This post is not intended to create fear mongering or irrationality. I simply believe to understand why the world operates as it does it is important to understand the players on the field and the parameters of the game. I find that by reading and analyzing source documents and understanding the authors who wrote them, I can better grasp the world around me. With that in mind this post is a deep dive into the document known as Agenda 21.

The History of Agenda 21:

Agenda 21 was introduced to the general populace in 1992. It was rolled out with the intentions of preparing the world to take on a mindset of “progressive and sustainable development in a global environment.”

  • In 1993 Bill Clinton, in compliance with Agenda 21 signed Executive Order #12852. This order created the Presidents Council on Sustainable Development. This council was intended to “harmonize” US environmental policy with the UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21.
  • The newly created Presidents Council on Sustainable Development at the time seemed to understand that the American populace was not likely enthusiastically embrace this type of global governance, and that was illustrated in quotes like this:

“Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy fixated groups and individuals in our society…this segment of our society …would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined “the conspiracy” by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.”
 

J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to PCSD.
 

Regardless of the the resistance of the general public, those is charge proved ready to double down on their desire to push the narrative that climate change calls for a complete revamping the way the world and those who live in it function. Please take a moment to read and consider the following quotes directly from those who authored and actively support this agenda.

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

Alexander King The Club of Rome-premier environmental think tank, consultants to the United Nations

“ “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world
.”

Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment


The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models
.”


Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

We are close to a time when all of humankind
will envision a global agenda that encompasses
a kind of Global Marshall Plan to address the
causes of poverty and suffering and
environmental destruction all over the earth.


Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

One America burdens the earth much more than
twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say.
In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate
350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
but it’s just as bad not to say it
.”
Jacques Cousteau,
UNESCO Courier

The above quotes are only a handful of the pertinent observations that have been made and recorded by the powers-that-be. In order to fully grasp the content of Agenda 21, it is vital to understand the mindset of those who authored the”blueprint for global progress.”

Just as important as those who wrote it, are the words they wrote in it. Agenda 21 covers what it refers to as the three E’S: Environment, Economics and Equity. The authors maintain that creating a streamlined global system is the only way bring about progressive development.

Environmental Sustainability:

Sustainable Development is ostensibly concerned with the environment; it is more concerned with restructuring the governmental system of the world’s nations so that all the people of the world will be the subjects of a global collective. Many of its proposed implementation strategies require the surrender of unalienable rights.

  1. The following items have been deemed “not sustainable’ according to the UN study for biodiversity:

Ski Runs, Grazing of Livestock, Disturbance of Soil Surfaces, Fencing of Pastures or Paddocks Agriculture Modern Farm Production, Systems Chemical, Fertilizer, Herbicides, Building Materials, Industrial Activities, Paved and Tarred Roads, Railroads, Floor and Wall Tiles, Aquaculture, Technology, Improvements, Farmlands/Range lands, Fish Ponds, Plantations, Modern Hunting, Logging Activities, Harvesting Timber, Single Family Homes,
Private Transportation,
Harvesting Timber,
Logging Activities,
Fossil Fuels,
Dams, Reservoirs, Straightening Rivers
Power Line Construction
Economic systems that fail to set value on the environment
Inappropriate Social Structures,
Weaknesses in Legal and Institutional Systems,
Attitudes toward nature -Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions
Private Property
Population Growth -Human Population Density
Consumerism
Fragmentation of Habitat
Sewers, Drain Systems, Pipelines
Land use that serves human needs
Fisheries
Golf Courses
Scuba Diving
Synthetic drugs

[The above list can be found in the document “Sustainable America, A New Consensus for prosperity, opportunity, and a health environment for the future”

Private Property is not Sustainable?

Private property is a particular target of Agenda 21. It seems that private property ownership is viewed as an “obstacle in implementing development schemes” as well as a “contributing factor to social injustice.”

“ Land, because  of its unique nature and role in Human Settlements,  cannot be treated as an ordinary asset controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiency  of the market. Private Ownership is also a principal instrument of the accumulation and concentration of wealth , and therefore contributes to social injustice.  If unchecked it may become a major obstacle in the implementation and planning of development schemes. ”

1976 UN Conference on Human Settlement

With the destruction of private property rights there is a new idea to replace the current single family home:

Cohousing [Agenda 21, Chapter 5]

  • CITED:[ Chapter 5 pg. 113]19 to 29 people residing on each acre of land is preferable’

Developments Cohousing is a grass-roots movement that grew directly out of people’s dissatisfaction with existing housing choices. Its initiators draw inspiration from the increasing popularity of shared households, in which several unrelated people share a traditional house, and from the cooperative movement in general. Yet cohousing is distinctive in that each family or household has a separate dwelling and chooses how much they want to participate in community activities. Cohousing developments are unique in their extensive common facilities and in that they are organized, planned, and managed by the residents themselves. Pioneered in Denmark some 20 years ago, there are now over 100 cohousing developments in Denmark, plus many more in The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, France, and Germany. In North America over 40 cohousing communities are now in the planning stages.

It was further noted in chapter 5 that:

  • This will begin to diversify life style options and provide a small though significant portion of the population with opportunities to live where they are not so dependent on cars.
  • It will also tend to minimize conflicts with established interests while beginning a tradition of denser housing which becomes progressively more acceptable as people become more familiar with it.

[ NOTE: if this is such a enhanced way of life that why so they assume in their own documents that while implementing their plans they will need to “reduce conflict”?]

The authors went on to state that the land used for these new cohousing developments would come from the following segments of land

These areas would typically include:

  • underutilized or vacant land in central and inner areas, in particular government-owned land; waste or derelict land due to obsolete uses (ware houses ,port installations, railway land, industrial land
  • residential areas that are run down and ripe for development – ensuring that provision is made in housing schemes for existing residents to remain but in new dwellings;

[NOTE: This statement asserts that if it is decided that your home is “run down and ripe for development” they will destroy your house and build a new “cluster housing development” instead…but not to worry, you will be assured a place to live in the cluster housing that is created where your privately owned home once existed]

The bottom line is this; if those in charge get their say…. In the near future,you get to pay the mortgage payment,the upkeep, and property taxes- but how you live with in your own house will be mandated by others. The cost of ownership will become bureaucratically onerous and financially debilitating. This is by design, as the ultimate goal seems to be in creating a permanent middle class of renters.

Sustainable Development or Sustainable Control?

In addition to private property, “uncontrolled electricity and water usage” are also cited as not sustainable. In fact several of those who wrote Agenda 21 spoke about how these attributes must be kept in check in order to keep control over the populace and the narrative.

Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun
.”
Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University


The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the
worst thing that could happen to the planet
.”
Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

[CITED: SOURCE DOC Agenda 21]-“ Reasonable access to water in urban areas is defined as “the availability of 20 litres per capita per day at a distance no longer than 1,000 metres.” Global Water Supply and Assessment Report 2000.”

The current American household consumes 100 gallons of water per day on average, the sustainable development goals call for reducing that to 20 gallons per day. What does this mean for the average American?

Will your toddlers bubble bath, and your five year old’s wading pool be deemed unsustainable? How much quality of life are we as society willing to sacrifice in order to be considered progressive and climate friendly? Additionally, it is pertinent to ask how much privacy and personal sovereignty we as a society are willing to forego?

In order to keep track of who is consuming what resources inventions such as the “smart meter” will become our constant monitors as we navigate or daily lives. This meter can not only detect how much electricity and water that you use, it can tell how and when you use it as well. Are you comfortable with “big brother” knowing when and for how long you brush your teeth, that you sleep with a fan on, and it takes you twenty minutes to blow dry your hair?

Economically Sustainability:

In addition to environmental aspects, Agenda 21 goes into great detail as to how the Economy will be managed in the new global society

“The other factor to emphasize in a sustainable economy is managing economic demand. In Chapter One we note that “development” can no longer simply mean economic “growth,” but requires instead that we learn to live on the “interest” generated by remaining stocks of “natural capital.

~Agenda 21 for Sustainable Development

This is further elaborated in the following segment where it is stated that the current population must learn to “manage demand’ and shift focus away from the efforts of creating supply.

“with increasing supply to the new focus on managing demand, we must also shift our economic development emphasis from the traditional concern with increasing growth to the new focus on reducing social dependence on economic growth, or what we might call Economic Demand Management (EDM).”

What exactly does EDM entail?

  • A primary focus of EDM should be reducing the need for paid work (see Schor 1991).[ meaning you will not need a job, because there will be nothing to purchase, you will be given what you need from the government]
  • Everything including your housing will be given to you by government and community resources: Local governments can promote EDM by, for example, land-use planning that links trip reduction with affordable housing, and by developing partnerships with institutions such as community land trusts to provide an expanding stock of permanently affordable housing.

The following paragraph is a powerful example of what the authors say and what they mean. Pay attention to the words “distributive effects”[ie redistribution of wealth] and “tax policies to discourage land speculation” [ie making it impossible to purchase land for private ownership] “shifting public subsidy from automobile use” [ie making it more expensive for people to use cars… I encourage you to not take my observation at face value. Instead read how the authors describe it in their own words:

Many other sustainability measures are inherently positive in their distributive effects. For example, more efficient land use and tax policies to discourage land speculation will increase the affordability of housing in the city and enable people to live closer to work. Shifting some of the public subsidy from automobile use to improved public transit will improve access to the city for lower income groups while attracting more riders from all social strata.

~Agenda 21 for sustainable development

I would argue that it is difficult to look at this verbiage as anything other than a call for a top down socialist agenda that will create a world where everyone is equally controlled by the powers-that-be.

Community Economic Development:

This attribute is concerning in that is specifically calling for “a community economy in order to fulfill the desires of economic justice”

“The general objective is the same: to take some measure of control of the local economy back from the markets and the state. Within this common objective, CED practice is variously oriented to controlling the local economy for narrow ends (increasing the capacity of a community to make money), for broader purposes (e.g., to increase economic stability and control of resources) or to serve fundamental goals of economic justice.

  • What is economic justice? And how is it served it everyone in a community becomes jobless and dependent on the governing system to provide for them?
  • And furthermore how does any of this help to prevent climate change?

The Economics Behind Economic Sustainable Development:

Political change and power requires funding. Funding requires organization, and for this to occur NGO’s and IGO’s must be involved. In  fact many of agenda 21’s attributes are currently pushed by these “non government, but government sanctioned agencies.” I intend to devote a future post to  a detailed look at NGO’s and the connection between government goals. However, the following is an informative overview illustrating how certain organizations are very tightly intertwined with the goals held by a small and powerful group of elites.

The modern NGO story begins with the creation of the United Nations. One month after the UN Charter went into force,Julian Huxley signed the document that created the well-known UNESCO .Two years later, the same Julian Huxley was instrumental in creating the International Union for the Conservation of Nature or IUCN . To increase funding for its work, the IUCN created another, more public organization called the World Wildlife Fund or WWF in 1961.
The World Resources Institute or WRI is perhaps the world’ most influential think-tank. It produces the so-called scientific foundation for the global agenda and coordinates much of the activity of affiliated NGOs as well.Maurice Strong has been or is currently a director or office of each of these NGOs.
These three NGOs ,the IUCN, WWF and WRI ,in concert with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), jointly published the documents from which the global agenda was developed. These documents include:
* World Conservation Strategy
* Caring for the Earth
* Global Biodiversity Strategy
From these foundational works come such policy documents as:
* The Convention on Biological Diversity
* The Framework Convention on Climate Change
* Agenda 21
Policy is adopted with out treaty ratification and passed to NGO’s without need of Congressional approval. Because they hold “consultative” status they are contractually required to support any item that is presented to them from their peers. They are also required to support individual candidates who support the overall agenda .The number of advisory committees is carefully managed, ensuring that committees are only established when essential to the attainment of clearly defined Executive Branch priorities.

NGOs are responsible for the following:
Agenda 21 Alert: Public-Private Partnerships [part 1]
Agenda 21 Alert: Public-Private Partnerships [part 2]
… without any need of treaty ratification or Congressional approval
Development of the global agenda, i.e., Agenda 21.Enactment of the policies at the international level.Converting international policy into national laws and regulations.Implementing the new policies, laws, and regulations on the ground

ail Gorbachev package the CoR’s vision via their two organizations and put together the educational program which ultimately became the Earth Charter. Donations,grants,and consultancy fees fly everywhere.
The same people that sit on the Board of the Club of Rome, each have their respective roles as media moguls, union heads/financiers, banking moguls,U.N.positions,or political leaders. They control the money, the media outlets, the legislative processes, and the ‘boots on the ground’ organizations to foist the agenda. There are 28,000 such organizations. They are divided into Think Tanks, those that focus on Policy Framework, and finally those that Market the ideas that the leaders want expressed.
An excellent example of what I will call the Circle of Corruption is seen by tracing backwards from AlGore’s company Generations Investment Management. You will notice this is a list of alliances. If we click on The Alliance for Climate Protection we see this takes us to an organization that is committed to ‘spread the word’ ,which will in turn ultimately create profits for Al Gore.

I use this tree to illustrate how all of these think tanks are intertwined In this example, David Rockefeller founded the TLC, CFR, and RF. The CoR was founded at his house in Bellagio, Italy. The Co Band CoM represent 2 of 33 siblings of the CoR, and whose members each have one or several of their own organizations.

Club of Rome—————–World Shift Network———————–Club De Madrid The Trilateral Commission
Council on Foreign Relations
The Rockefeller Foundation

Sustainable Equity:

Throughout the document Agenda 21 continues to call for equity. This equity seems to stem from a desire to see “ social justice” permeate throughout the world.

What is Social justice ?

Social justice is the equal access to wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society. Social Justice as a concept arose in the early 19th century during the Industrial Revolution and subsequent civil revolutions throughout Europe, which aimed to create more egalitarian societies and remedy capitalistic exploitation of human labor. ~Google

With this lofty ideal in mind The authors continue push the idea that global harmony that will emerge if everyone agrees to capitulate to the limitations and guidelines placed upon them by this new system. We will all live under the cohesion of “social, economic and environmental justice” and they insist we will be better off for it.

Equity in responding to the climate change challenge is likely to be a key determinant of success. Ministers of the Group of 24 developing countries expressed support for urgent collective action to mitigate and adapt to climate change in their statement to the IMF and World Bank Spring meetings. “They stressed however, that in line with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, these cooperative actions need to be equitable taking into account the low historical contribution and still much lower per capita energy use by developing countries, the much more adverse impact on them from climate change, and their unmet development needs.”

For industrialized countries equity in the handling of employment transitions is key to the political sustainability of effective global action to reduce green house gases.

  • Note that the document references the “special consideration for developing countries.” Put differently the powers-that-be are asserting that while those living developed countries must cap their “unstainable behavior” and be willing to sacrifice and make changes, those in developing countries will be given special guidelines. They will be exempt from the rules that others must follow.

The inter-dependence between environmental, economic and social policies is strong, but the synergies which can be reaped are not automatic. Coherent policies are critical and will take commitment at the highest political level. The ministers of labor are well placed to articulate the relationships and to take the social dimension to the environmental policy debates, in particular the climate talks, where relative prices are being set, industrial policies are set and key decisions are made about technology transfer, financial flows and investments. The Ministers of Labor can also play a key role together with their counterparts in environment to establish the mechanisms of social dialogue and for action which enable the main stakeholders to contribute to more informed decision making and to more effective implementation: employers and workers, local governments and communities.

  • For those who claim that the UN is simply creating a wish list of desired policies, I would encourage them to pay special attention to the direct call for political change and policy formation based on this document. This is not intended to be an optional request, the authors who constructed Agenda 21 intend for it to backed up by forceful legal consequences for failure to comply.

Conclusion:

It is important to explore these documents with a rational mindset. However, it is also important to realize that it is not irrational to assert that if these proposed actions come  to fruition, life for future generations will be much different then it is today.

In the proposed sustainable society of the future it is not unreasonable to envision that a typical day would consist of an individual waking up in his government- provided housing unit, eating a ration of government- subsidized foods that were purchased at a government- sanctioned grocery store, walking his children to the government run child care center before boarding government- subsidized pubic transportation to go to his government-assigned job before returning home in the evening .

This is not the life I hope to pass on to my children.

The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival
for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species.
Phasing out the human race will solve every
problem on Earth – social and environmental
.”
Ingrid Newkirk,
former President of PETA

There simply must be another way.