Edited: November 18, 2022
Chapter 1, Paragraph 2 (1.2) states that “this global partnership for sustainable development” (1.1), i.e., Agenda 21, builds on the
premises of General Assembly resolution 44/228 of 22 December 1989, when the nations of the world called for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, and on the acceptance of the need to take a balanced and integrated approach to environment and development questions.
Integration: 66 instances (in this document)
Integrated: 196 instances
For the 21st Century
Chapter 1, Paragraph 3 (1.3) indicates that the “21” in Agenda 21 is referring to the entire 21st century when it states (in 1992) that
Agenda 21 addresses the pressing problems of today and also aims at preparing the world for the challenges of the next century
The text contains a wide spread of 21st century dates with respect to targets and projections.
For example, 21.18.b:
By the year 2000, in all industrialized countries, and by the year 2010, in all developing countries, have a national programme, including, to the extent possible, targets for efficient waste reuse and recycling.
Here we have mentioned the waste recycling policies we have become more familiar with. Corporations haven’t reduced their packaging, but the general population has been turned into recycling labourers. I think one motivation for this is financial (to “save” cities and corporations money as if labour is scarce when it’s not) and another motivation is psychological–to get us to focus on how “wasteful” we supposedly are–to create a type of austerity religion.
I’m not dissing the value of reuse and recycling–by someone who is being paid to do it or wants to do it. I just don’t think it’s necessary for homeowners to be trained in what amounts to collective potty training on a global scale–as if there aren’t higher priorities for our attention!
I think it is an exercise in perceiving our “degradation” to a lower status for humans as waste-producers (as if humans and animals are not going to produce waste). It’s also a preparation for a society where we have less and less–where our standard of living declines severely. It’s also just an earlier phase to what we have experienced since 2020 with the more severe slave-training protocols.
The year 2020 is referred to twice.
2025 is referred to nine times. e.g. 18.56:
Early in the next century, more than half of the world’s population will be living in urban areas. By the year 2025, that proportion will have risen to 60 per cent, comprising some 5 billion people.
Note the reference to urbanization–expecting more and more people to live in cities.
Note the obsession over population.
Note that the focus on “development,” if you understand the overall gist of Agenda 21, really signals a life-threatening, dangerous attempt to control and restrict development. A directly related topic is the Club of Rome think-tank and its prescriptions for “limits to growth.”
There are 1457 instances of the word development.
The year 2050 is mentioned in 14.73:
World food demand projections indicate an increase of 50 per cent by the year 2000 which will more than double again by 2050.
The focus is on crises in order to generate fear–to get our attention–to downgrade the capacity of human beings globally who have known how to produce food for thousands of years–to train us to think we need an all-powerful god-like institution to “train” and direct us–and even restrict us reproductively.
I made the same types of comments in my posts on Brave New World Revisited by Aldous Huxley, written back in the 1950s. It was the same agenda. His brother and his elite friends began the same scarcity stunt with wildlife back then also with the World Wildlife Fund, which became actively involved in the creation of environmental legislation over the years and which is now actively involved in removing people from their traditional lands worldwide. The propaganda goal is to get us to believe in crisis-level scarcity of resources. It’s all about our beliefs–what you and I believe or don’t believe. Part of Huxley’s novel Crome Yellow refers to the zealous “madmen” going out to generate new beliefs to replace the old beliefs. These topics of fear–concerning food, the climate, water or wildlife–become sensitive and sacred because they are reinforced over and over–to replace other topics that used to be sacred–and our lives are turned upside down through words and slogans and media technology. Propaganda is what dominates our supposed reality–creating a virtual reality–and it is the first thing we need to wake up to. Our sense of reality should be based on having a wide range of uncensored inputs–including our families–and trusting our own senses, reason, intuition and spirit–and on sharpening those abilities–on gaining knowledge, understanding and wisdom–by sifting, judging and rejecting what doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, what falls apart through contradiction.
A third occurrence of the phrase “next century” is in 35.10:
In order to promote sustainable development, more extensive knowledge is required of the Earth’s carrying capacity, including the processes that could either impair or enhance its ability to support life. The global environment is changing more rapidly than at any time in recent centuries; as a result, surprises may be expected, and the next century could see significant environmental changes. At the same time, the human consumption of energy, water and non-renewable resources is increasing, on both a total and a per capita basis, and shortages may ensue in many parts of the world even if environmental conditions were to remain unchanged. …
Note how this expresses my point about how Agenda 21 is about generating the fear of resource shortages. In addition to dissing our abilities to provide ourselves with resources, the goal is to make us think of ourselves as a pest, as a parasite–to degrade our perception of our status as human beings–to make us belief there are too many people. Media propaganda, whether “news” or entertainment has effectively induced these beliefs in many.
As far as this trumped up concept of “carrying capacity,” which “God” is going to determine that?! How many humans are too much?! What about other creatures? How many bears are too much? Are there “too many” deer or “too many” birds? What about “too much” grass? Too many “trees”? Is that even possible? Is “carrying capacity” a “problem” a human institution is qualified to solve? This is the religion of false scarcity. It’s not about the truth. It’s about conditioning and manipulation–to encourage large numbers of us to give up and die off. This is how many children are trained now–not to value human life–their own or others. It is foolish to blindly place our trust in the “science” (or $cience as we know it post-COVID) of those who seek more power.
Speaking of that, there is a reference to Agenda 21 “Science” and the phrase “21st Century” in 35.4:
The programme areas, which are in harmony with the conclusions and recommendations of the International Conference on an Agenda of Science for Environment and Development into the 21st Century (ASCEND 21) are:
a. Strengthening the scientific basis for sustainable management;
b. Enhancing scientific understanding;
c. Improving long-term scientific assessment;
d. Building up scientific capacity and capability.
Governments, NGOs, Businesses, Public and Private
1.3 also claims that Agenda 21 received general support from governments:
It reflects a global consensus and political commitment at the highest level on development and environment cooperation.
It’s important to note that Agenda 21 requires the cooperation of governments in creating the necessary legislation:
Its successful implementation is first and foremost the responsibility of Governments. National strategies, plans, policies and processes are crucial in achieving this.
legislation: 42 instances
laws: 21 instances
regulations: 43 instances
government: 964 instances
governments: 614 instances
national: 1846 instances
provincial: 23 instances (the word “state” is used often in the same context also)
local: 410 instances
municipal: 32 instances
municipalities: 4 instances
cities: 29 instances
city: 15 instances
In 1.3, we also have a reference to other types of organizations besides governments:
International cooperation should support and supplement such national efforts. In this context, the United Nations system has a key role to play. Other international, regional and subregional organizations are also called upon to contribute to this effort. The broadest public participation and the active involvement of the non-governmental organizations and other groups should also be encouraged.
Notice the word “groups,” which is not a traditionally democratic concept if democracy means one person–one vote.
Neither is the concept of “non-governmental organizations” democratic.
non-governmental organizations: 166 instances of this phrase
Here is another example reference to the different types of organizations involved, 11.3:
Governments at the appropriate level, with the support of regional, subregional and international organizations, should, where necessary, enhance institutional capability to promote the multiple roles and functions of all types of forests and vegetation inclusive of other related lands and forest-based resources in supporting sustainable development and environmental conservation in all sectors. …
1.4 refers to the need to generate financial resources in order to get “developing” countries to do what they want–which is basically to STOP developing (or limit development)! Presumably this includes taxation and national governments loaning out money as a major component:
The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development. Financial resources are also required for strengthening the capacity of international institutions for the implementation of Agenda 21.
As it says, these international institutions-which are not democratic–need the money to empower themselves and implement their agenda, whatever it is.
tax: 5 instances
taxes: 2 instances
taxation: 2 instances
revenue generation: 1 instance
financing: 114 instances
loans: 4 instances
credit: 19 instances
World Bank: 19 instances
IMF: 1 instance
borrowers: 1 instance
debt: 36 instances
indebted: 3 instances
aid: 9 instances