The narcissism unfolding on campuses with the protesters for Palestine has been quite a site to see. One can expect students, I predict 70% have no idea about the back story between Israel and Palestine, to be at the forefront of the protests. A large-scale LARP of the “rebel force” fighting for the oppressed. Yes, Columbia and Yale students with parents who have a combined salary in the middle six figures are the rebel force fighting for the oppressed, fighting to make a change in the world. I assume many who read my blog already know who these people are, neo-Marxists, oppression hunters who project their own narcissism and insecurities onto other people – Jung would have a field day with this group.
Much has been written about the latter, so I will not waste time with this. However, I think a lot of people who are tied up with the narrative surrounding the protests, either have forgotten or simply do not know that this process is beyond any student, professor, or school. It started long ago with the United Nations and a dream to create a program for a sustainable development for nations.
The Beginning
The year is 1972, American Pie by Don McLean topped the charts, Wilt Chamberlain and Jerry West led the Los Angeles Lakers to an NBA Championship over the New York Knicks (Yes, the Knicks at one time were in the NBA Finals), and a film adapted from a novel written by Mario Puzo – about a fictional Mafia family headed by Vito Corleone swept the nation. Politically during this time, we saw President Nixon visit China, Palestinian terrorists murdered 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics (do the Columbia protesters know this), and Congressman Gerald Ford was sworn in as Vice President after the resignation of Spiro Agnew.
These were major moments of 1972; however, in the background, we see two key events involving a non-profit and their pursuit to change the world. That non-profit is called the Club of Rome. I won’t go deep into their history, I’ll leave @everybodyshook to outline the history of the club through his extensive research on the topic. However, in 1972 the two major events involving the Club of Rome were their March 2nd presentation of The Limits to Growth – a landmark publication at the time; and the June 5th to 16th United Nations Summit introducing the 1972 Stockholm Declaration – which created the framework for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that we see today.
The Limits to Growth was a study that used computer modeling to explore the consequences of exponential growth in population, industrialization, and pollution. Projections warned of the potential limits and constraints on global economic growth due to finite resources, highlighting the need for sustainable development and environmental stewardship. This laid the groundwork for sustainable growth in all sectors to avoid the challenges of overpopulation. This was such an impactful work, it was the basis for the 1972 Stockholm Declaration which aimed to establish principles for global environmental governance, emphasizing the importance of environmental protection, sustainable development, and nation-state cooperation to address environmental challenges. It also set the foundation for the global environmental policies we see today.
The Limits to Growth had its criticisms back in the day, notably the shoddy science that the computer models generated as Passell et al. writes in an April 1972 New York Times Article:
“The Limits to Growth, in our view, is an empty and misleading work. Its imposing apparatus of computer technology and systems jargon conceals a kind of intellectual Rube Goldberg device – one which takes arbitrary assumptions, shakes them up and comes out with arbitrary conclusions that have the ring of science. ‘Limits’ pretends to a degree of certainty so exaggerated as to obscure the few modest (and unoriginal) insights that it genuinely contains. Less than pseudoscience and little more than polemical fiction, ‘The Limits to Growth’ is best summarized not as a rediscovery of the laws of nature but as a rediscovery of the oldest maxim of computer science: Garbage In, Garbage Out.”
Many contend this is an appropriate and accurate criticism. But the authors of the New York Times forgot another old maxim, people in power don’t care about your opinion if it gets in the way of their desired goals. This is why it influenced the discussion on sustainable development through population growth and economics at the June UN Meeting in Stockholm. The 1972 Declaration presented a 26 principle guideline that is very similar to the revised UNSDGs that came out in 1992, some items include:
Principle 1: Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations. In this respect, policies promoting or perpetuating apartheid, racial segregation, discrimination, colonial and other forms of oppression and foreign domination stand condemned and must be eliminated.
Principle 5: The non-renewable resources of the earth must be employed in such a way as to guard against the danger of their future exhaustion and to ensure that benefits from such employment are shared by all mankind.
Principle 16: Demographic policies which are without prejudice to basic human rights and which are deemed appropriate by Governments concerned should be applied in those regions where the rate of population growth or excessive population concentrations are likely to have adverse effects on the environment of the human environment and impede development. (Eugenics with a fancy bow on it.)
20-Years Later
It is now 1992, “End of the Road” by Boys II Men edged out “I Will Always Love You” by Whitney Houston for the Billboard Hot 100 crown. Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls won their second NBA Title over Clyde Drexler’s Portland Trail Blazers, and Unforgiven won the Academy Award for Best Picture, seen as the “last ride” of the Spaghetti Western starring Clint Eastwood. Politically we saw Bill Clinton become the 42nd President of the United States, and the Rodney King incident of 1991 sparked the Los Angeles Riots of 1992 – which caused an estimated damage of over 1 Billion dollars.
Times have changed, but for the UNSDG, things stayed the same, as 1992 saw a new UN Meeting and Declaration formulated in Rio De Janeiro. Much like classical authoritarians, the UN saw that the whole narrative around the “right to freedom” did not jive with their objectives. So, they simplified their principles to now read:
Principle 1: Human beings are at the center of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.
Principle 8: To achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for all people, States should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies.
Principle 23: The environment and natural resources of people under oppression, domination and occupation shall be protected.
More force presented in the 1992 declaration compared to the 1972 declaration. More edicts than recommendations for the environment and the “oppressed classes”. What is gone from the 1992 Declaration are the principles related to population control. These have been revamped and embedded within the document to reflect “population dynamics” and how to restructure living as opposed to restructuring humans. I think the UN must have realized their objectives from 1972 sounded quite eugenics-y; instead, has shifted the concept to how you live as opposed to the population control.
How Does This Relate?
What we are seeing on college campuses is not an organic outgrowth of students supporting Palestine over Israel. It’s not all about Palestine and Israel, it’s an outgrowth of the narrative presented in colleges and universities since the 60s and 70s – some may argue even earlier – as a clear objective espoused at a multi-national level. A comical event that has happened during these protests is the sprouting of “Queers for Palestine” groups:
The unbelievable irony is that Queers FOR Palestine would really not like it if they found out what happens with Queers IN Palestine. One can research how the Islamic faith treats gay and lesbian individuals. However, this perfectly encapsulates the relationship between this movement and the larger global structure. It’s not necessarily about Palestine, Palestine is the oppressed in this production, much like LGBTQ, minorities, indigenous, etc. It is simple power dynamics narrative related to neo-Marxist teachings. It’s not about the actual reality of how these countries treat certain individuals, it is revolutionary LARPing by students who lack any semblance of critical thinking skills.
Again, it’s not about Palestine and Israel, it’s an outgrowth of the narrative presented in colleges and universities since the 60s and 70s – the objective espoused at a multi-national level. The students, nor teachers, came up with this organically, it was passed on to administrators – who are more in tune with the political side of education – by large multi-national organizations and NGOs who funded this narrative long before it showed up on college campuses. I will say it was because of these organizations that this narrative is prevalent not just in the obscure corners of academia, but in movies, television, news, public and private corporations, and governments. It is quite a monumental challenge to take on these individuals when there is so much manpower and money backing these narratives. I happen to think this may bring some cohesion and clarity to what we are experiencing at this time and not get bogged down in the minutiae of the moment.
For other information from my blog related to UNSDG, please read:
The Web That Binds Us: Origins, Explanation, and the Psychology of Doomed ESG Investing. (Dec 2021)
Who are the Neocosmopolitans? Defining this Group of Modern-Day Existentialists. (Mar 2024)
carsonbabich.com 