The Three Legs of Agenda 21

Michael Erickson comments on the three correlating factions that underlie Agenda 21, a comprehensive blueprint of action to promote "sustainable development" on global, national, and local levels. Agenda 21 is the product of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, to which President George H.W. Bush signed on with the promise that the United States from henceforth would fashion her own environmental and infrastructure development policies in line with its directives. Every President since then has upheld his decision, thus allowing for Agenda 21 to be well on its way toward full implementation. In order to combat this "Goliath," the "Davids" answering the call must know their enemy well.

Before describing the three legs of support for Agenda 21, it is important to be aware of what Agenda 21 entails. As mentioned, it is a comprehensive blueprint of action to promote "sustainable development." It defines "sustainable development" as integrating "economic, social, and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of bio-diversity." This sounds innocuous enough, until we dig into the details. First, note that the phrase "sustainable development" was coined in 1987 and integrated into United Nations' documents at the time by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Vice President of the World Socialist Party. It has since become a code word within globalist and academic circles to mean essentially "socialism," or those public/private controls of the economic and political life of a nation that we might call "fascism." As those words are now out of vogue, for obvious reasons, the mantra is "sustainability," as in pursuing policies that allow for energy consumption, and population growth, to be "sustainable" with the higher need of "saving" our bio-diversity. This becomes even more clear when we see that "social equity" means "the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by both our society and the environment." In other words, "social equity" is forced wealth redistribution, in moralistic and ethical tones. This is to be achieved through Economic Prosperity (an Orwellian use of the word "prosperity," to be sure) Public/Private Partnerships, which is defined as "special dealings" between various national, state, and local governments and "chosen corporations." The "chosen corporations" then receive tax breaks, grants, and liberalized eminent domain powers ("eminent domain" being the right of government to "take" private property in return for "just compensation," if done for a "public use," which here will be very liberally defined and handed over in effect to the "chosen corporations"). In other words, Agenda 21 specifically calls for Public/Private Partnerships that are tantamount to government sanctioned and supported monopolies, which are set up to implement in local communities across our nation "sustainable development" projects.

In order to hide the real purposes of Agenda 21, these projects are pursued locally under innocuous sounding banners: Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, STAR Sustainable Communities, Green Jobs, Green Building Codes, Going Green, and even Historic Preservation and Conservation Easements. Agenda 21 "facilitators" in local communities - taking their direction from one of these Public/Private Partnerships - want to convince the locals that the "comprehensive community plan" for their area has arisen naturally from the bottom up - thus hiding the fact that these "local plans" in fact have been drafted already by a consortium of local governments and "chosen corporations" known as the Local Governments for Sustainability. The Local Governments for Sustainability and related groups (American Planning Council, Renaissance Group, US Mayors Conference, National League of Cities, etc) in turn work off of grants provided to them largely from international foundations and NGOs (meaning Non-Governmental Organizations, or voluntary, private associations having no formal basis in any particular government, no requirements of financial and membership disclosure, and no oversight by or representation from the people over whom they may exercise enormous, though shadowy, influence). These shadowy international foundations and NGOs in turn receive undisclosed grants handed to them outright by the United Nations, thus obscuring effectively the real funding source for those "comprehensive community plans" called for in Agenda 21. In essence, the entire picture is of an elaborate maze of deceit, meant to obscure the real intentions and, before most may learn otherwise, to ensnare the vast majority of people into a life of cramped, stack and pack housing, mandated public transportation use, serious restrictions on personal food, water, and energy use, and indoctrination of the youth into a socialistic and fascistic outlook on life generally.

This may sound like an overreach, but consider that Agenda 21 defines what we Americans know as the "single family residence" - which is to say, the middle class suburb with tract homes, soccer moms driving mini-vans, and consumption of energy restricted only by the wallets of the homeowners themselves - as most definitely "unsustainable." It defines our "fixation" with the automobile - and hence the mobile freedom that comes along with it - as a "danger" to the Earth, due to the fact that they emit carbon and require the use of long stretches of asphalt roads and concrete highways. It defines our American standard of energy use - even though, on the whole, we recycle exponentially more than we did only a few decades ago - as similarly "unsustainable." Essentially, Agenda 21 envisions local communities all across our nation adopting "comprehensive community plans" that have as their real, though unstated, purpose the elimination of the very middle class quality of life, that has been the bedrock of our national independence and personal freedoms. In place of the suburb, it wants Soviet-style high density housing; changes in zoning laws that increasingly make it impossible to maintain single family residences (let alone build new ones); mandated use of public transportation (thus positioning the high density housing near railroad or bus depots and excluding from those "human residential zones" most roadways and parking installations); and severe limitations on private food, water, and energy consumption, in return for enormously high taxes that will fund "cradle to grave" care by the nanny government. The goal is to crush the back of the American middle class once and for all, thus providing real power and wealth in the hands of an elitist few. These shadowy few - mostly anonymous technocrats working off of the grants fed to them by the NGOs and, in turn, by the socialist cadres who run the United Nations - will have no identifiable allegiance to our nation and certainly no legal or practical oversight by the once proud American families who will have been reduced by their elaborate policies into a state of Old World penury.

Heather Gass, a Tea Party activist who has taken up her musket against the local implementation of Agenda 21, offers a captivating description of what Agenda 21 has in store for the American people, if it is not defeated. She writes: "Wake Up, but if you choose to remain asleep on this issue, then one day you will wake up in subsidized government housing, eating government subsidized food, your kids will be whisked off by government buses to "indoctrination training centers" while you are working at your government assigned job on the bottom floor of your urban transit center village, because you have no car and who knows where your aging parents will be but by then it will be too late!" Her intensity is understandable, as in fact we are seeing already the increased regimentation of our lives, the insipid (and often totally unnecessary) restrictions on our land use, and the "collective" thinking that disallows any serious debate on the "rationales" offered in support of intrusive public/private governance - and yet, until such restrictions hit in them in the face, the bulk of Americans remain willfully naive. As an example, we are suffering severe restrictions on the use of our fireplaces, when objectively honest science shows that the smoke emitted from chimneys has no lasting effect on our environment - and yet most people lamely accept the protocol of checking online for designated "burn days" and support measures to disallow fireplaces in new homes. Heather is upset with the sheer docility of her fellow Americans, the majority of whom seem happy to ignore the burglars stealing their freedoms right in front of them.

I would add to her picture the bleak vision offered in the film, Brazil: labyrinthine, concrete, dark hallways, where people live and work interchangeably; anonymous silhouettes of men very cavalierly huddled by some unknown bureaucrat into a cubicle work station, where they drone and finally drool; broken families; indoctrinated children who know the state to be their "parents" and private enterprise and consumption to be the only behaviors that are truly "immoral;" immobility, not only physically (because of the lack of a car), but even more so intellectually and culturally (lest the "bad habits" of the "unsustainable" past be rediscovered); and, in due course, dreary, "sustainable" sameness of habits and mores, which allows the few to keep the many forever in check. In the end, Agenda 21 is an assault on human dignity, because it implies that any human advancement, as expressed in his consumption and creativity, is implicitly "unsustainable," a "problem" posing an imagined "danger" to the greater environment that as such must be curtailed, if not crushed altogether. Democrats and Republicans, Believers and Atheists, frankly all Americans of goodwill, must stand firmly against this tyranny. They must do so united, and they must do so now, as the night is long already in the implementation of Agenda 21 programs in local communities across the nation.

Until recently, concern about Agenda 21 has been relegated largely to the fringe. It is a mainstay of conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones and a topic of discussion on radio shows like "Coast to Coast AM." Needless to say, this has not helped in terms of galvanizing opposition beyond committed UFO seekers and 911 truthers. Agenda 21 is such a large scale, fantastic manifestation of the "new world order" that, for the naive observer, it is easily cast off as just the frothy mouthed ramblings of present day John Birchers - at best a new boogeyman to replace the old Soviet Union and at worst a recycling of the ancient, anti-Semitic yarn against shadowy "Jewish Bankers" bent on lining their pockets.

The problem for those who support the worldwide "sustainable development" program envisioned in Agenda 21 is that an ever growing array of common sense oriented, rational, non-racist, non-xenophobic Americans are awakening to the fact that Agenda 21 is not a fringe boogyman. It is not a weird, covert policy undertaken by cloaked men adorning an excessively ornamented, Louis XV style, round table. Indeed, it is not covert at all, since the goals of Agenda 21 are clearly enunciated in an assortment of United Nations' documents, as well as in the mission statements of a number of NGOs and local private/public partnership groups intent on making its utopian vision a reality. Increasingly, we see the "face" of Agenda 21 not in the executive agreements signed by heads of state at exotic locales, but rather in the dubious, cliche spouting, propaganda pimps masquerading as the "facilitators" of local, public meetings, known as "visioning" sessions. Ostensibly, these sessions are put on to elicit the input of the general public with respect to what should be the principles underlying housing, public transportation, and environmental protection in their local communities. Even the casual observer nevertheless can see that these sessions are rigged - meant to steer discussion in such a way as to "prove" that the public "demands" high density, publicly subsidized housing, more dollars for public transportation (especially at the expense of highways which facilitate the "overuse" of "evil" carbon emitting automobiles), and massive greenbelt areas forever off limits to housing, agriculture, and mineral extraction. More people are recognizing that the environmental boogyman held up as the rationale for large scale implementation of "sustainable development" policies - namely, that there is man made global warming and that CO2 is a "pollutant" - is demonstrably phony. If the trend continues, then even some liberal Democrats in Marin will start to wrinkle their botox hardened brows at the negative effect that these policies must have on the home values of those real property owner "holdouts" like themselves not zoned into the drab, stack and pack, subsidized housing units envisioned by the Agenda 21 kool-aid drinkers. These Marinites' rallying cry may be no more than "Not In My Backyard," but that will be enough for Agenda 21 to come out of the shadows and become, in one form of another, the controversy around which we Americans once more grapple with issues of sovereignty, private property rights, and freedom.

Still, we friends of the Declaration of Independence, who understand implicitly that American sovereignty (and, by extension, our ability as Americans to exercise our Constitutionally protected real property rights) cannot long survive if ever more real, decision making authority over the environmental and developmental makeup of local communities resides in unelected, unseen, international bureaucrats, must not presume that Agenda 21 necessarily will fall by the wayside. Knowledge of the very real implications of Agenda 21 will become more mainstream. Opposition to its more draconian measures (meant in the end to reduce significantly how much food, water, and energy are consumed, hence inspiring negative population growth over time) will become more bi-partisan and widespread. Nevertheless, by the time this happens, much of the Agenda 21 program will have been implemented very quietly in the "comprehensive plans" adopted by local communities, in the indoctrinating of our youth through education grants provided by many NGOs and national and state governments committed to the scheme, in the widespread purchasing and silencing of those media outlets that might otherwise report on the scheme, and in the buying off of the leaderships of both major political parties. A battle will ensue, but it will be much more along the lines of David versus Goliath; and while we may hope that, in this instance as in the Biblical past, God will side with the Davids, we shall be well advised to aid God in His victory by learning more about our Goliath enemy.

It is fitting to see Agenda 21 as a Goliath, because the forces now arrayed in its favor are most impressive in their strength and tenacity. In brief, there are three overlapping factions committed to seeing the vision of Agenda 21 comprehensively implemented worldwide: "new world order" ideologues; environmentalist leftists; and politically well connected developers.

For the most part, the ideologues are brilliant, anonymous technocrats living off of NGO grants and alternating between alphabet soup public/private boards, "think tanks," and government bureaucracies. They are motivated in large part by a pride in their own pretensions - seeing themselves, in virtue of their family associations, Ivy League degrees, and demonstrated abilities in brown nosing global VIPs, as better able to preside over the unwashed masses, than any other group, or nation, or even set of principles. The fact that they stand to profit handsomely by being the "brains" behind the scheme - by consulting local governments and land developers in the implementation of the scheme, among many other "opportunities" - certainly greases their interest. While varying among themselves on the details, they are intellectually united in their view that the greatest impediment to "human progress" is the nation state (and those states and local communities that compose nation states). Even as they stand as the vanguard of the new "global citizen," they are astute enough to know that a frontal assault on the nation state will backfire, the ancient allegiances to flag and banner being too deep to cast away simply with the promise of subsidized stack and pack housing and cheaper bus fares. Theirs then is the uncomfortable task of promoting the new "global citizen" while suggesting anything but. Fortunately for them their exceeding pride usually gets in the way of any self-doubt that might emerge in knowing that their "truths" are best sold by a series of lies.

As even a casual observer of the environmentalist leftists will learn, there is a direct line from the Zero Population Growth eugenicists who re-emerged in the late 1960s from their intellectual birthplace in the Nazi meeting halls of the 1920s, to the high priests and priestesses of "man made global warming" hysteria today. It is not at all difficult to see why this should be so: Reducing CO2 levels, sold to the public as necessary to save Mother Earth from sure destruction, cannot be done without massive restrictions on food, infrastructure, and energy outputs globally, nationally, and locally; and this in turn cannot but diminish the middle class to penury and lead to the reduced birthrates that only forced scarcity - combined with "cradle to grave" government care - will promote. The importance of combining forced scarcity with "cradle to grave" government care cannot be overstated. Historically, populations have grown in times and places marked by limited resources, in large part because families needed to make up for the higher levels of infant and childhood mortality, and because more hands in a household could extract more fruit from the earth. If basic survival needs nevertheless are provided by the nanny government (and as well if people are disallowed or discouraged from meeting these needs in another manner, such as private enterprise or voluntary cooperation), then there will be no pressing need for "more hands on deck." Indeed, given the meager quality of life, the impetus will be to reduce the numbers brought into a life of lower expectations, where the only certainty is "stack and pack" misery reminiscent of the scenes of urban congestion in the dystopian film, Soylent Green. By converting at least half of the United States into uninhabitable wilderness, and reducing severely the level of energy output allowed in the "human dwelling zones" (all again ostensibly so as to "save" Mother Earth from "man made global warming," or "climate change," or whatever the phony boogyman may be called by that time), the "Green Nazis" will inspire a "Final Solution" more in fitting with the intellectual and ethical precepts of the twenty-first century. To the uninformed, my assertions on this point will sound unconvincingly hyperbolic; nevertheless, even a rudimentary internet search of the mad stirrings of provocateurs like Paul Ehrlich ("The mother of the year should be a sterilized woman with two adopted children"), Kenneth Boulding ("The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state"), and David Forman ("Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental") will prove that, sadly, I am not exaggerating at all. The environmentalist leftist lobby is anti-human to the core; and the forced food, infrastructure, and energy limitations expressly called for in Agenda 21 facilitate perfectly their diabolical vision.

The ideologues provide the higher, strategic focus, and the global corporate and financial connections, that allow for large scale public/private cooperation in pursuit of the Agenda 21 vision. The environmentalists then peddle the boogyman of "man made global warming," or "climate change," that endeavors to scare as much of the middle class as possible into warmly embracing a severely diminished life. There is a potent partnership here, to be sure; but without an all important third leg, a means of inducing compliance by local, self-interested politicos, the haughty machinations of the first two legs cannot succeed. The local community, after all, is the political, economic, and cultural foundation of the state, and the state of the nation. The war then is won or lost in the city councils and the planning commissions; and what will prevail there is not the conceits of international technocrats, nor the utopian visions of eugenicists, but the mutually profitable Texas Two-Step of politicians needing a lot of campaign cash and land developers greasing a lot of inside influence. A key component of Agenda 21 is re-zoning meant to facilitate high density dwellings as the primary (and eventually only) form of housing. A corollary will be to change the eligibility requirements for this subsidized housing in such a manner as to increase significantly the numbers of people who may apply. The net effect will be to reduce the home values of single family residences, as these homes become designated "non-conforming uses" and as the demand of an increasingly impoverished public veers towards the high density dwellings. Finally, add into the mix a liberalizing of eminent domain authority; and we see a toxic cocktail of avaricious developers and complying politicos that allows for many homes to be razed (in return of course for a "just compensation" that has been reduced considerably from what it would have been prior to the "non-conforming use" designation) and pricey - but "sustainable," no doubt - multi-use developments to be put in their place. The land developer thus steps in as the third leg in Agenda 21; he brings in the cash and the local muscle, and combined with the ideologue and the environmentalist, he promises to be very nearly unstoppable in his profit-driven goal of foisting public/private fascism on the rest of us.

The picture may seem bleak; and indeed, given how far along the three factions are in implementing their scheme, we have reason for heightened concern. Still, as Speaker Tip O'Neil reminded us in a different context, all politics is local. There will be no Agenda 21 implementation, no matter the international power and money that is in support of its vision, without local compliance. Politicians need money, which is why the land developers are an important, third leg in the diabolical equation; but, even more so, they need votes. If voters can be made aware of what is at stake in this struggle, and if they can be motivated to demand non-compliance of their own city councilmen and planning commissioners, then Agenda 21 can and will find that it is not able to re-zone anything other than its own political graveyard.

A Comment from an Opponent

Michael Erickson has found the following commentary in the "Smart Energy Review" blog entitled "Conspiracy versus Conspiracy": It seems you just can’t keep a good conspiracy theory down. The human mind seems to have an endless capacity to invent complex and sinister plots, particularly when there is ideology or stupidity involved. Conspiracy theories are nearly as prevalent in the climate change debate as they were about JFK’s death. A group of Chinese scientists has come out saying that the sustainability movement is a rich world conspiracy, so that American companies can sell more renewable technology, or to keep poor countries poor be denying them the opportunities to develop the cheap but polluting industries that helped make the western world so wealthy during the industrial revolution. An article in The Sydney Morning Herald on 8 October quotes Zhang Musheng, “one of China's most influential intellectuals and a close adviser to the People's Liberation Army” as saying that global warming is a “bogus proposition”, and that it is an American ruse to sell green technology and improve its economy. So there - climate change is a capitalist plot. Meanwhile, back in the USA, that hotbed of conspiracy theorists the Tea Party movement is claiming the exact opposite. According to chief Mad Hatter Tom DeWeese, president of the self-styled American Policy Center and one of the movement’s most prominent spokesmen, the whole sustainability movement is a leftist plot to destroy the American Way. Recently they’ve had a go at the innocuous Agenda 21, adopted by 178 governments at the first UN climate summit in Rio de Janeiro way back in 1992. The best summary I’ve seen is from the RNI (Republicans for the National Interest) website. “Agenda 21 envisions local communities all across our nation adopting ‘comprehensive community plans’ that have as their real, though unstated, purpose the elimination of the very middle class quality of life, that has been the bedrock of our national independence and personal freedoms. In place of the suburb, it wants Soviet-style high density housing; changes in zoning laws that increasingly make it impossible to maintain single family residences (let alone build new ones); mandated use of public transportation … and severe limitations on private food, water, and energy consumption, in return for enormously high taxes that will fund cradle to grave care by the nanny government.” So there - climate change is a communist plot. Or a capitalist one, take your pick. There is of course a third possibility. It just might be really happening.