Recently, I published a four part series, “Agenda 21 – Born in the U.S.A., Raised in the U.N.”. Like many authors who research a project, gathers the information, puts the information together and finally sits down and writes the piece, I was extremely proud of my work and passed the word around for people to take a look at it, read it, comment and hopefully, think. I am very happy to say that many people did read it, and I received a number of comments, some rather encouraging, others, I feel, missed the point. Well, I know that anytime someone presents a theory or an idea, which may disagree with a popular idea, as expressed by a “talking head” or a well known personality, or a particular person’s mindset, you better be prepared to defend your work.
The thesis of my post was that the principles of Agenda 21 (Agenda) were established by the “President’s Commission on Population and The American Future” or the Rockefeller Commission and its report, which was released in March, 1972. This information, I feel, was well documented, and IF someone were to read all four parts and follow the links, to both, the Report and the Agenda, they may see the same connection. However, I feel that there are some who cannot believe that a plan as insidious as Agenda 21 could be developed by American citizens or that an agenda to fundamentally change America could from come from within the federal government. These people seem to want to blame someone else or even blame other groups or organizations. Well, let’s revisit the “concept” of sustainability or what was known prior to the 1970’s overpopulation and how the Rockefellers and their foundation were instrumental from the beginning, at least here in the United States.
One comment that was made seems to want to blame everyone from the Fabian Society, to the Socialists, to the Fascists, and of course, the Nazi. To begin with, the above mentioned are POLITICAL ideas. Yes, they may have had or thought about population control, but not the idea of overpopulation. There idea of “population control” was NOT because to preserve the environment or even really controlling the population, but to “eliminate” undesirables’. Those regimes were more interested in Eugenics. (Author’s note, when queried for references to the above blame was requested, there was no reply.)
Another comment which was made, “It came from the Club of Rome.”. Yes, the Club of Rome which was founded in 1968 as an informal association 50 self-appointed ‘wise men’ (and women) who met regularly to try to put the world to rights, much as did the Pugwash group of scientists in relation to the Cold War. These men and women were “long-term thinkers” interested in contributing in a systemic interdisciplinary and holistic manner to a better world. The Club of Rome members share(d) a common concern for the future of humanity and the planet. Their views were encapsulated in the most famous study of the time, the Club of Rome’s computer model of the global future which attracted worldwide attention. This was published as The Limits to Growth, this model analyzed five variables — technology, population, nutrition, natural resources and environment. Its main conclusion was that, if current trends continued, the global system would ‘overshoot’ and collapse by the year 2000. If that were not to happen, both population and economic growth would have to cease. Although The Limits to Growth has been heavily criticized, it publicized for the first time the concept of outer limits — the idea that development could be limited by the finite size of the Earth’s resources. Again, the blame is directed elsewhere, not here in the United States. Why? Is it because some talk show hosts have a selective view of history?
I guess its time to bring what is now known as the great threat, Agenda 21, home where it unfortunately belongs and lay it at the feet of the Rockefeller Foundation where it belongs.
Unless you live in a cave, you should be familiar with Margaret Sanger, and her campaign with women’s right or more exactly, birth control. This campaign eventually lead to the formation to what is the largest abortion “factory” masquerading as a family planning organization, Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Most of her life, she had argued for the right and the need to provide women with the means to determine whether and when they will have children. However, by the 1920′s she came to the conclusion, that to reach that goal, her message of empowerment and autonomy for women would have to be presented in a less overtly feminist, more seemingly abstract scientific rationales. Sanger was willing to employ eugenicist and neo-Malthusian justifications for birth control because she believed that aside from the benefit it would provide to women, birth control would build stronger generations of children and would help insure the physical, economic, and political health of a society. Eugenics.
After having participated in the 5th International Neo-Malthusian conference in London in 1922 and then having organized the 6th Conference in 1925, the first such conference held in the U.S. However, she had to win global acceptance for birth control, she also knew that her message would have to be even more conservatively clothed. Sanger recognized that she would also have to win the support of the world scientific community, not just those scientists who were already interested in population control. To do this, Sanger sought an international forum that would give prominence and respectability to the discussions of the impact of population-related issues. So, using funds donated by her husband J. Noah Slee, other supporters, and a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation, she organized the World Population Conference which was held in Geneva, Switzerland on August 31-September 2, 1927. Thus, just about 14 years after being formed, the Rockefeller Foundation joins the birth control / overpopulation funding agenda.
Now, let’s fast forward to 1967, John D. Rockefeller, III is the second annual winner of the PPFA Margaret Sanger Award. John D. Rockefeller III, who in three years, would just happened to become the chairman of the “President’s Commission on Population and The American Future” or The Rockefeller Commission.
In the second part of my post, “Agenda 21 – Born in the U.S.A., Raised in the U.N.”, I pondered / asked was it a coincidence that just a few months after the release of the final report from the Rockefeller Commission, that the U.N. held its first conference on the Human Environment, which was held in Stockholm, Sweden (also known as the Stockholm Conference). Well, I have learned that in life, there are no coincidences, just the delusion of coincidence, and as can be seen from the biography of J.D. Rockefeller posted on the Planned Parenthood’s website, “John D. Rockefeller III was instrumental in organizing the 1974 United Nations World Population Conference, the first government-sponsored conference on population. Attendees adopted the World Population Plan of Action, which established voluntary family planning as a basic human right, pledged improvement in the status of women worldwide, and gave high priority to contraceptive research. In 1952, he founded the Population Council, an international, nonprofit institution that conducts biomedical, social science, and public health research. Mr. Rockefeller’s own words illustrate his lifetime concern with population issues: “Our real concern is not with abstractions and negative controls, but with the quality of human life. Our goal is the enrichment of life — creating conditions that will enhance human dignity and the attainment of the individual’s full potential.” As I said, there are no coincidences.
Finally, there are those who may say, “Who cares where it started, it’s a U.N. idea and therefore it’s bad and needs to be fought against”. Granted, any program established by the U.N. that interferes with the sovereignty of the U.S. should be fought against, BUT when the idea of a U.N. agenda which was started here in America by Americans, you have to wonder, why are people ignoring the facts? Are these people just listening to some talk radio hosts, who for some reason has a selective version of history or do they just want to have an enemy for people to focus their attention on at that particular time for a particular period of time, before moving on to something else? Why are these same people, who claim to be open minded, except when facts and references, contradict their hero, their idol. To these people I have to quote George Santayana, “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
What do you think? Please leave a comment.