LYTLE: Weasel words to sell the sordid truth of 'sustainable' development

I have previously stated that the corruption of the English language is common and widespread. Jonathan Ireland tells the story of how such corruption is an effective way of marketing products and ideas. He states that the Chilean sea bass, a high-end dish for haute cuisine, is neither a bass nor from Chile. It is, in fact, the lowly Patagonian toothfish. My mother-in-law also used to laugh at the marketing of the “Great Northern Pike” as haute cuisine in expensive Canadian restaurants. She knew the fish as a common sucker, fit only for feeding to her dog team. Big surprise… words are changed to improve marketing results. I suppose it has been happening since Grok the Neanderthal needed to calm down his wife over the events of the previous night.In the early 2000s, while investigating the concept of “sustainability”, I noticed that there was a groundswell of anti-nationalism in academic literature. Papers that had nothing to do with national boundaries were claiming that our “post-Westphalian world” led directly to their research results. It was clear that most of those making the argument had never read the Treaty of Westphalia and knew nothing about its purported influence in creating the modern nation-state. But “post-Westphalian” was a necessary talking point to ensure positive peer review and subsequent publication. Why?In 1983, globalist Gro Harlem Brundtland, in between stints as Prime Minister of Norway, was hired by the United Nations to investigate the concept of sustainable development. From a “global” perspective. In 1987, she produced her report which defined sustainable development as“… development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."I think I can buy into that general definition, but problems arise when the details of the definition are explored. The three pillars of sustainable development postulated by Madam Brundtland have been subsequently expanded to 9 pillars by other authors. The problem is defining “sustainable” without spilling the globalist beans. Indigenous folks proudly speak of the ten-thousand-year sustainability of their culture. They lived in houses made of animal skins and nearby trees. Today their modern homes last for a fraction of that time so which style of home is sustainable? If, as seems obvious to me, the teepee is more sustainable, why the insistence that I pay for more on-reserve "colonial" housing? This is not sarcasm directed at housing options but an indication of how difficult it is to define “sustainable.” This difficulty opens the definition up to a great deal of “marketing creativity” and “green wash”.The overriding aim of the Brundtland Commission (says me) was to devise a way to promote an unpopular globalist strategy in a world which was and remains staunchly 'Westphalian.' Therefore, a new Orwellian euphemism and business construct was launched — the not-for-profit or non-governmental organization. It was marketing genius. People who work in these organizations are known as “civil society,” and it all implies a level of sacrifice and altruism that simply doesn’t exist. Does this mean that the rest of us are “uncivil society”? Did the WE charity eschew profit, even as it owned expensive Toronto real estate and provided a very good living for its founders and insiders? Given that it paid no taxes, was it truly working for the public good?Not to pile onto the WE charity but it is a piker in terms of participation in the Machiavellian and Orwellian realm of the not-for-profit. Jonathan Ireland spells out the massive civil society fraud being perpetrated in US cities while the Heritage Foundation and others have tallied the billions of dollars paid to nonprofits to facilitate the illegal immigration across the US-Mexico border. Is this civil society activity or are these organizations facilitators of illegal activity undertaken on behalf of governments? This is not to say that every nonprofit organization is ripping off the public through clandestine, illegal activity. But Gro Harlem Brundtland knew what she was doing. Large, sophisticated civil society corporations are increasingly becoming proxies for government dark money to accomplish what parliaments and congresses would never sanction. I think it is being done to promote an unpopular globalist agendaI could be wrong, of course. But in any event… move over CIA. You have competition.

LYTLE: Weasel words to sell the sordid truth of 'sustainable' development

Related Stories