Breaking Down Agenda 21 Save for later Reblogpost

“The programme areas that constitute Agenda 21 are described in terms of the basis for action, objectives, activities and means of implementation.” – Agenda 21

So Agenda 21 is defined by its authors as an action plan which should be in place at all time and enforced by the government (for instance in the US it’s called executive Order #12,852 created the President’s Council on ‘Sustainable Development’, while the European Union as we can see from the latest legislation is implementing it). It’s not an optional document it’s a must to be enforced by world governments and states.

Agenda 21, this sustainablist policy focuses on three components: land use, education, and population control and reduction.

“Sustainable Communities encourage people to work together to create healthy communities where natural resources and historic resources are preserved, jobs are available, sprawl is contained, neighborhoods are secure, education is lifelong, transportation and health care are accessible, and citizens have opportunities to improve the quality of their lives.” – Agenda 21

“Sustainable Communities encourage people to work together to create healthy communities where natural resources and historic resources are preserved, jobs are available, sprawl is contained, neighborhoods are secure, education is lifelong, transportation and health care are accessible, and all citizens have opportunities to improve the quality of their lives.” – the definition of a sustainable community from the 1996 Report of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development

“Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual and material) where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living creatures are considered equal. Therefore the natural way is the right and human activities should be molded along nature’s rhythms” – UN’s Biodiversity Treaty, 1992 UN Earth Summit

This quote lays down most of the ground rules for the Sustainable Development agenda. It says humans are nothing special – just one strand in the nature of things or, put another way, humans are simply biological resources.

“Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributes to injustice.” – 1976 UN Habitat conference

Please be aware that the decisions and treaties which was made by the United Nations are not accidental, they are working with top law makers and lawyers, so they exactly know what they are doing.

So the treaty, called Agenda 21 is not just an action plan which is also must be enforced by the governments, but a document which gives governments rights to create and enforce new policies and laws based on either the fear mongering of ‘Global Warming’ or ‘Sustainable Development’. The bigger problem that the new law created upon these principles is going to be (at least in part) inconsonant with any ‘social contracts’.

Social contract: “An agreement for mutual benefit between an individual or group and the government or community as a whole.”

Think about a national referendum, where you would vote about the banning of household appliances (kettles, hair dryers, lawnmowers, etc.) rated above a wattage. It would be more, than unnecessary legislative interference in your everyday life.

It’s quite easy to see how serious Climate Change is. About 4 weeks ago there was a vote in the US Senate about the existence of climate change. So they have voted that climate change is real (98 to 2). They did Not say anything about global warming or man-made climate change, but they are now able to pass legislation combating man-made climate change.

Just the word ‘Climate Change’ is very often criticized by scientists. What is Climate Change? Basically climate is always changing. It makes little or no sense, because if you look out your window and if you like the weather it’s going to change soon, if you don’t like it, it’s going to change soon. It would be much more interesting looking at how climate changes, or what the causes are which makes the climate to change in a malicious way.

In most literature sustainable development contains three connecting ideas labelled as: Social Equity, Economic Prosperity and Ecological Integrity (also known as the 3 Es).

Sustainable Development’s Social Equity is based on a demand something, which is called “social justice”. The one of the first who has used the phrase was Karl Marx.

The sustainabilist system is based on this principle which states: “individuals must give up selfish wants for the needs of the common good, or the community.” In their world everybody has a right to a job with a good wage, a right to heath care and a right to housing. To assure these rights the wealth must be redistributed. This means that there can be no single owner of a property or business. All of those must be controlled by the society for “common good”.

“Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” – Harvey Ruvin – Vice Chair of the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives

The power to redistribute wealth is so big and important from politicians in our present, because in that way they can define which businesses and individuals will receive help from the government, which won’t, which businesses will prosper and which ones will go bankrupt, with the help of the taxation system and massive regulation.

“If someone wants to build a new coal-fired power plant they can, but it will bankrupt them because they will be charged a huge sum for all the greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” – US President Barack Obama

Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based on one overriding premise: that the wealth of the world was made at the expense of the poor. It dictates that, if the conditions of the poor are to be improved, wealth must first be taken from the rich.

Nowadays large companies have the upper hand, not just that they have the funds to improve, research and employ many people and to advertise their products or get lawyers to help them solve their legal disputes, but these companies are now reaching the level of a complete government. If we look at just the private military sector, where ex-special force mercenaries are ready in 0-24 / 365 for the highest bidder and these companies were the ones who carried out 67% of the military operations in Afghanistan (while NATO and other forces only about 33% of the action).

Other big companies, like IBM, Google, Microsoft and Intel have the chance to directly contact and deal with the government and steer decisions (for example GMOs are still unlabelled in the US) either by blackmail or by political party funding.

Under Sustainable Development there can be no concern over individual rights, wants, or needs – as we must all sacrifice for the “sake of the environment”. Under these terms there can be no limited government or state by any constitution or any natural law, because, we are were told, the real or perceived environmental crisis is just too great.

According to numerous Sustainable Development papers, guidelines and regulations:

Education system: prepare the children to live in a sustainable world!

Economy: create partnerships between large businesses and governments, making sure businesses becomes a tool to help implement laws and policies

Environment: Take private business, property and land ownership under great government control

Health care: “rationed” health care and sustainable development play books consider old and sick people as no longer valuable resources

Farming: the many new policies make farming and growing cops very expensive and raises many legal questions making farmers to create co-operative groups.

Society and Culture: marriage laws, multiculturalism, and the “globally-acceptable truth” (which dictates the science and knowledge we are allowed to pursue)

Our mobility: carbon taxes based on ran miles, GPS-based surveillance (while smaller groups even came up with the idea to ban human-driven cars in the future)

Public safety: biological IDs, cameras with microphones everywhere, NSA with total surveillance, etc.

Imagine if these UN principles would be in place with full force and would be used to consider regulations guiding everything you eat, what kind of how you are allowed to live in, the means of transportation you are allowed to use, what kind of work you may have and how you may do your work, in which way you are allowed to dispose of waste, perhaps even the number of children you may have, as well as the quality and amount of education your children are allowed to receive.

In the following image you can see the US. At the moment, almost 50% of the whole country is off-limits, so that means it cannot be used or enjoyed by individuals (including American taxpayers). The rest is under only partial human use. The situation is present not just in the United States, but everywhere else, like in Europe.

It’s quite interesting just looking at that in the US more, than 544 cities are paying tax dollars from city councils to implement and enforce Sustainable Development (under the ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability). They have many programs, if we just look back at 1996 (executive order #12,986 signed by Bill Clinton in the US) they have created “world heritage sites” under UNESCO, no wonder that in 1998 they have started constructions of new commercial hotels and other big commercial buildings where construction was forbidden before.

Japan back in 2014 urged Japanese people to go to bed one hour earlier to “protect and save the environment”.

Germany (also in 2014) asked all Germans to turn off the lights while making love in the bedroom to “protect the environment”.

From September 1 the European Union bans all vacuum cleaners rated above 1,600Watts and many other household appliances will follow, like: hairdryers, not to mention kettles, irons, toasters, smart phones, notebooks and printers! According to the staff at dailymail who took their time and made their research, the low-power appliances often consume more (sometimes twice as more) energy, than the top-power ones, because they have to run for a longer period of time to make the same effect. The EU’s goal is clear: they are desperate to achieve what they have announced as their energy consumption plan, although every industrial revolution was massively dependent on the energy, they would like to reduce energy consumption by 30% before we reach 2030. Shouldn’t the EU be more interested in creating energy in greener, more environment friendly ways, rather than regulating end-users and product which consume any energy?

Springfield, Eugene and 7 counties in California put a ban on fireplace and woodstove use, while New York city banned fireplace construction and use, and by the looks of it many other counties and cities will follow. They also have a hotline to call and report wood fires, after that they are going to come out to observe and fine the individual up to $500. These new regulations mean that elderly, rural and poor people won’t have a chance to heat their houses and apartments, while it will drive younger people back to big cities.

“Tighter particulate pollution standards set by the federal government in 2006 have required communities nationwide to clamp down on woodstove burning and other sources of smoke carrying small particulate matter.” – LRAPA (Lane Regional Air Protection Agency)

“It’s nice to sit in front of a wood fire in the winter, but we should all be feeling pretty guilty.” said Joseph Alcamo, chief scientist at the UN Environment Programme

Just to mention no one seems to upset that in modern Britain, old people are freezing to death as hidden taxes make heating fuel more expensive. This is “more serious, than the threat of terrorism” in terms of the number of lives that can be lost according to Sir David King. Since then (2003) around 250,000 Brits died from the cold, and 10,000 from the heat. An other article is titled as “Elderly person dies every SEVEN minutes due to fuel poverty ‘scandal’“.

Is CO2 really an environmental issue? Carbon dioxide emissions help tropical rainforests grow faster: Study shows trees absorb more greenhouse gas than expected

What about all the arctic ice? Arctic Sea Ice A Whole Lot More Stable Than Scientists Predicted

An enforced solution by any government cannot be really successful, and on the other hand there is no sense making laws and regulations, which are interfering in an unnecessary and ineffective way with our life, like those you have read just before. Yes, we do need to make changes for the greener and the better, but still nothing good can come out of regulating vacuum cleaners and stripping away the rights of the citizens on how they can use their own private properties.

I strongly believe that in this case states should be working with several groups of individuals, experts, concerned scientists from the society (general population) who truly want to make a change for the better, and legislation should only to be used as a last resort. It would be a more beneficial and harmless approach to solve these serious and often severe issues.

“Those who give up their liberty for more security (in this case for the security of the environment) neither deserve liberty nor security.” – Benjamin Franklin

We should also look at abroad, for instance to the East, because it doesn’t really matter if we change all of our light bulbs at home to energy-efficient ones, if the Chinese government builds 20 new coal power plants in a single year.

We should always be able to use critical thinking, because we know that “The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present.” – Niccolo Machiavelli