Agenda 21: Central planning on steroids

[Mad Scientist]

Like 'Not a Lord' Monkton, and an undegreed ex-TV weatherman. Which people you choose to think are the best informed is a reflection on your intellect and logical abilities.

I don't have Cable TV, who are those people? Maybe you could you start threads about them and explain why you disagree with them?

For those of you who think that Agenda 21 doesn't exist and can't be implemented locally:
Agenda 21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The implementation of Agenda 21 was intended to involve action at international, national, regional and local levels. Some national and state governments have legislated or advised that local authorities take steps to implement the plan locally, as recommended in Chapter 28 of the document. These programs are often known as 'Local Agenda 21' or 'LA21'

You see? Some want to implement it locally so it only makes sense to fight it locally as well.

But hey, Agenda 21 doesn't exist right?

Well, if you don't know who these people are, then you haven't done enough research to even begin to comment on global warming.

Smug, self righteous, Global Warming dupe thinks I don't do research or even know who these people are. Unlike YOU Old Rock, I'm capable of critical thinking.

Maurice Strong and George Soros. Those names sound familiar? Read it and weep, and maybe even learn:
The new world devised by Maurice Strong and George Soros

But see, I point this stuff out, I show that it exists but see I'm the bad guy for doing so. I'm the conspiracy theorist for pointing out what is already there.

 

[Liability]

There's something sinister about "sustainable growth"?

Nope. Seeking sustainable growth is a very common-sense notion.

How one plans to "achieve" it, though, could be sinister.

 

[Mad Scientist]

There's something sinister about "sustainable growth"?

Nope. Seeking sustainable growth is a very common-sense notion. How one plans to "achieve" it, though, could be sinister.

"Sustainable Growth" means "Lowered Standard of Living and High Global Taxes for Everyone". Except for the Elite who will control it all via the UN and IMF and such.

It's in their documents that they publish.

Go read "Tragedy and Hope" if you dare.

 

[Liability]

There's something sinister about "sustainable growth"?

Nope. Seeking sustainable growth is a very common-sense notion. How one plans to "achieve" it, though, could be sinister.

"Sustainable Growth" means "Lowered Standard of Living and High Global Taxes for Everyone". Except for the Elite who will control it all via the UN and IMF and such.

It's in their documents that they publish.

Go read "Tragedy and Hope" if you dare.

Sustainable growth means one thing to a bunch of loons. It means something else (or a variety of different things) to more sane people.

To the extent the Agenda 21 advocates actually define "Sustainable Growth" as, "Lowered Standard of Living and High Global Taxes for Everyone," then THEIR daffynition should indeed be trumpeted from the roof tops. It's a design for the defeat of their own plans.

If you have an available link to the documents they publish whereby they offer THAT ridiculous definition (admission), that would be helpful. I have read some of the Agenda 21 materials and I don't recall seeing that daffynition. I'm not saying they haven't offered that definition. I'm just not recalling it.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Agenda 21 is pretty sinister, indeed. But it's couched in those save-the-world, warm-n-fuzzy, feel-good, I'm superior because my intentions are pure, language that "progressives" absolutely piss themselves over. they pay no attention to who these noble goals are to be achieved and even less to the unintended consequences.

 

[Liability]

Still looking for the Agenda 21 definitions in their own publications. But, in the interim, let's spend a moment exploring their views on some things.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
The GDP measures the amount of money
being spent in a country. The more money
being spent, the higher the GDP and the
better the overall economic well-being is
assumed to be.
It is regardless of the effect of any activity
on the community’s social and
environmental health. GDP can go up
even when overall community health goes
down.
For example, when there is a ten-car
pileup on the highway, the GDP goes up
because of the money spent on medical,
money spent on medical fees and repair
costs. On the other hand, if ten people
decide not to buy cars and instead walk
to work, their health and wealth may
increase but the GDP goes down.

-- http://www.sayen.org/Volume-I.pdf

Does anybody else see any problem in that kind of analysis?

 

[Mad Scientist]

Still looking for the Agenda 21 definitions in their own publications.

Hope you're not expecting CNN or Fox to report this:
American Policy Center » Agenda 21 In One Easy Lesson
It's called "sustainable growth" BUT...:

“The realities of life on our planet dictate that continued economic development as we know it cannot be sustained…Sustainable development, therefore is a program of action for local and global economic reform – a program that has yet to be fully defined.” The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996. “No one fully understands how or even, if, sustainable development can be achieved; however, there is growing consensus that it must be accomplished at the local level if it is ever to be achieved on a global basis.”

...they don't know what it is!

They don't like Property Rights either:

“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 principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.” “Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological and aesthetic consequences…The key to overcoming it is through public policy…” From the report from the 1976 UN’s Habitat I Conference.

They don't like they way we currently live either:

“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.” Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.

If it's Sustainable Growth they're after, then where's the Growth?

There is none.

 

[Liability]

Still looking for the Agenda 21 definitions in their own publications.

Hope you're not expecting CNN or Fox to report this:
American Policy Center » Agenda 21 In One Easy Lesson
It's called "sustainable growth" BUT...:

“The realities of life on our planet dictate that continued economic development as we know it cannot be sustained…Sustainable development, therefore is a program of action for local and global economic reform – a program that has yet to be fully defined.” The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996. “No one fully understands how or even, if, sustainable development can be achieved; however, there is growing consensus that it must be accomplished at the local level if it is ever to be achieved on a global basis.”

...they don't know what it is!

They don't like Property Rights either:

“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 principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.” “Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological and aesthetic consequences…The key to overcoming it is through public policy…” From the report from the 1976 UN’s Habitat I Conference.

They don't like they way we currently live either:

“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.” Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.

If it's Sustainable Growth they're after, then where's the Growth?

There is none.

I don't expect much of anything from CNN.

What I was seeking was one of the Agenda 21 published documents you referenced earlier that spelled out -- as you said -- that

"Sustainable Growth" means "Lowered Standard of Living and High Global Taxes for Everyone" * * * *

It's in their documents that they publish.

I have read a fair amount of the U.N. documents on the topic, skimmed others and glanced at a variety of U.N. spin-off group publications, too. I have not seen them say that.

I DO agree it is a fair inference from the crap they do spew.

And I further agree that WE are obliged to keep a fucking wary eye on Federal, State and local governments to constrain any of their efforts to implement Agenda 21 anti-capitalist edicts.

But if you have seen a document where they actually acknowledge their plot to obtain an outcome of "Lowered Standard of Living and High Global Taxes for Everyone," that would be a real keeper. I'd love to see it.

 

[konradv]

There's something sinister about "sustainable growth"?

Nope. Seeking sustainable growth is a very common-sense notion.

How one plans to "achieve" it, though, could be sinister.

Could be? The tenor of the thread is that IT IS! Kind of prejudging things it would seem.

 

[Mad Scientist]

"Reduce our living standards and transfer our wealth to poorer nations". You had a say in this right? You got to vote on this right?

No. Clinton signed it into law via Executive Order #12852 in 1993:
William J. Clinton: Executive Order 12852 - Presidents Council on Sustainable Development

Then Obama created the Council of Governors to implement Agenda 21 via Executive Order #13528 in 2010:
Executive Order 13528-- Establishing Council of Governors | The White House

[youtube]fFIcZkEzc8I#![/youtube]

How many FEMA Regions are there? 10
How many in the Council of Governors? 10

It's NOT a coincidence.

The US CANNOT be defeated Militarily but America CAN be defeated internally (via the 5th column) using Agenda 21.

 

[Liability]

There's something sinister about "sustainable growth"?

Nope. Seeking sustainable growth is a very common-sense notion.

How one plans to "achieve" it, though, could be sinister.

Could be? The tenor of the thread is that IT IS! Kind of prejudging things it would seem.

No. Not exactly.

The tenor of this thread is that the way many of the proponents of Agenda 21 SEEK their alleged goal of "sustainable growth" IS sinister.

It is seen (with good reason) to be (at least in many instances) a pretty thinly disguised/veiled effort to create "one world government," eradicate national sovereignty (which is treated as a barrier to the ultimate goal), and to cobble together a world-wide socialist paradise complete with redistribution of wealth.

It is not "pre-judging" to read THEIR own articles and scholarly commentaries and take what they say as revealing what they mean.

If you wrap such a long term goal in pretty foil and CALL it "sustainable growth," you yield "questions" like the one you asked. "There's something sinister about sustainable growth?" And in and of itself, the ANSWER to THAT "question" is still "no."

BUT, the manner in which the proponents seek to obtain what they CALL "sustainable growth" -- being a part and parcel of a very different agenda -- can easily be described as wrong.

I like the idea of ACTUAL sustainable growth. I oppose what THEY have in mind.

 

[Mad Scientist]

They don't even want you to call it Agenda 21. No, call it "smart growth" instead and fool more people:
http://www.unedforum.org/publications/millennium/mill paper2.pdf

Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely
bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society
such as the National Rifle Association, citizen militias and some members of
Congress. This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a
UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would
be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So, we call our processes something else, such as "comprehensive planning", "growth management" or "smart growth".

The Constitution guarantees our rights, the UN can't and won't.

Why do you suppose there's been a rash of "anti-Constitution stories" in the media the last few years? It's because the Constitution blocks their efforts to implement Agenda 21 so they have to get us to voluntarily get rid of it.

The Constitution is our "firewall" against Oppression and Tyranny.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I like the idea of ACTUAL sustainable growth. I oppose what THEY have in mind.

Capitalism and Property Rights ARE sustainable.

Imagine this. Someone comes to your door and says:
"Hi! We'd like to replace your Constitution with UN and IMF regulations. Sign here please". You'd slam the door in their face right?

But if they say:
"Hi, we're worried about pollution, overpopulation and it's effects on our environment. Can I talk to you about sustainable growth?"

You'd invite him right in wouldn't you?

THAT'S the trick, that's the scam!

 

[skookerasbil]

I have always found one thing most fascinating about this whole debate.................

Watching the posts by the committed environmentalists, one would think that there are no such things as budgets or money........as if the world has this untapped treasure chest that we can just pop open if only all of the people of the country would concur........as easy as going down to the corner store and picking up a six pack!!


Most people think they are getting the shit taxed out of them. But not the k00ks.


Even more hysterical is the level of naive. These crack monkeys think this is about concerned people from the international community wanting to save the environment. That these people are out there navigating society is scary-ass. I rmeember as a kid thinking how wonderful it was that there was a UN. I was like 11 years old though!!!

 

[Liability]

I like the idea of ACTUAL sustainable growth. I oppose what THEY have in mind.

Capitalism and Property Rights ARE sustainable.

Imagine this. Someone comes to your door and says:
"Hi! We'd like to replace your Constitution with UN and IMF regulations. Sign here please". You'd slam the door in their face right?

But if they say:
"Hi, we're worried about pollution, overpopulation and it's effects on our environment. Can I talk to you about sustainable growth?"

You'd invite him right in wouldn't you?

THAT'S the trick, that's the scam!

I am quite content to let salespeople stand at my door and try to sell me whatever they are peddling. Nothing wrong with it.

If they are peddling bullshit, I send them scurrying. If I like what they are peddling, I might consider buying (or at least shopping around).

But aint nobody gonna get me to sign any contract that is conditioned on giving up the Constitution or our national sovereignty.

And, by the way, even a little bit of study about what the PROPONENTS of Agenda 21 have in mind reveals that they ARE against the notion of national sovereignty. I reject their utopian bullshit in that respect and in NUMEROUS other respect.

In his opening remarks at the ceremonies at the Earth Summit, Maurice Strong stated: “The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.”

--
Kathleen Marquardt -- Agenda 21, the end of Western Civilization

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There's something sinister about "sustainable growth"?

Yes. To the right that means the evil government is going to take away your car, your AC, and make you live in a commune.

 

[Liability]

There's something sinister about "sustainable growth"?

Yes. To the right that means the evil government is going to take away your car, your AC, and make you live in a commune.

Adam_Clayton proving that he can be both unoriginal and dishonest in one post.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Nope. Seeking sustainable growth is a very common-sense notion.

How one plans to "achieve" it, though, could be sinister.

Could be? The tenor of the thread is that IT IS! Kind of prejudging things it would seem.

No. Not exactly.

The tenor of this thread is that the way many of the proponents of Agenda 21 SEEK their alleged goal of "sustainable growth" IS sinister.

It is seen (with good reason) to be (at least in many instances) a pretty thinly disguised/veiled effort to create "one world government," eradicate national sovereignty (which is treated as a barrier to the ultimate goal), and to cobble together a world-wide socialist paradise complete with redistribution of wealth.

It is not "pre-judging" to read THEIR own articles and scholarly commentaries and take what they say as revealing what they mean.

If you wrap such a long term goal in pretty foil and CALL it "sustainable growth," you yield "questions" like the one you asked. "There's something sinister about sustainable growth?" And in and of itself, the ANSWER to THAT "question" is still "no."

BUT, the manner in which the proponents seek to obtain what they CALL "sustainable growth" -- being a part and parcel of a very different agenda -- can easily be described as wrong.

I like the idea of ACTUAL sustainable growth. I oppose what THEY have in mind.

Especially since their implied meaning of "sustainable growth" boils down to no growth at all and an elite ruling class (them and their selected beneficiaries) and the rest of mankind reduced to serfdom. They will be the arbiters deciding who lives or dies, what food, shelter, and goods will be distributed to selected groups or individuals.

 

[gallantwarrior]

What bothers me about the "save the environment by reducing human activities" crowd is their steadfast refusal to lead the way.