Saturday, July 2, 2011

Agenda 21: Creating Paranoid Nutjobs Since 1992??

Excellent article by Rachel Alexander at Townhall.   "Agenda 21: Conspiracy or Real Threat".  I don't know, a policy dedicated to "reducing private property ownership":
Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, 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 and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole.  (from page 113 of this document)
Dedicated to the reduction of the quality of life (if not the number of people) and reduction of liberty:
  "...[C]urrent lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat consumption and large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable. A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations." (Maurice Strong)

Conspiracy Theory or Real Threat?  I'll go with B.  What do you think?


  1. "Conspiracy or Real Threat?"

    The two are not mutually exclusive.

    I've been watching the late-90's TV series Babylon 5, and there was an episode where B5 received a "political officer" from Earth. She explained to the Captain, "We've solved all the problems of poverty, hunger, joblessness." Surprised, the Captain asked "How?" Her reply: "We rewrote the dictionary."

    Calling anything a "conspiracy" today means that whatever it is must be the fever-dream of some poor deluded mentally-ill soul. It didn't use to mean that.

    And in my dictionary, it still doesn't.

    I'm working on a post on this topic. Thanks for the additional inspiration.

  2. Hmmm. Good point. I think in modern usage, conspiracy means something done in secret, as opposed to out in the open, but I've certainly seen it used the way you say. That's pretty much the modern political definition.

    Agenda 21 is essentially in the open. There is much going on behind the scenes, but the purposes and goals are pretty much right there if you look even a little.

    BTW, I was a little late to the party, but watched all of B5. There hasn't been a decent sci-fi show since BSG left the air. Falling Skies might be, but it's too soon to tell.

  3. Agenda 21 is only in the open to the extent that it is accessible if you look for it. It is not being disseminated in the MSM or anywhere else in a fashion that allows the average citizen to be aware of it, and the provisions that it seeks to implement. Some of us look, but I truly don't think the average citizen pauses from watching ESBN or Jersey Shore (do I have that right? I don't watch TV so I'm repeating what I've read about it) long enough to catch what is being said about such things as Agenda 21.

    The video of the brief interview with the female city planner in Austin demonstrates the fact that those pushing this agenda do so with the aim to conceal those portions of it that even the liberal soccer moms and academics might quail at - such as the intent to reduce world population by (IIRC) 85%.

    That is the problem with so much of the socialist/Marxist crap being forced upon us today by our own government: the true intent, the end product, is concealed by manipulating vocabulary and definition, by saying "green" and meaning "Red", by skipping over the less generally acceptable parts that "we can't see until it is passed".

    But I would avoid calling it a conspiracy, simply because that plays into the hands of the Left. It is sufficient to say that it is a threat not only to our way of life, but to life itself, since it speaks directly of reducing the population to 15% of what it currently is world-wide. The threat to our ability to continue to possess private property is incredibly serious as well, but may not be as quickly obvious as the threat to our very existence. They both need to be presented and hammered into the public consciousness.

  4. That's a good way to put, Reg.

    Looking at it a little differently, notice the root of the word is con, or with, and spire, the root word for respiration, or breathe - literally breathe together. The image I get is people whispering to each other - breathing on each other.

    There may be aspects of Agenda 21 that are hidden, but there's plenty right out in the open that's bad enough. For example, Maurice Strong (2nd quote) was a UN official, and is the guy who thinks the world population should be 100 million. That's 1.4% of the existing population. The biggest mass murderers in history never aspired to that sort of carnage.

    What I got out of Rachel Alexander's story is that their attack is so broad, on so many fronts, that we have to fight it everywhere, house to house, hand to hand. A new president might be able to cancel some executive orders, but it has to be fought at every local level.

  5. Yes, the local level is very important. While we've all been paying attention to Obamacare, "Wide Latinas", and Drones Over Libya, TVOTT (the Voice of the Teleprompter) has been quietly appointing quite a large number of "fellow travelers" (for those of you who remember the Red Menace - still with us, but home-grown now) to positions as Federal judges throughout the country.

    Consequently, things such as Wisconsin's legislation to cut back the cost of state government, new state immigration laws, state propositions against gay "marriage", etc. get smacked down in Federal court. The socialists are infiltrating and gumming up the works all over the country. Agenda 21 gives them a number of Alinsky-type tools for ramming socialism further down our throats (or up our keisters, if you will).

    The taint is so widespread that it is going to be difficult to remove. I'd be hopeful if we got a conservative President and enough conservatives in the Senate only if they were willing to do some blanket reform - like closing the Fed, Fannie and Freddie, the EPA, FDA, DOE, DOA, and some of the other alphabet agencies that have neither the right nor the reason to exist.

    Even then, if we are to support the 10th Amendment, we will probably have to root out the cancer in each state separately. State law preempting local ordinances might save cities like Austin or Sacramento or Seattle in spite of the Marxists already in control there.