Crucial Revision-UN Scientists Call to Move People Into Cities - More Agenda 21

Added 4/15/12
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/27/10887250-worlds-cities-to-expand-by-more-than-twice-the-size-of-texas-by-2030?pc=25&sp=25

Check out this quote from the article linked above. It was made by the same person who is quoted at more length in the main post:

"But she [Karen Seto] said the global population was increasing and "we certainly don't want them strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together].' "

"We" of course are the Leftists, Environmentalists, and those who advocate dismantling national borders and governments. "We" is [sic] the committee or coalition of committees that will put together a grand scheme and market it as "The Consensus". Watch for that word - it indicates a pre-determined plan for your future; one in which you have no say.

You are the targeted species. You are being slotted for a cattle drive of epic proportions. You will not be a cowboy in this case. You won't be sent to the Chicago Slaughterhouses; those guys are busy running the nation in DC. You will, though, be legislated, regulated,  priced-out (From new taxes, etc.), or forced outright  from urban areas to approved urban zones. You will not be allowed to choose the region in which you will live, nor will you be able to choose the type of building in which you will reside. You will not be allowed to stroll "about the countryside" - that will be reserved for nature and the corporate-owned farms operated by farmhands as opposed to farmers.

This thing is not a joke. Links at the bottom provide a more through introduction.

Original Post Below-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
....yet another indication that those who warn against Agenda 21 are not making this up:

http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/pdf/pr_27_03_12_options_opportunities.pdf

The American way of life is clearly targeted for destruction.

For people new to Agenda 21, there is a lot to digest here and I am writing to an audience that for the most part has been aware of this plan for some time. There are links at the bottom that will provide a good start if you are asking yourself "What is this guy talking about?" That's what I did when I was new.

A group of UN scientists have outlined (Very Briefly and worryingly devoid of details) their call to begin moving people out of rural and, especially suburban areas, and bring them into cites. As is common with those who push the Hydra that is Agenda 21, the reasoning is that the environment must be protected. The conclusion is that, in order to do so, people must be encouraged, cajoled, ushered, or forced into urban areas.

Italics and bolding are mine 

The question isn’t whether to urbanize but how, says Dr. Michail Fragkias of Arizona
State University, one of nearly 3000 participants at the conference, entitled “Planet
Under Pressure”. Unfortunately, he adds, today’s ongoing pattern of urban sprawl
puts humanity at severe risk due to environmental problems. Dense cities designed
for efficiency offer one of the most promising paths to sustainability, and urbanization specialists will share a wealth of knowledge available to drive solutions.

The following is also an excerpt but I broke it up to aid in the translation. Mind you, the bolded parts are quotes from the paper.

Here are some of their suggestions for making sure that they know -

High-tech ways to improve the efficiency of urban operations and human health and

well-being include:

Not just who you are, but the state of your health (And presumably that of your family history) -

• Rapid patient screening and diagnostics with digitalised health records;

How much electricity (and water) you are using -

• Utility meters and sensors that monitor the capacity of the power generation network and continually gather data on supply and demand of electricity;

Where you are going -

• Integrated traveller information services and toll road pricing based on traffic,
weather and other data;

....and those with whom you speak (And probably the content of the conversation).

• Data gathering and feedback from citizens using mobile phones;



Let's see what else they said:

"Says Prof. Karen Seto of Yale University, who with colleagues is organizing four of the
160 conference sessions at Planet Under Pressure: ”The way cities have grown since
World War II is neither socially or environmentally sustainable and the environmental cost of ongoing urban sprawl is too great to continue.' "

"For these reasons, “the planet can’t afford not to urbanize,” says Seto. “People everywhere, however, have increasingly embraced Western styles of architecture and
urbanization, which are resource-intense and often not adapted to local climates.
The North American suburb has gone global, and car-dependent urban developments are more and more the norm"

 Urban sprawl means suburbs, the arch-enemy of the Left and environmentalists. She makes her point clear when she specifies the really bad "North American suburb". Here we see another poke at our "Western styles of architecture". That must mean our houses that are designed for single families. Single-family homes are an absolute evil to these people and are specifically named in other works and papers of theirs. I personally do not like McMansions, but these are just the decoys, not the targets - your small ranch or Cape Cod-style house are the real targets, there are many more of these. Don't forget the car-dependent comment. The Agenda 21 guys and gals want you on public transportation only. Personal cars have to go.

Dwellings for people of Western culture have normally been designed for individual families, starting with the wagons that moved Indo-European people* from their origin North of the Black Sea North and Westward into Europe and South and Eastward into other parts of Asia.  Virtually all European societies, including those of the non-IE Basques, Sami, Finns, Hungarians, (Maybe I missed one) were based on single-family or, at most, extended family homes. The Roman historian Tacitus, for example, in his Germania, describes the homes of the ancient Germans as being pretty close to those that we still like today. Other ancient European peoples such as the Celts, Greeks, and Italics were the same.Cities came on the scene, but they never replaced the single-family dwelling as the primary housing unit. People of Western culture like our homes the way they are and how they have been. Rome's growth illustrated the problem with urban growth; as more and more people flocked to the cities (**More details in links at bottom) the new urban citizens did little more than add the already-high demand for cheap and/or free bread.

*You should know that the Left, by employing their legions in Academia, has been trying to persuade the public that none of these migrations happened, just like they now like to claim that the Jews were never were in Egypt and therefore have no real history. The idea is to convince Westerners that they have no common heritage and are just descended from Neolithic farmers who just happened to have spread a remarkably similar language group and culture among each other. There is an entire Genre of books dedicated to trying to prove that things that occurred never actually happened. For the European migration, recent DNA findings have come very close to proving (I hate asserting that things are “proven”) that a tremendous amount of European DNA (especially male) can be directly attributed to late Chalcolithic and Bronze-Age migrations into Europe:
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#R1b-conquest
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?25614-Metal-mining-and-stockbreeding-explain-R1b-dominance-in-Atlantic-fringe

On a side note, if energy becomes too expensive or dries up, causing me to have to leave my current house, well, that is my problem. I can assure you that I would rather eke out a subsistence-based lifestyle as a free person in the wilderness than be moved into a city. As long as I can bring a select group of my books, ones that I am sure the Left would rather I not have since they are almost all concerned with Western Civilization subjects, I could live like the opening scene in the movie Hanna.


“We have a unique opportunity now to plan for a coming explosion of urbanization
in order to decrease pressure on ecosystems, improve the livelihoods of billions of
people and avoid the occurrence of major global environmental problems and disasters. That process cannot wait,” says Roberto Sánchez-Rodríguez, Professor Emeritus
of Environmental Sciences at the University of California, Riverside.

Here we get a lot in one big mouthful. 

We need to decrease pressure on ecosystems. I thought that we already had done that.

We need to improve the livelihoods of billions of people. I wonder how my life will be improved by having to live in a city. In the event of one of the Bird or Swine Flu, or any one of the others plagues that they keep telling is are coming, how is my livelihood going to improve if I am in a two-bedroom apartment among thousands (Or millions) of sick people? I would prefer to sty in my house for a few weeks until the contagion has more or less run its course. My house has enough room for a few weeks of food and water. It also has firewood to heat the place if the grid goes down or if fuel supplies stop. I don't think that any UN scientist can guarantee that I will be OK and free from getting sick or ensure that I will have heat and water. I like fresh air, not that that smells like a city street. I like walks in the woods that don't require a train trip to an approved area for human access.

Also, how is being jammed into a city with millions more going to prevent environmental disasters? Will it prevent massive volcanic eruptions, hurricanes/flooding, the asteroids that we are told lurk around waiting to catch us on the next trip, or a nuke from a nation that finds our populations an even easier target now that you can get more bang for the buck? 

How about civil unrest if one of those things occur and people are hungry since the stores have been cleaned out? Fireams will be out of the question for non-criminals, so you won't even have a chance of persuading bad guys to move on. And, if one of those things do occur, how do I leave? My car will have been outlawed. I will be dependant on public transportation, and I won't be allowed to flee to another place to live because any non-urban region will be a forbidden zone. I will be stopped at the bridge or tunnel and told to go back to my hole in the wall.  For crying out loud, it will be like  the movie Escape From New York, only I have not committed and crime (Other than living a Western liftesyle).

We will have to remain behind locked doors in our apartments hoping that contagions or bad people will not get in, or, if ours gets ruined, mill about like ants whose colony just got dug up by a spade or was exposed once the wood was picked up off of the ground.

Note that Mr. Sanchez-Rodriguez is adamant that the "process cannot wait". They have very intention of getting this thing off the ground now. In fact, you will see in the links below that much of the groundwork has already been laid out.

By all means, if you would prefer to ensure that your children and grandchildren get to live in a nice neighborhood or country house (That is targeted too), read the paper linked at the top. When I first heard about this movement, I was dumbstruck, especially, when researching it more, I found out that this things is 20 years old. It started at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. All kinds of regulations have already been put into place. There will be another Rio Summit in June of this year, where the next expected move will be to go from the "soft law" concept to the hard law one, where guidelines becomes requirements.

At a minimum, you should try to read the first three links below and the one at the very bottom. The first two details how we in the US will be affected and how Agenda 21 will ruin us just like slave labor and urban growth ruined ancient Roman society. The third link is on the ICLEI - International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. This is the real Hydra that links your town, county, and state government directly with the UN to implement Agenda 21 in your locale. Please consider finding out if your local governing body is signed on to ICLEI or is about to do do. The one at the very bottom has a wealth of information about what you can do to fight this movement.  For new people, Agenda 21 is a UN - supported plan to erode the soverignty on nation-states, to move people into cities, and bring the world's population under either a one-world government or five or six regional governments.

*http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/02/obamas-rural-council-and-un-agenda-21.html

*http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/02/farming-families-targeted-by-dept-of.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/03/agenda-21-iclei-creation-and-purpose.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/04/agenda-21-in-california.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/03/agenda-21-more-details-and-original.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/03/recent-agenda-21-developments.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/04/agenda-21-video-democrats-against.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/03/obama-to-control-distribution-of-goods.html

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/03/30/un-backed-scientists-call-for-mega-city-population-lockup/

What you can do...
http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Take_Action.html

Agenda 21 In California

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303302504577323353434618474.html

The name of the above article is "California Declares War on Suburbia" and is in the Wall Street Journal.
I find it reassuring that a respected organization such as the Journal is willing to publish an article on a subject that is either purposefully ignored by, or is simply a verboten subject for, the Mainstream and Leftist-controlled Media.


On previous posts concerning Agenda 21 and the ICLEI, I have asserted that a big part of the plans for implementing the UN agenda is to steadily take measures that will either create regulations that make a relocation to urban areas a financial necessity or to, at some point, just require in an outright fashion the movement of the people to those regions. I have also noted that the concept of single-family dwellings are a chief target of Agenda 21 advocates. With this comes attacks on personal modes of transportation (family-size vehicles). Personal vehicles are detested for more than one reason, they consume quite a bit of petroleum relative to the amount of people they pull around, they emit the now-notorious CO2, and possibly most dangerously of all, they allow for the movement of people from place to place without the knowledge of those who prefer that we be watched continuously (Unless of course you use credit/debit cards for fuel purchases or EZ-Pass for tolls).

Plans call for the concentration of people along densely-populated corridors, putting them squarely along either existing or planned mass-transportation routes. An example of planned routes are the High-Speed railways that the Obama administration so enthusiastically pushed on State governments. To this we must add the admission by Obama's Energy Secretary Stephen Chu* that, far from having any intention of taking measures to reduce the price of fuel, the administration likes things the way they are as they encourage people to use less fuel (And thus see living in urban areas a more tempting thought). Let's get Americans to dump their cars and get on the buses and trains.

*"Shortly before he became President Barack Obama's energy secretary, Steven Chu declared, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe" -- which were around $8 per gallon at the time"
http://timesfreepress.com/news/2012/mar/02/high-gas-prices-serve-a-good-purpose/

The thought of reducing millions more to the dependence on Mass transit brings to the fore a possible outcome that is even darker than simply "not having wheels". If we are in fact faced with a no-ride list** for trains, buses have got to be next. Without the family car, one will not be able to move from place to place without boarding a plane, train, or bus. With a no-fly list evolving into a no-ride list, an American without a car will have to show his ID to go just about anywhere. Unless you plan on riding a bicycle, walking, or paying high fees for private transportation (And we don't know if these vendors too will need to keep records of their clients), you will not be able to go anywhere without leaving a electronic or paper trail. Also, considering the fact that the Left, having been stung by the SCOTUS decisions on Heller v. The District of Columbia and McDonald V. Chicago, obtains another way to restrict firearms. If you want to take your firearms (Assuming the UN Small Arms Treaty does not get forced upon us) to a shooting range, one will have a fairly difficult time getting approval to bring your guns onto those buses and trains that may very well be the only means to travel. They will in all probability not have the shooting ranges on their routes or stops anyway.

** http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/09/schumer-proposes-ride-list-train-travelers/

During the moribund days of the Soviet Union in the 70's, stubborn Marxist holdouts tried to concoct explanations for the problems that State was facing. Food lines, for example, were chalked up to excessive discretionary spending money. Although excuses like this were of course laughable, Western apologists for Marxism, to my knowledge, never tried to candy-coat one part of Soviet society - the requirement to have your traveling papers on your person. We are looking at that spectre right now.

A link to an earlier post on Agenda 21. The post also has multiple links for posts on the same subject at its bottom:
http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/03/agenda-21-iclei-creation-and-purpose.html

The following are excerpts from the above article from the Wall Street Journal. It is written by Wendell Cox, an individual who worked with the Los Angeles Transportation Commission.

Referring to the fact that, in addition to businesses, people are leaving California in droves:(All Italics and bolding are mine)

The exodus is likely to accelerate. California has declared war on the most popular housing choice, the single family, detached home—all in the name of saving the planet.
Metropolitan area governments are adopting plans that would require most new housing to be built at 20 or more to the acre, which is at least five times the traditional quarter acre per house. State and regional planners also seek to radically restructure urban areas, forcing much of the new hyperdensity development into narrowly confined corridors.

In San Francisco and San Jose, for example, the Association of Bay Area Governments has proposed that only 3% of new housing built by 2035 would be allowed on or beyond the "urban fringe"—where current housing ends and the countryside begins. Over two-thirds of the housing for the projected two million new residents in these metro areas would be multifamily—that is, apartments and condo complexes—and concentrated along major thoroughfares such as Telegraph Avenue in the East Bay and El Camino Real on the Peninsula.

For its part, the Southern California Association of Governments wants to require more than one-half of the new housing in Los Angeles County and five other Southern California counties to be concentrated in dense, so-called transit villages, with much of it at an even higher 30 or more units per acre.

To understand how dramatic a change this would be, consider that if the planners have their way, 68% of new housing in Southern California by 2035 would be condos and apartment complexes. This contrasts with Census Bureau data showing that single-family, detached homes represented more than 80% of the increase in the region's housing stock between 2000 and 2010.

The campaign against suburbia is the result of laws passed in 2006 (the Global Warming Solutions Act) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and in 2008 (the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act) on urban planning. The latter law, as the Los Angeles Times aptly characterized it, was intended to "control suburban sprawl, build homes closer to downtown and reduce commuter driving, thus decreasing climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions." In short, to discourage automobile use.

If the planners have their way, the state's famously unaffordable housing could become even more unaffordable.

Over the past 40 years, median house prices have doubled relative to household incomes in the Golden State. Why? In 1998, Dartmouth economist William Fischel found that California's housing had been nearly as affordable as the rest of the nation until the more restrictive regulations, such as development moratoria, urban growth boundaries, and overly expensive impact fees came into effect starting in the 1970s. Other economic studies, such as by Stephen Malpezzi at the University of Wisconsin, also have documented the strong relationship between more intense land-use regulations and exorbitant house prices.

The love affair urban planners have for a future ruled by mass transit will be obscenely expensive and would not reduce traffic congestion. In San Diego, for example, an expanded bus and rail transit system is planned to receive more than half of the $48.4 billion in total highway and transit spending through 2050.

Ali Modarres of the Edmund G. "Pat" Brown Institute of Public Affairs at California State University, Los Angeles has shown that a disproportionate share of migrating households are young. This is at least in part because it is better to raise children with backyards than on condominium balconies. A less affordable California, with less attractive housing, could disadvantage the state as much as its already destructive policies toward business.