate non-native or genetically modified organisms harmful to native species and the environment, and prevent introduction of such harmful organisms
Seems like a good point, but I guess it failed. But we’ll play along and pretend the people introducing these organisms all over the world are on a different team and don’t actually run the UN and the Earth Charter. Are they just going to declare all the gmo crops they’ve already introduced (like the corn with the built-in pesticide) to be “not harmful”?
This point is interesting also.
Ensure that information of vital importance to human health and environmental protection, including genetic information, remains available in the public domain
On the one hand, like the anti-GMO statement, this sounds like a good idea that failed already. They wanted to stop corporations and governments from patenting and controlling genetic information. That would have been nice I guess.
On the other hand, does this point also imply total invasion of privacy and the collection of all existing genetic data, including that of human beings, so that the World State has godlike knowledge of every organism, including every person? Read Agenda 21 and decide for yourself.
This point has totally failed:
Avoid military activities damaging to the environment.
So this point has failed already. For example, (not to mention agent orange), depleted uranium has been spread far and wide, poisoning human beings in many war zones. Isn’t that the important point? The so-called “damage to the environment” is about damaging the rights – the health and property – of human beings. That’s what really matters. One thing leads to the other. Has anyone stopped this? Is this really a separate group? Are the authors of the Earth Charter and the climate change agenda blameless? People who are fooled by the left-right spectrum like to think so. How much time have they spent campaigning against all the wars, atrocities and civil liberties offences since 2001?
Another problematic concept which governments have already introduced:
Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection and, when knowledge is limited, apply a precautionary approach.
a. Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive.
b. Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm.
Again, this removes initiative and responsibility from individuals and private companies who want to work with their own property (while respecting the rights of others). It cancels out freedom and rationality and leads to arbitrary, authoritarian restrictions. What defines “harm”? Harm should be defined in terms of harming the rights of others. For years, governments have allowed harm to be done to human beings by certain corporations–cancelling out traditional legal rights. Now, suddenly, common-sense activities by property owners that harm nobody are going to be shut down (backed by the same power elites we could argue who loot and pollute as they please) because some action, such as building a house or barn, might do “harm” to a plant, animal or other resource, or because an arbitrary “green” zone has been declared on what used to be private property. What is the end result? The owner and his family is economically disabled and pushed off his land. It’s as simple as that. It’s just a matter of domination through clever brainwashing and propaganda. Animal Farm.
What do they mean by “global security” when they use this phrase at the beginning? The document also uses the term “food security.”
Guarantee the right to potable water, clean air, food security, uncontaminated soil, shelter, and safe sanitation, allocating the national and international resources required.
These terms, “global security” and “food security” have a menacing element to them, as they imply a military threat of some kind from somewhere, which implies that we need to give something up for “protection” and “security.” As it says, we have the “right” to have our resources re-allocated for our own good!
Somebody always has to give up something according to this constantly repeated idea of “security.” One of the formulas we have heard no end of by power-mongers since 9/11 was the idea of “balancing” freedom and security. This implies that we used to have “too much” freedom before, which resulted in bad things happening, so government officials who failed to prevent 9/11, instead of being punished, have to be rewarded with more power and resources to keep us more secure!
Why would any organization need to “allocate” food – a term which implies rationing? Don’t people go out and work for their food themselves?? Doesn’t nature or God provide the food? Is nature or God to be replaced by the United Nations? I guess so.
We’re supposed to adopt their global crisis idea that the whole world will be short of food someday. Based on what? Will we be at fault if that ever happens? No, it will be their fault (or their story anyway) and they’ll ration it out to everyone, using so-called “international resources.” What will give them the RIGHT to make decisions about these resources, which are TAKEN from the people?!
Why should the whole world suddenly be one big pot which everybody draws on? Because then everybody is dependent on the World State, on the New God, and that is how they like it. It’s about power.
Sustainability means new forms of global authoritarianism to replace the old-fashioned limited authoritarianism. The new form won’t have any limits, because the earth and its resources are just sitting there like a blank slate–just waiting to have every fabricated story about “scarcity” and “crisis” projected onto them by the new priesthood–providing every excuse the tyrants need to boss us around in the name of “saving us” from “food shortages” or “water shortages”, or lack of “security”, etc.
Also, note that, in my opinion, the world of the Earth Charter doesn’t appear to be a more natural world at all, one in which nature is actually respected. This is just a story and doctrine being promoted in order to change our behavior and reduce our numbers. Bush Senior talked about a “New World Order.” Aldous Huxley wrote about a “Brave New World.” These are new worlds of genetic modification and high-tech surveillance of our activities, including our use of resources. There is nothing natural about it. None of it respects actual nature, including our own nature.
Background to the Earth Charter
Paper on The Earth Charter, by Steven C. Rockefeller
First proposed in Our Common Future (1987), the report of the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, the drafting of the Earth Charter was part of the unfinished business of the 1992 UN Rio Earth Summit. In 1994 Maurice Strong, the secretary general of the Earth Summit and chairman of the Earth Council, and Mikhail Gorbachev, the president of Green Cross International, launched a new Earth Charter initiative with support from the Dutch government. An Earth Charter Secretariat was established at the Earth Council in Costa Rica, and in 1997 an Earth Charter Commission of eminent persons with representation from all regions of the world was formed to oversee the project.
The Commission proceeded to draft the Earth Charter as a people’s treaty, because there was little interest among governments in negotiating new and stronger commitments regarding the environment and sustainable development. Thousands of individuals and hundreds of organizations from Africa, the Americas, Asia and the Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East participated in creating the Earth Charter. . . .
The following document is very helpful in understanding the background and the history of what is an ongoing process:
History and Provenance of the Earth Charter: Building Consensus on Shared Values by Mirian Vilela, Brazil and Peter Blaze Corcoran, USA.
In the closing statement of the Earth Summit, Secretary General Maurice F. Strong said, “We have a profoundly important Declaration, but it must continue to evolve towards what many of us hope will be an Earth Charter that could be finally sanctioned on the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations in 1995.”
In April 1994, the idea was then taken up by Strong, Chairman of the Earth Council, and Mikhail Gorbachev, President of Green Cross International, when a new Earth Charter initiative was launched with support from Queen Beatrix, Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers, and the government of The Netherlands. A management committee was formed to guide the initial phase of the project, and Ambassador Mohammed Sahnoun of Algeria, the first Executive Director of the Initiative, ran the project coordinating office from The Hague.
This page has the historical reports for different years since then. It includes Earth Charter + 5 and Earth Charter + 10 for example, as well as the preliminary planning document for the Earth Charter at Rio+20.
Find books on The Earth Charter: search Amazon.com or Amazon.ca
The Future We Don’t Want: The Canadian government should renounce UN Agenda 21
Notes on Brave New World Revisited by Aldous Huxley
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, Part 14 – threat of a controlled society, use of technology, planning vs. freedom
Topic: Green Agenda