"Earth is the birthright of all people."¹ (An International Declaration on Individual and Common Rights to the Earth)

"We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of six-year-old children to Asian brothels."² (Carl Amery, German Greens)

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."³ (Prince Philip of Great Britain, leader of World Wildlife Fund)

"Where the Buffalo Roam: Reclaiming the Great Plains." The title of the cover article in the TWA magazine intrigued me. Flying east across the Great Plains toward Minneapolis, I scanned the quilt-like farmland below and wondered which part might be reclaimed for the bison.

The article began with a full sized picture of an old red barn in a golden field. "An abandoned farm in Mayville, North Dakota," explained the caption, "signifies the decline in self-sustaining agriculture on the Great Plains." Under a photo of grazing buffaloes was written, "Buffalo are integral to the region's health."

Abandoned farms in Mayville? No health without bison?

Since my husband grew up in Mayville, I knew well that no one abandons farms in this fertile valley. But contrary facts matter little to political activists with a green agenda. These deceptive photos help "prove" the existence of a crisis. They provide the persuasive "information" needed to "raise consciousness", produce consensus, validate centralized land management, and speed compliance with unthinkable controls. I read on:

"Human design, not natural selection, will be responsible for the great buffalo herds of the 21st century. They are part of a plan to reconstruct nature...already well along in the initial stages of implementation."

The grander scheme, led by President Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) together with the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, means restoring wolves, owls, snails, bugs and bacteria to an idealized version of their former state. Whole ecosystems, not just parts, must be reconstructed -often at the expense of private landowners.

With the United Nations' World Food Summit (WFS) on my mind, I pondered an obvious paradox: How would UN visionaries and their environmental partners reconcile (1) their desire to return fertile farmland back to buffalo grazing land with (2) their demand for a global welfare systems promising "food security" for all?

RECONSTRUCTING NATURE. The vision of buffalo herds roaming free throughout the plains was birthed by academics Deborah and Frank Popper in distant New Jersey. They interpreted statistics showing reduced population in many rural communities to mean that farming the Plains had been an "ill-conceived" notion from the beginning. "The best use for the Great Plains", argued the Poppers, was to ban farming altogether, create a "Buffalo Commons", and restore the land to its original condition. Other land-use planners from distant states agreed. But farmers were afraid .

"We're tremendously concerned about losing our property rights," said Mike Schmidt, a South Dakota rancher. "Right now, two things are particularly scary for us-endangered species and wetlands... Essentially, they can determine how you use your land."

Schmidt has reason to fear. The "Buffalo Commons" envisioned by idealistic planners is huge enough to touch everyone. "To really do any good, we have to plan over large geographies," says Bruce Stein, the director of external affairs for conservation science at the Nature Conservancy, a powerful advocacy group for ecosystem planning. "A natural system needs room to function."

A "healthy Great Plains would encompass every square meter of the Plains, from the prairie provinces of Canada through Oklahoma and Texas," added Glen Martin who wrote the TWA article. It would include Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, and the Dakotas as well as the "adjacent ecosystems, such as the boreal forests of northern Michigan and Minnesota and aspen groves of the eastern slopes of the Rockies. Some Great Plains species need more than one habitat to thrive."

So do some humans, but that doesn't count.

Aware of opposition, restoration scholars are willing to start small: by connecting big chunks of biodiverse ecosystems with corridors to aid animal migrations. This agenda matches that of The Wildlands Project conceived by convicted "eco-warrior" Dave Foreman who co-founded the militant eco-group Earth First and serves as on the board of the Sierra Club.

"Embraced by the U.S. Department of the Interior, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), The Nature Conservancy, UNPED (United Nations Environment Programme), UNESCO, and the Sierra Club," says Henry Lamb, publisher of eco-logic, "the Wildlands Project wants to return 'at least 50 percent' of the land area in America to 'core wilderness areas' where human activity is barred."⁴

These "core wilderness areas", Lamb explains, would "be connected by corridors" and "surrounded by 'buffer zones' in which there may be managed human activity providing that biodiversity protection is the first priority."⁵

Congressman Don Young (R-Alaska) shares Henry Lamb's concern. In June 1996, he introduced "The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act." But it failed to pass-in spite of his persuasive words to the House of Representatives:

"More and more of our nation's land has become subject to international land-use restrictions.... A total of 67 sites in the United States have been designated as UN Biosphere Reserves or World Heritage Sites. These programs are run by UNESCO-an arm of the UN.... The Biosphere Reserve program is not even authorized by a single U.S. law or even an international treaty. That is wrong. Executive branch appointees.... should not do things that the law does not authorize.

" .... the power to make all rules and regulations governing lands belonging to the United States is vested in the Congress.... Yet the international land designations under these programs have been created with virtually no congressional oversight."⁶

Even so, the President's Council on Sustainable Development, like the other national CSDs around the world, continues to pursue its intrusive plan for land management based on UN guidelines. It suggests using government regulations, tax incentives and disincentives, the media, and persuasive "scientific" information to manage lands, people, communities, consumption, transportation, and knowledge.

Its authors include Bruce Babbitt (Secretary of the Interior), Jay Hair (former National Wildlife Federation president who formed a partnership with John Denver's New Age-globalist organization Windstar), Madeline Kunin (Deputy Secretary, Department of Education), and Timothy Wirth (Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs).

Its "principal liasons" include the EPA, The Nature Conservancy, and the Sierra Club-the same organizations that support the Wildlands Project. In light of this liason, ponder the comment by Wildlands Project Director Reed Noss: "The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans."⁷

Even when people are starving?

MANAGING FOOD. "World leaders will assemble in Rome from 13 to 17 November, 1966, making a public commitment to action to eliminate hunger," stated the official "Brochure" available on the World Food Summit's world wide web page. "As preparations for the Summit proceed, world grain stocks have dwindled to dangerously low levels... a reminder of the fragility of food supplies in a world that must produce more each year to feed a rapidly increasing population.... An estimated 800 million people still are chronically undernourished.... The agreements reached at the Summit will place food...at the top of the global agenda alongside peace and stability."

The "agreements" are a two-part contract: the World Food Summit (WFS) Document and the Plan of Action. Signed by the participating nations, this contract holds nations accountable for fulfilling their assigned part of the UN agenda. Under the noble banner of "civic government", it links local and international NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) directly to the UN, bypassing Congress and other legislatures that cling to old notions of sovereignty.

The real issue is control. Who will manage and monitor the global production and distribution of food? How will they manage information, motivate the masses, and establish consensus and solidarity?

Just as US educators promise "local control" while implementing the global education plan, so the WFS acknowledged national sovereignty, but mandated compliance. Each nation that signed the contract agreed to a monstrous system of old and new UN resolutions starting with Commitment One: "We will ensure an enabling political, social, and economic environment designed to create the best conditions for the eradication of poverty and for durable peace ...."

What does that mean? The Marxist economics and social "equality" touted by the UN? The jubilant reception of Fidel Castro and his hard-line Communist message gives a clue to the world's hostility toward Western capitalism and free enterprise. No wonder the WFS contract tells nations to "reallocate resources" as "required to ensure food for all" (#59,e) -not through foreign aid, but through total worldwide social and economic transformation.

During a televised "World Food Summit Preview"⁸, a reporter asked Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman who heads the US delegation to the Summit if the US might be "negotiating away some rights" and "accepting restraints on what we can plant...what fertilizers we can use, what chemicals we can use on the land."

Obviously irritated by the question, Glickman answered, "We were never headed in that direction.... We would never have accepted that!" Yet, minutes later, he mentioned his plan to restrict the use "of pesticides, herbicides and insecticide."

The WFS contract doesn't specify the "preventative measures". Apparently, the more sensitive parts of the agenda were discussed in settings less open to critical eyes. As a UN news release suggests, the gathering in Rome "might yield more than the summit itself":

"Canadian Agriculture Minister Ralph Goodale... told reporters that he hoped to have unofficial talks.... 'Part of what will happen in Rome,' he said, 'apart from the official agenda, is a great deal of corridor conversations, which on occasion can be more valuable than the official proceedings.'"⁹

Far more sobering than the stated goals is the establishment of a legal framework for global governance. Most official contracts signed by nations at former UN Conferences reach beyond stated topics such as saving the earth, eradicating poverty, empowering women, and feeding the poor. Those issues fit into a larger context which involves a vast "systemic" plan for global transformation-a reality which begs the question: Could each current issue simply be the "crisis" needed to persuade the masses to accept totalitarian controls?

For example, the WFS contract calls for "protecting the interests and needs of the child... consistent with... the Convention on the Rights of the Child." (#17) Are children's rights being used as a smokescreen that justifies government plans to develop "human resources" without hindrance from parents with contrary values?

In a 1993 speech at the International Development Conference, James P. Grant, past executive director of the United Nation's Children's Fund (UNICEF), said-

"Children and women can be our Trojan Horse for attacking the citadel of poverty, for undergirding democracy, dramatically slowing population growth and for accelerating economic development."¹⁰

The WFS contract asked governments, "in partnership with all actors of civil society" to "establish legal and other mechanisms, as appropriate, that advance land reform." (#15, b) Could this mean the rights of the poor, especially of women, to "access to land" might be emphasized over and above the property rights of present land owners? The UN contract signed at Women's Conference in Beijing indicated such a "right", and the WFS affirmed it: "Support and implement commitments made at the Fourth World Conference on Women...." (#16,a)

Nations that signed the WFS contract agreed to Commitment 7: "implement, monitor, and follow-up this Plan of Action at all levels in cooperation with the international community." President Clinton took a big step toward fulfilling his part through Executive Order 13011. Creating a massive information technology management system linked to international systems, it helps federal agencies-FBI, CIA, FEMA, EPA and Departments of State, Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Interior, etc.-exchange and monitor information around the world.

According to UN guidelines, all people and all places would be monitored-schools, homes, workplaces.... All who violate the new standards for tolerance, gender equity, or sustainable living at home or at work would be tracked through the vast UN-controlled data system.

Globalist leaders know that only a new set of beliefs and values will prepare the Western world to accept what Al Gore calls "sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society."¹¹ The 3 E's of Sustainable Development (Environment, Economy, and Equity) must become the world's central organizing principle. Every nation must submit to a "system-wide coordination within the framework of the coordinated follow-up to UN conferences..." Resident UN coordinators would direct and monitor "the allocation and use of financial and human resources" (#59,h,e), while nations yield their sovereignty to a monstrous multilevel global bureaucracy.

All this would be hard for Americans to swallow unless persuasive information can change their minds. So the UN calls for "system-wide advocacy" to guide its agenda through the "difficult times of economic transition, budget austerity and structural adjustment" ahead. (#59,m,n)

"Improve the... dissemination and utilization of information and data... needed to guide and monitor progress..." states the contract. (#59,c) The validity of new data matters less than its power to stir feelings and motivate the masses to accept the new socialist criteria for economic equality.¹² As Stanford environmentalist Stephen Schneider said, "we need to get some broad based support ....So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have...."¹³

To rally public support, advocacy must outweigh integrity. A memo to employees of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment¹⁴ told workers to discard all documents "which contain other policy proposals not adopted or reflected" in its final policy decisions. "Only those... communications which are reflected or embodied in the final decision or document shall be kept on file."

What counts is the appearance of consensus-the key to managing people through "civic government." To ensure conformity to UN policies at all levels of society, the "WFS Plan of Action builds on consensus reached." (#10) This strategy, which uses planned dialogues and politically correct data to create a collective mindset, is already being used in American schools, workplaces, communities, and government agencies. It is promoted through UN literature, the US Department of Education's Community Action Toolkit, and Sustainable America, the 1996 report by the President's Council on Sustainable Development. In fact, the worldwide "human resource" management system envisioned by socialist leaders long ago is almost in place.

MANAGING PEOPLE. "Raise the global profile of food security issues through system-wide advocacy," states the WFS contract. (#58.12) It uses words such as advocacy, civil society, participatory, and empowering to indicate the strategic blend of propaganda and dialogue used around the world to win grass-roots support for the global agenda.

Around the world, facilitators are being trained to lead the consensus process. Emotional phrases such as "food insecurity" and "vulnerability information" evoke the public sympathy needed to change attitudes and spur action.

The WFS contract states, "To prevent and resolve conflicts peacefully and create a stable political environment, ...governments.... will... reinforce peace, by developing conflict prevention mechanisms... promoting tolerance.... Develop policy making... processes that are democratic, transparent, participatory, empowering...." (#14)

"Promoting tolerance" is key to the paradigm shift from biblical to earth-centered beliefs and values. The 1995 UNESCO Declaration on Tolerance, signed by member states, defines tolerance as "respect, acceptance and appreciation" of the world's diverse cultures and lifestyles-an attitude that "involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism." It is "not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement." Since "intolerance is a global threat," UNESCO demands a worldwide "response to this global challenge, including...effective countermeasures...."

Why discuss tolerance, consensus building, compromise, and conflict resolution at a UN summit on food? First, UN leaders warn us that intolerance causes conflict, which hinders food production and brings poverty. Second, since intolerance implies resistance to the new global values and solidarity, it is a threat to the completion of the whole UN plan. So intolerance must be quenched, while "tolerance promotion and the shaping of attitudes.... should take place in schools and universities... at home and in the workplace...."¹⁵

The solution, as you saw, is the consensus process, also called conflict resolution, Hegelian dialectics, or the Delphi Technique. To unify people with opposing values, the public must be engaged in "participatory" dialogues. These dialogues produce the collective thinking which prods participants beyond the old truths into the ambiguous realm of imagination and evolving truths.

The ground rules demand that everyone participate and find "common ground." They forbid dissent and argument, no matter how unsound the "scientific" evidence used to back the preplanned consensus. "Adversarial... processes" must be replaced with "collaborative approaches to resolving conflicts" through "education, information and communications" until "people, bonded by a shared purpose"¹⁶ learn to comply.

It's happening everywhere. Young and old are being trained to blend their values, adapt their beliefs, think as a group, and conform to new standards. Like other nations, America is following the Pied Piper into a new world order whose architects may sound compassionate, but are neither rational, factual, honest nor tolerant.

POPULATION CONTROL. Notice the paradoxes. The United Nations promises human rights, but mandates social engineering. It promises peace, but creates conflict. It touts science, but twists it into propaganda. And it pledges food security, but limits land use. How, then, can it reconcile its vision of a global welfare system with its green agenda, including the huge Biosphere reserves?

The Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) suggest an answer: simply cut the world population by about 80%-or return to a feudal lifestyle (no cars, planes, air conditioners ...) Meeting the need for "scientific and technical assessments" mandated in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity,¹⁷ the GBA estimates that,

"an 'agricultural world' in which most human beings are peasants, should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people.... In contrast, a reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion [people]."¹⁸

For globalist leaders such as Undersecretary of State Timothy Wirth, the process is too slow. "We hope the senate will... ratify the Biological Diversity Treaty which is essential to all the issues," he told reporters, "[and to the] continuing emphasis on the increasing need for population stabilizing ...."¹⁹ A crusader for Malthusian economics and China's one-child family planning, Wirth has indicated that by protecting women fleeing China's oppressive abortion policies, "we could potentially open ourselves up to just about everybody in the world saying 'I don't want to plan my family, therefore I deserve political asylum."²⁰

Wirth's views may sound too radical for consensus, but that depends on whose voice is heard. UN leaders promise to involve everyone, but dissenters are left out.

Today's typical consensus process allows resisters a moment to expose themselves, but it refuses to record their objections. So does the new civil society. "Bella Abzug's NGO Forum will submit a document supposedly representing 1,200 NGOs and millions of persons worldwide," observed Eagle Forum leader Cathie Adams, "The supporters of that document claim to represent the world's civil society. [Yet] conservative groups like Eagle Forum have experienced tremendous harassment.... Clearly, the 'new civil society' cannot accommodate traditional family values. The radical feminists are extremists attempting to stifle any conservative views."²¹

So are the socialists behind the UN agenda. As Andrei Vishinsky wrote in The Law of the Soviet State, "naturally, there can be no place for freedom of speech, press, and so on for the foes of socialism."²²

Exclusion and hostility have pursued Jews and Christians throughout history. Biblical values simply don't fit a world that has turns its back to God. "If you were of the world, the world would love its own," Jesus told His friends. "Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.... If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you... because they do not know Him who sent Me."

Moments later, Jesus encouraged His friends with a promise: "These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." (John 15:19-21, 16:33) In a world of confusion, conflict, and catastrophe, He alone offers the hope, strength, and guidance that can bring victory over evil.

For practical information about the U.S. implementation of the U.N. agenda for educating the masses, read Brave New Schools (Harvest House Publishers). Available through Christian bookstores or call 800-829-5646.

Endnotes:

1 Kathleen Marquardt, "Are Your Ready for Our New Age Future?" Insider's Report, American Policy Center (703-925-0881), December 1995; p. 3.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 Henry Lamb, "Rewilding America," eco-logic (November/December 1995)

5 Ibid.

6 Don Young, Statement on H.R. 3752 in House of Representatives, September 12, 1996.

7 Henry Lamb, "Rewilding America," eco-logic (November/December 1995)

8 CNN, November 8, 1996.

9 WFS News release: Rome, November 10, 1996.

10Joan Veon, Compilation of the Beijing Draft Document Grouped by Perceived or Stated Goals (Olney, MD: TWG, Inc., 1995),i.

11 Al Gore, Earth in the Balance (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992), p. 274.

12 All these points will be validated with quotes from the PCSD or WFS Plan of Action.

13 Jonathan Schell, "Our Fragile Earth," Discover (October 1989); 44.

14 This agency evaluates the risks of chemical pollutants and assists the state Environmental Protection Agency in writing regulations supposedly needed to protect public health.

15 Declaration on Tolerance, UNESCO.

16 The President's Council on Sustainable Development, Sustainable America, 112-113.

17 Article 25 (2a)

18 Lines 1782-1786

19 CNN, November 8, 1996.

20 Robert James Bidinotto, "Environmental Freedom's Foe for the Nineties," The Freeman (November 1990), p. 418. Cited by The Envirionmental Policy Task Force News, Washington, D.C. (202-543-4779).

21 Cathie Adams, Texas Eagle Forum Press Release, November 13,1996.

22 Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 5, p. 164.