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 Video - Democrats Against Agenda 21

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the-soros-sponsored-agenda-21-a-hidden-plan-for-world-government-yes-only-it-is-not-hidden/

http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/

Both links will take you to a page that has a very important video. I personally cannot stand videos of talks/speeches - they are long, slow, and the speeches take forever to actually provide the information for which I am looking. Yes, I am impatient. As soon as I come across a link to a video, I immediately search around in an attempt to find a text version of the talk. I focus better when I read and I can draw the information that I want from the text much more quickly. In this case, I could not find any text, but I found the video more than worth the time it took and was very glad that I finished it.

Please watch the video. The speaker is quite good. Her name is Rosa Koire. She belongs to a group named Democrats Against UN Agenda 21. (Link above). Her qualifications to speak on this subject amount to being way overqualified. For a living, she appraises the value of properties for which a governing body is planning to exercise Eminent Domain. This requires her to be knowledgeable about everything one can imagine and more concerning zoning regulations and changes to the same, long-term development (or redevelopment) plans for those areas, restrictions, what have you. Quite simply, the woman knows her stuff.

Ms. Koire makes a point of making sure that the viewer/listener is fully aware that she is a Liberal Democrat, a Lesbian, (Adding that she is proud of it) and a person that only fairly recently began reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at events, Upon being asked if she used the "under God" insertion, she stated that she did not and then briefly indicated that her views of the Separation of Church and State fall on the one of the two extreme sides (The other being the position that Christianity was only a half-step away from being a sort of institutional belief) of the intentions of our Founding Fathers. I personally find it quite  frustrating that few people are willing to  admit that there is a middle ground in  this issue. On one hand we have people who treat the mention of God or the general culture of Christan beliefs of ethics of our nation as a sort of virulent contagion, and on the other, an adamant insistence that the US was meant to be a country in which Christianity was to be almost a State religion but without the naming of any one particular Church body as the official one.

I am not particularly crazy about people throwing details out their sexual life in public settings. I hold that it is none of my business what someone does in their private life unless they, in the highly unlikely event, want my opinion. If, I for example, went to go-go joints (For the record, I do not), I would not be informing people of that and certainly would not be proud of it. I do, though think that there was a reason for her statements in her case. The Left has fashioned itself into a coalition of Marxists, Liberal Democrats, Gays and Lesbians, environmentalists, some radical Atheists, and others who stand against much of what are parts of the foundations of our nation. In being as forward as Ms. Koire is in the video, she shows that not all people on the very Liberal side are swarming around those who hold our Rights and Liberties dear and seek to reduce us to a state of utter subjection to the State. All in all, she is a straight-shooter who clearly is desirous of maintaining our Rights and Liberties. So she goes on the Good Guy list.

I could not do justice to the content of her speech, so I will not even attempt to summarize it. She has seen the future firsthand. You will learn about the ICLEI* -International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (She helpfully gives us the pronunciation 'Eye-Clee") She also notes that, while keeping their acronym, they have dropped using the word "international" due to the obvious connotations of that word, and simply gone with the term "Local Governance for Sustainability". She describes the beginnings of Agenda 21, with its introduction at the Rio Summit in 1992** by Maurice Strong, and explains the means by which it was put into place in the US. Most importantly, she details the steps that you can take to combat the spread of this movement in your community.


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

**Note that in June of this year, there will be another Summit in Rio to mark the 20-year anniversary of the first conference. I expect the Summit to declare that everything is going well and that they will move from the "Soft Law" approach - one in which the plans are more like moral guidelines, to one that provides clear penalties for the failure to comply.

http://www.earthsummit2012.org/


...and one last website. This is associated with Democrats against Agenda 21:
http://www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org/

Agenda 21 ICLEI - Creation and Purpose

The Agenda 21 threat is difficult to perceive by an individual since, it comes at us in so many forms, many of which are disarmingly labeled with stated purposes of "sustainable development", environmental protection,  and preservation of land. This post will deal with the ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives), which is a movement that seeks to bring the US and others nations of the world under the mantle of the Leftist/Environmentalist plan for the elimination of the free individual, private property rights, and  national sovereignty. The means that it employed to encourage (And possibly cajole) state, county, and municipal governments to deal directly with the UN and other extra-national bodies to bring their districts into line with the Global agenda. Of course our Constitution annoying limits such negotiating to the Federal Government, but why let that stand in the way? County and Municipal governments are especially vulnerable. This is not due to the people wanting to go in this direction , but because a good portion of them, busy with their lives, assume that those who run for town councils and the like are, if not for their interests, at least not enthusiastically in opposition to their interests. 

This leaves a chink in the armor in which Leftists or radical environmentalists, simply presenting themselves as candidates of normal political parties, secure mayoral/town council positions from which they can begin creating ordinances and policies that severely restrict property owners, burden the same with regulations that result in excessive operational costs, and generally create climates in which small and middle-scale farms and other properties/businesses are no longer tenable. The result is a sell-off to corporate farms and other large business entities to avoid bankruptcy, foreclosure, or crushing fines. Those who stay in rural areas will devolve into employees on the once-free farms and other businesses; those who leave will move to the cities. 

Note that ICLEI bigwig Mr.Jeb Brughmann (In the quotes below) describes creating high densities in the cities. People who live in cities are easier to control and will naturally gravitate towards governments that provide the most at the lowest or no cost and thus create increasingly-dependant people. Although I will freely admit that, due to the end of textile and other factory-type businesses in urban areas, we have a tremendous amount of unused and relatively cheap properties that have great potential for development. The problem is that those who advance Agenda 21 have decided that they will implement a vast array of measures that will gradually force people to move to these zones. 

Their idea is that, well, those areas are all ruined already. So, instead of creating parkland (As you will see in Mr. Brughmann's comments), urban development will consist of building housing, presumably high-rise apartments, to house the newly resettled. This will achieve many goals, including bringing rural and suburban populations to a bare minimum, reducing the electoral strength of those regions, and increasing the same in urban areas. So my grandchildren will not be able to listen to the chorus of Spring Peepers or the symphony of songbirds in the Spring, or gaze upon the Autumn leaves while they wait for the school bus unless I move the family to the rural zones to be - not a farmer, but a farmhand.

People who live in cities face ever-increasing degrees of governmental control. Ridiculously- restrictive smoking bans, demonizing of table salt (NYC), and terrifyingly restrictive firearms laws (Washington DC, Chicago, NYC) are the norm in urban areas, and I see no reason why this trend will not continue as more and more people are ushered into the cities. 

As the photo below indicates, the counties that voted for the Democratic candidate in the 2004 Presidential election (The 2000 election was virtually identical and it is fair to say that 2008 was close too) were almost totally confined to urban areas. Taking steps to move as many people as possible to cities is a good bet to increase the urban electorate and thus provide a permanent base of voters who will consistently overwhelm national elections with Leftist candidates. This will also apply to seats in the Capital Building; Congressional districts will of course be redrawn to reflect the locations in which the most people live, and Senatorial seats in more states will simply go to whomever the new all-powerful urban electorate votes in. As an example, Pennsylvania and Ohio, both very rural states already politically driven in a big way by Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Cleveland, etc., will in all probability be completely swamped after the changes occur. Note in previous posts that I have asserted that the Left has done everything that it can to keep multiple generations of the US population, especially that of urban areas, in states of  permanent bondage, helplessness, and reliance on governmental assistance. 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/images/rcp%20electoral/2004_results_by_county..gif

As noted at top, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives is a means for the step-by-step implementation of Agenda 21 and global or pan-regional "Governance"*. I will  provide some quotes from an interview with Mr. Jeb Brughmann, a big shaker and mover (And apparent co-creator of ) with the ICLEI.

If you don't believe that Agenda 21 exists, read on....

http://sovereignty.net/p/sd/How%20ICLEI%20was%20created.pdf (Source of the interview quoted below)

http://jebbrugmann.com/ (Mr. Brughmann's site)

All italics and bolding are mine. I also inserted a few remarks:

"You may remember cities declaring themselves as sanctuaries for refugees
from El Salvador and Guatemala, (Remember how the Leftists got a free ride in the late 80's - early 90's  by the media despite their atrocities?) esting from South Africa, establishing sister-city relations with the Soviet Union and this movement built and demonstrated the capacity of local governments to have an impact in international affairs so when the Cold War came to an end, we, in the movement decided that we had to identify the next phase of activities for local government involvement and it was clear at that time that we should focus on the global environment."

Commenting on being contacted by the UN and being offered a part in the new movement after his work was noticed-

"We were surprised, because we were aware that we were having an impact but we never
thought of a direct relationship between local government and the UN which is an
organization of countries. I got involved with local government in the early 1980s as part
of this broader peace and human rights movement. I was actually the Director of the City
of Cambridge, Massachusetts Peace Commission, (Just what is/was that?) a very unusual city agency. It was through that Commission that we were able to build this international network. But now the ICLEI is a worldwide organization. We have 250 city members from about 60 countries. They represent about 150 million people. What we have discovered is that through the concrete practical actions of the cities at the local level, we can have a real measurable impact on global environmental trends.


What we have found since Rio, the Earth Summit, is that so many of the agenda items in Agenda21 actually cannot ever be implemented without local governments and communities taking action. So that is what we are about today making sure this agreement among nations actually will get implemented after all the rhetoric is spent.

We get engaged in the design of that policy. As the
United Nations is right now negotiating an international treaty of dealing with the climatechange problem, the cities are at the table. In the U.S., 45 cities have joined an international "Cities for Climate Protection Campaign." Their commitment as participants in that campaign is to develop a local action plan to reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions. The U.S. EPA is giving full support to this activity financially. In fact, the cities are reporting to the EPA on their emissions reduction so the U.S. government can
go to the international arena and claim that the U.S. is complying with its treaty
commitments. So we are now at the starting point of engaging in a process with the
United Nations and governments in actually designing the policies that we can implement
locally in order to achieve global environmental accords. We will be doing the same with climate, Agenda 21, and we have endorsed a major international campaign called "Local Agenda 21" whereby now more than 2000 cities in more than 60 countries around the world are developing Agenda 21s for their cities with concrete targets, with concrete budgets on how they are going to implement these things and this is a movement that is now beginning in the U.S. Out of the 4000 or so cities and towns in the United States,
there are now only 19 formally in this Local Agenda 21 activities.

Environmentalists have always thought that saving the planet is about creating new parks...Most people don’t get to go to these parks....The city, because of its concentration, allows us to economically invest in the infrastructure we need in order to protect the environment as well as social services. It is by creating high density that we can finance public transportation systems (Removing our ability to move ourselves from place to place), recycling systems, all of these things so we want to reap the opportunity of the city to protect the environment.

We got involved during the process of the negotiation of
Agenda 21s sustainable development action plan. Our job since the Summit has been to make sure that local development is aware of its responsibilities in implementing that plan and that it has the resources and the support to do it. What does it mean? Local governments need to create a mechanism in which
they work with the business community, the non-profit organizations, the civic sector to
develop strategies to implement the different chapters of Agenda 21 -- dealing with issues like protection of the atmosphere, water resources, biological diversity, changingconsumption patterns, sustainable agriculture all of these areas mentioned in Agenda 21.

So what do we have to work with at the local level? First we have local law and regulation. Municipalities manage the infrastructure or invest in the infrastructure which is needed to deal with pollution control. Municipalities often times have a great influence over the public educational system amid spend a lot of money


We’re trying to overcome this by taking a partnership strategy to implementation in many cities, particularly those that are doing this local Agenda 21 process in the U.S. What they do is create multi-sectoral councils, or organizations, where local government representatives, business, the church community, the union community, the non-profit community meet together, flesh out a common strategy in areas where they can agree with one another, and make joint agreements to implement that strategy

And, this year were [sic] launching a new program. It’s called Cities 21. We will be inviting our members from around the world to measure the change in their performance in key areas: energy,waste management, water resources management, from 1990 to 2000. But economic growth is accelerating tremendously. Since1992, 450 million new people have been born on this planet. So, as we speak, 10,000 new people will come into this planet. Population growth, economic growth, are accelerating to the point where the earth is noticing and were stressing the limits of the balance in our eco-system.

It wasn’t until the Cold War came to an end, that the 1987 World Commission on Environment andDevelopment put forward a third doctrine called Sustainable Development which is about balancing social equity, the long-time socialist concern; economic vitality, the capitalist concern; amid [sic?]the new concern that neither paid any attention to - environmental sustainability. We have a new concept for how to develop; now were just beginning to learn how to put it into practice."

Referring to the Soviet Union and its treatment of the environment.(below) Those who recall the Leftist/neo-pagan kid's propaganda show Captain Planet and the Planeteers may remember how the Planeteer girl from the Soviet Union was a model for sound environmental practices and the US Planeteer boy always needed to be reminded of things like his responsibility to limit the amount of children he should have as an adult. This was of course sickening as, even not counting Chernobyl, the Soviet Union's environmental record was far worse (And I am being generous) than that of the US:

http://countrystudies.us/russia/25.htm

"They had strong environmental laws, but because there is no distinction between business and government, those laws were never
implemented. "


People who desire to maintain our national sovereignty, property, rights inherent to Western Societies, and the choice of where we live need to become involved at their local level first. Find out if your local government(s) are involved with the ICLEI. If they are, research as much of Agenda 21, sustainable development, etc, as you can. Talk about these with your friends and associates and let your local politicians know that you do not approve of the direction in which they are taking us. Let them know that we will not simply acquiesce to their Agenda.(Pun intended)
More links will be at the bottom.

* On "Governance"

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/proposed-un-environmental-constitution-for-the-world-would-establish-an-incredibly-repressive-system-of-global-governance

"In documents such as these, drafters have learned to never use the term "global government" because it sets off alarm bells for people. So they often use the more politically-correct term of "governance". On page 36, we are told that proper governance includes the creation of governing institutions on various levels "from the local to the global"....

"Governance is the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented). It also can be defined as the rational organization of society in order to achieve the objectives emerging from its common concerns emerging from material, economic, historical and cultural foundations and needs. Governance includes the creation and the functioning of institutions and of norms at various levels from the local to the global."

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

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

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

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

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/03/marxists-hijack-democracy-pretend-that.html

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

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/03/cloward-piven-founder-gleefully.html

Agenda 21 - More Details and Original Sources

http://www.stopagenda21inms.com/index.php?/What-is-Agenda-21/what-is-agenda-21.html

My last three posts on UN Agenda 21 and its likely future effects on the US have been mostly confined to brief explanations of the concept and how such an agenda stands in direct contrast to the view and crucial importance of land ownership in Western Culture, especially in regards to our nation.

On this post I will attempt to gather more in the way of quotes from those who advance such ideas.

http://www.stopagenda21inms.com/images/stories/documents2/A21_Presentation1.pdf

From the slideshow - link is above:

Note that all italics and bolding/underlining are added.

"What Is Sustainable Development?
The most common definition of Sustainable Development given by its
proponents is a statement found in the Bruntland Report, Our Common
Future, released during the 1987 United Nations World Commission on
Environment and Development:
“Development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs.”

"At times, the political agenda embodied in Sustainable Development is
implemented under other names for purposes of political expediency.

J. GaryLawrence, a planner for the city of Seattle, and advisor to the President’s
Council on Sustainable Development, said in 1998, that, “Participating in a
UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many ... who
would actively work to defeat any elected official ... undertaking Local
Agenda 21. So we will call our process something else, such as
“comprehensive planning,” “growth management,” or “smart growth.”

Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chair of the International Council on Local
Environmental Initiatives, and Clerk of the Circuit and County Court in
Miami-Dade County, Florida, has said that “individual rights will have to
take a back seat to the collective” in the process of implementing Sustainable
Development.

Maurice Strong, Secretary General, U.N. Conference on
Environment and Development, in 1992 said -
“...current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent
middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels,
appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban
housing are not sustainable.”

According to Agenda 21’s preamble, “The developmental and
environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new
and additional financial resources to developing countries.” Language
throughout Agenda 21 erroneously assumes that life is a zero-sum game
meaning that the wealth of the world was made at the expense of the poor,
making them even poorer. This critique of economic ills denies the ingenuity
of private action, individual determination, and free market innovation, and
leads inevitably to the conclusion that if the conditions of the poor are to be
improved, wealth must be taken from the rich. Sustainable Development
embodies this unjust redistribution of wealth both in theory and in
implementation, effectively lowering the standard of living in America to that
of the rest of the world. Agenda 21 in The Draft Covenant on Environment
and Development states in Article 8: “…equity will be achieved through
implementation of the international economic order ... and through transfers
of resources to developing countries....”


"Sustainable Development is actually restructuring the economy,
molding it not on private enterprise, but on public-private partnerships.
Public-private partnerships bring businesses desiring the protection offered by government’s legalized force together with government agents that want the power that comes with economic control. The power of economics, and the
force of government, must serve as a check and balance on each other;
combining the two will ultimately result in tyranny. Free enterprise is lost
amid regulations, subsidies, incentives, tax-breaks, and insider privilege, and
with it goes the free market system. The Sustainable Development
“partnerships” involve some corporations – domestic and multinational –
some tax-exempt family foundations, select individuals, and progressive
politicians and their administrations. Of these participants, only elected
politicians are accountable to the public for their actions."


"Al Gore says that Sustainable
Development will bring about “a wrenching transformation” of American
society. "

“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"
-From the book The First Global Revolution, by Alexander King of The
Club of Rome - premier environmental think tank, consultants to the United
Nations

The following quotes of many of those involved with Agenda 21 can be found at the links below.

Note that there are two distinct angles from which the supporters approach; one Marxist/Socialist-redistributionist and one radical environmentalist. Both have come together in the movement. Both feel that the institution of one-world (Or maybe five or six regional) government(s) will allow their plans to come to fruition. They are supremely confident that exerting massive degrees of control over the world's population and the manner in which the members of that body  live is the only thing that will provide them with the satisfaction they so desperately desire. 

I thought that, instead of treating each quote individually, the best manner to approach this post would be to provide a general list of the ideas advanced by our Leftist friends and to allow the reader to find these as the scroll though and read the quotes themselves. While reading, keep in mind the two ways of thought involved:

1. Strong Marxist/Socialist-redistribution mindset. 

The developed world has too much wealth. That wealth could only have been obtained by depriving others of their fair chance. (Zero-sum) No allowance is made for factors such as time periods involved during times of rapid acquisitions or the inherent qualities of any cultures that may have made these possible. Those that have too much will be required to have their wings clipped. The financial resources of the West must be pooled and divided among the nations of the world. Of course it will not matter if people of certain cultures will begin to take what little they have been allotted and make it prosper and build solid communities. Like the Jews of the Middle Ages, those communities can simply be sacked again once they have grown too big for their britches.

2. Radical Environmentalist desires.

The world is being destroyed by "civilization". This phenomena should never have occurred in the first place and needs to be remedied. You will note that a number of the quotes not only allude to but clearly indicate that government control of population growth (And forced reductions thereof) is not only OK but is absolutely necessary. The common theme is to treat people as a species - and nothing else. The species Homo Sapiens Sapiens (As opposed to Homo Sapiens Neandertalis) is a pox or a cancer on the planet that needs to be either drastically culled as a species or removed completely from the picture. The only way it should be allowed to continue in existence is to restrict its right to procreate and to assign approved locations in which to live.


The people of the West  will need to give up their ways of life such as:
A. Abundant  and inexpensive electricity (And all of the things that go with that).
B. Foods such as meat (No joke-this is in the quotes and has been pushed for over 20 years) that sustain us and have long ensured our ability to maintain physical strength and endurance. ( I wrote in an earlier post about the advantages of a high-protein diet vice a grain-base one)
C. Houses that fit not only our tastes but the desire for individual freedom that is part of Western Culture.
D. Ties to the land (especially that of the free farmer, a common theme of Western Culture).
E. Insistence on the sovereignty of individual nations and their people.

F. Using more than 20 gallons of water a day per person. Of course this concept does not distinguish between people who live in, say, Arizona or Las Vegas, which have few local water resources. Nor does it apply to exercising caution with abundant but limited resources such as the Ogallala aquifier of the Midwest.  No, this means everyone, even if you have a huge pond or a very high water table in/on your own property. Not to mention that our water that we use today is the same water that the dinosaurs drank. H2O has a very strong molecular bond which does not break up when heated, frozen, or used for showering. Just like it always has, it finds a place to go by finding its own level and evaporates to later come back as rain. Everyone gets their daily allowance and will faces fines for exceeding that.
G. Not mentioned, but forget about having any ability to defend your family and household. The UN Small Arms Treaty is working on eliminating that too.

For a very long time, we all blew these people and their agendas off. They were kooks, they were the fringe. The Left would finally give up Marxist thought once they saw the Soviet Union collapse. The environmentalists would either become satisfied after we enacted more than reasonably thorough laws and regulations for pollution and preservation of open space, or just retire to their own communes.

For the same period, we blew off those who tried in vain to make us aware. They were conspiracy theorists. John Birchers were also kooks. Senator McCarthy's work was a dark episode for our nation. The UN would never replace our national sovereignty. Marxism would never take root here.


We were wrong, and I extend my apologies to the latter.

Sources are below:

http://green-agenda.com/index.html

http://www.stopagenda21inms.com/images/stories/documents2/The_Global_Vision_for_a_Sustainable_Future1.pdf


"Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both
governments and individuals and an unprecedented
redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
of every human action be integrated into individual and
collective decision-making at every level."
- UN Agenda 21

"The current course of development is thus clearly unsustainable.
Current problems cannot be solved by piecemeal measures.
More of the same is not enough. Radical change from the
current trajectory is not an option, but an absolute necessity.
Fundamental economic, social and cultural changes that
address the root causes of poverty and environmental
degradation are required and they are required now."
– from the Earth Charter website

We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily.
Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations,
rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of
appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that
sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation
of society will not be necessary."
- Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

"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

"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

“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

“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
- Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University

"I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."
- Al Gore,
Climate Change activist

"It doesn't matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true."
- Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."
- emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

"The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and
spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest
opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level."
- Al Gore,
Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech

"We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis..."
- David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member

"In Nature organic growth proceeds according
to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a ‘master plan’ is
missing from the process of growth and development of
the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for
sustainable growth and world development based on global
allocation of all resources and a new global economic system.
Ten or twenty years form today it will probably be too late."
- Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable,
indeed a sacred principle of international relations.
It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to
the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation."- UN Commission on Global Governance report

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the
affluent middle class - involving high meat intake,
use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning,
and suburban housing - are not sustainable."
- Maurice Strong,
Rio Earth Summit

"The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society,
which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope."
- David Brower,
founder of Friends of the Earth

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?"
- Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme

A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the
United States. De-development means bringing our
economic system into line with the realities of
ecology and the world resource situation."
- Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another
United States. We can't let other countries have the same
number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US.
We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are."
- Michael Oppenheimer,
Environmental Defense Fund

Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty,
reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control."
- Professor Maurice King

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

"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place
for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and
plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams,
free shackled rivers and return to wilderness
millions of acres of presently settled land."
- David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to
about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure
and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species,
returning throughout the world."
-Dave Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!

"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

"Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a
pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor."
- Sir James Lovelock,
Healing Gaia 

"A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells;
the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people.
We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to
the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many
apparently brutal and heartless decisions.''
- Prof Paul Ehrlich,
The Population Bomb

"A total population of 250-300 million people,
a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
- Ted Turner,
founder of CNN and major UN donor

"I don't claim to have any special interest in natural history,
but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in
the number of game animals and the need to adjust
the cull to the size of the surplus population."
- Prince Philip,
preface of Down to Earth

"I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong.
It played an important part in balancing ecosystems."
- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

"... the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence
more than 500 million but less than one billion."
- Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind

"The extinction of the human species may not
only be inevitable but a good thing."
- Christopher Manes, Earth First!

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

"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against
society, unless the parents hold a government license.
All potential parents should be required to use
contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing
antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."
- David Brower,
first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

"The spiritual sense of our place in nature...
can be traced to the origins of human civilization....
The last vestige of organized goddess worship
was eliminated by Christianity."
- Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

"Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed,
we must destroy the Judeo-Christian Religious tradition."
- Peter Singer, founder of Animal Rights