Analysis of United Nations Agenda 21 – Part 7
Edited: August 15, 2023
The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. Power is what all messiahs really seek: not the chance to serve.
—Minority Report: H.L. Mencken’s Notebooks (1956)
Document: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/Agenda21.pdf (Copy: http://www.canadianliberty.com/documents/Agenda21.pdf )
HUMAN SETTLEMENTS
Chapter 7 is “PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE HUMAN SETTLEMENT DEVELOPMENT”
For example, 7.5.b is “Improving human settlement management.”
The terminology, the word “management” for example, does make the whole thing sound like an agricultural project for domesticated animals.
7.5.e is “Promoting sustainable energy and transport systems in human settlements.”
The term “smart growth” is not in the Agenda 21 document, but that’s what this becomes. Smart Growth–called “Places to Grow“–was developed provincially in the Canadian province of Ontario by Liberal governments. Another example is California.
Amalgamation and Regionalization
Prior to such later Liberal government policies in Ontario (the Greenbelt Act being another one), the earlier Ontario Progressive Conservative government brought in “amalgamation” policies–combining smaller municipalities together, for example, Chatham-Kent and many others. People might have thought this was an original idea (1995-2002), but the following is under “Improving human settlement management” in 1992’s Agenda 21:
7.14. Some metropolitan areas extend over the boundaries of several political and/or administrative entities (counties and municipalities) even though they conform to a continuous urban system. In many cases this political heterogeneity hinders the implementation of comprehensive environmental management programmes.
My point is that Agenda 21-related or parallel climate treaty-related policies (Greenbelt laws also, shutting down coal plants under the Liberal Party) were not just implemented by one side of the political spectrum. Agenda 21 has been pushed forward by all major parties in one way or another, at least in Canada federally and provincially.
I would note that the creation of regional municipal governments in Ontario was happening in the 1960s and 70s (see, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Municipality_of_Durham), so this process of centralization of jurisdictions began before Agenda 21. I believe this process also weakens community identity–through blurring the boundaries of older municipalities–and thus weakens public, democratic input in decision-making.
Since it is also in Agenda 21, this is evidence of a consistent international corporate policy for a type of centralization that existed before Agenda 21.
On the other hand, Agenda 21 advocates for certain types of decentralization.
Word count:
Decentralization: 5 instances
With respect to water services, in any case, see 18.12.o.a.:
At the lowest appropriate level, delegation of water resources management, generally, to such a level, in accordance with national legislation, including decentralization of government services to local authorities, private enterprises and communities;
It is a tenuous connection to make perhaps with water management, because that’s local anyway in Ontario, but the Ontario Progressive Conservatives under Mike Harris introduced a “downloading” policy to shift responsibility for social assistance payments to municipalities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Harris
In order to further reduce provincial commitments, financial responsibility for provincial income assistance programs was transferred or “downloaded” to municipalities, increasing the burden on municipal tax bases
I can’t prove this policy relates to Agenda 21, but I’m just raising a question as to the origin of this particular decentralization policy (whether it’s good or bad is not the issue).
Related to that is the whole topic of 1980s privatization prior to Agenda 21. I’m not making a value judgment about privatization vs. nationalization. Regardless of the pros and cons, I’m saying these are very often directed policies for monopolization coming from the same elites–at different stages using convenient ideological justifications and political party banners.
Agenda 21 refers frequently to the partnership between public and private entities. The World Economic Forum, who formed an official alliance with the UN in 2019, declares itself “the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation.”
This more-than-hints at the basic governing reality of our world–the actual power structure and political system–as opposed to the what we are taught in school or how we believe things should be.
Green Belts
Green belts are a practice that began before Agenda 21 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_belt), but they are also mentioned in Agenda 21 and perhaps the evidence shows that they intensified afterwards:
12.18.b.:
Carry out accelerated afforestation and reforestation programmes, using drought- resistant, fast-growing species, in particular native ones, including legumes and other species, combined with community-based agroforestry schemes. In this regard, creation of large-scale reforestation and afforestation schemes, particularly through the establishment of green belts, should be considered, bearing in mind the multiple benefits of such measures;
Green belts are about shutting down constructive human activity where the technocracy doesn’t want it, but where people traditionally had a right to their activity. Regardless of the justification, it’s a power grab. It seems like they are planning for a world with a lot less people and one in which people are crammed into human settlement areas or cities. A planned world is very different from a free world.
It would be one thing if we had proper democratic representation doing the planning, but that’s not at all what we live under. I did a case study of how we are indirectly governed by private foundations here. I think it would take a great deal of effort by the general public to make a dent in this system. Not to say it’s impossible, but basic attitudes would have to change.
Since COVID began, I think the attitudes of many are changing, but I’m not sure we are headed towards constructive solutions, independent thinking and much-needed solidarity in recovering common values. I think there is a lot of fear, fatalism, following false leads and drowning in information.
When I say fear, it can range from end-of-the-world apocalypticism to fleeing the country. Not judging–maybe leaving for another country is a good thing case by case. Maybe I will do that someday. But who and what do we leave behind? is a question to consider. Do we give up on our own people and not see their positive qualities? Is the grass greener elsewhere? And how can we positively influence another country and culture more effectively than our own?
In a recent news report from August 9, 2023 about Greenbelt land, the Ontario auditor general says that developers received preferential treatment in accessing land released from the greenbelt! I believe this illustrates the long-term consequences of who will benefit from the nullification of private property rights and other traditional land rights. It’s all about grabbing up resources from the many–farmers for example–and handing them eventually to a few–longer term to a unified public-private entity.
These are long-term plans by a group of elites but we should have our own long-term plans in response. And I deliberately ignore the “left”-“right” distinctions. These political parties have their assigned roles and limits. A hundred years ago, socialism was a system supported by British banker Lord Milner (according to Carrol Quigley’s books) and many other powerful elites at the top of the British Empire. H. G. Wells wrote in praise of the efficiency of big business capitalist systems while advocating collectivism and socialism (also). We are not talking about a system that preserves free enterprise in the context of individual rights and freedoms. Fabian socialism was spread to the United States elites also. “Conservative” and “liberal” are completely unreliable concepts for the public to relate to. The United Nations and Agenda 21 illustrate this fact.
Urban Data Collection
Remember all those years we had the cameras going up – on streets and in buses, etc.? Did someone ask us? Supposedly there is a good excuse for invasion of privacy. We don’t even have to hear it. We fill in the blanks ourselves–the cameras are for our “security” or “safety.”
It would be a different sort of world if enough of those in power valued privacy and respected human dignity. I think that’s the society we should have.
What has been pushed on us–gradually and subtly–is a totalitarian world of surveillance and control and it’s sold with sham, insincere, empty promises of greater security.
There is no limit to it, it doesn’t come from the public (as usual) and it has been planned for a long time. As mentioned before, surveillance and monitoring is a huge part of Agenda 21.
Here is an example of a high-tech biometric identity card taking over in India: https://time.com/5409604/india-aadhaar-supreme-court/.
One of the activities under “Improving human settlement management” is
(b) Strengthening urban data systems:
7.17. During the period 1993-2000 all countries should undertake, with the active participation of the business sector as appropriate, pilot projects in selected cities for the collection, analysis and subsequent dissemination of urban data, including environmental impact analysis, at the local, state/provincial, national and international levels and the establishment of city data management capabilities. 5/ United Nations organizations, such as Habitat, UNEP and UNDP, could provide technical advice and model data management systems.
In this respect, I would note that Google Maps was launched in 2005 and Google Street View in 2007.
Urbanization
The following point in Agenda 21 is directed against “urban sprawl” (as with above-mentioned Smart Growth programs like “Places to Grow”) but promotes the creation of new cities. So UN Agenda 21 is encouraging urbanization, not just observing it:
(c) Encouraging intermediate city development:
7.18. In order to relieve pressure on large urban agglomerations of developing countries, policies and strategies should be implemented towards the development of intermediate cities that create employment opportunities for unemployed labour in the rural areas and support rural-based economic activities, although sound urban management is essential to ensure that urban sprawl does not expand resource degradation over an ever wider land area and increase pressures to convert open space and agricultural/buffer lands for development.
The following section also encourages the transition from a rural to urban lifestyle:
7.19. Therefore all countries should, as appropriate, conduct reviews of urbanization processes and policies in order to assess the environmental impacts of growth and apply urban planning and management approaches specifically suited to the needs, resource capabilities and characteristics of their growing intermediate-sized cities. As appropriate, they should also concentrate on activities aimed at facilitating the transition from rural to urban lifestyles and settlement patterns and at promoting the development of small-scale economic activities, particularly the production of food, to support local income generation and the production of intermediate goods and services for rural hinterlands.
I think also the emphasis on promoting “small-scale economic activities” is not necessarily a good thing, because it would be more likely to lead to an austerity society with a lack of resources, which I think is the intention. I think we need both–large scale and small scale, whatever is appropriate to human beings making their own decisions individually or locally. Instead, our standard of living is in real danger.
I think the essence of Agenda 21 efforts is about creating the impression of artificial scarcity in order to justify restrictions on human activity like hunting, farming, and building.
This parallels the concept of scaring people with various media-projected fears and crises–from climate change to terrorism–in order to grab power.
This follows a standard method for international corporations to create monopoly control through their lobbying of governments.
It is very ambitious and it takes a long time to monopolize control over forests and other land-based resources, but they have been working on it for a while.
If people were left to grow their own families and encouraged to spread out and build houses and farms where they wanted–on their own land they had full rights to–not taking from tribal lands or others’ private lands–then the world’s resources would go to the general population rather than to elite corporations. This is what elites don’t want and the opposite is happening all over the world.
If we truly had a democratic voice for each citizen, I think there would be more opportunity for reason and principles, and resources would most likely be fairly distributed–respecting individual property rights along with collective/community and tribal rights and freedoms.
Our lives would be completely different. Instead, we are headed towards a particular kind of world–openly portrayed in science fiction also–that is highly controlled with our lives highly restricted and lacking in access to resources.
Continued