Agenda 21 Is Repackaged Socialism, Unsustainable Development

Chriss W. Street
Big Government
2/9/2012

This year marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the United Nation’s Brundtland Report, which defined Sustainable Development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” But aristocratic socialists have corrupted the sustainable development movement into a vehicle to achieve vast administrative power for themselves. Nations that adopt Sustainable Development are doomed to fail at meeting the needs of the present generation and through debt accumulation from deficit spending will consign future generations to a life as debt slaves.

Through the early 1980s, socialist Latin American economies powered growth by quadrupling their indebtedness from $75 billion to $315 billion. With aristocrats controlling government, while the poor had no voice in these loan matters, nor did they benefit from them as most of the loan proceeds were siphoned off to benefit the aristocrats and their crony amigos.

When Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980, the U.S. economy had suffered a decade of stagflation, turning our Midwest manufacturing base into the Rust Belt. Reagan was determined to regain international economic dominance by reasserting our Founding Father’s demand for limited government and maximum personal liberty. Reagan viscerally believed what John Adams wrote:

“ the moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence”

Reagan’s relentless focus overcame the bi-partisan drumbeat to continue the socialist expansion of the money supply to promote growth. He then leveraged monetary restraint with the largest income tax cut in American history to power the American economy to sustained growth with low inflation…

…Agenda 21’s four main pillars of action are (1) combating poverty, promoting health, making consumption sustainable (2) assuring atmospheric protection, protecting fragile environments, conserving biodiversity, preventing pollution and regulating biotechnology (3) strengthening the roles of children, youth, women, NGOs, local authorities, workers and indigenous peoples (4) through science, technology transfer, education, international financial mechanisms.”

European aristocrats also quietly embedded Agenda 21 powers into the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, which united 17 sovereign nations under the three pillar structure of the European Union (1) prevent sovereign debt from exceed 60% of GDP (2) delegate authority to supranational decision makers authority to regulate all human economic and social interaction that might affect the environment (3) embrace the euro as their supranational currency…

Read the complete article at Big Government.

RelatedGreen Communities Act

Massachusetts Senator Marc Pacheco (D) talks about sustainability and green initiatives related to power and community development programs.
Commonwealth Politics CP-217
Hosted by Bridgewater State University professors of political science Dr. Michael Kryzanek and Dr. Mark Kemper. Sponsored by the Center for Legislative Studies.

 

Also, Why Planners Need to Take Agenda 21 Criticism More Seriously

The New York Times over the weekend picked up the thread of the Tea Party-related anti-smart growth movement, which in truth has been gaining steam for a couple of years now. This isn’t even the first time The Atlantic Cities has written about it.

It’d be easy to wholly dismiss the Agenda 21’ers, the nickname that’s stuck here in Texas for those who believe that a non-binding, 1992 United Nations action plan aimed at aiding world governments in pursuing sustainability is the source of a vast urban planning conspiracy. These individuals have interpreted the UN’s Agenda 21 as an international plot, implemented by a Town Hall near you, to herd humanity into habitation zones and save the rest for the animals at the behest of enviro-fascists and their bicycle advocate shock troops.

Planners are preoccupied with denying any conspiracy. This may be necessary, as the American Planning Association pointed out in its November memo, “Agenda 21: Myths and Facts,” but denials don’t often produce better long-term dialogue. Not to mention, a lack of reflection would be unfortunate, because these events speak to deep-seeded conservative concerns about property rights, the planning process, and the paradigms guiding planning today.

…I offer three ideas for engaging Agenda 21 in a more productive dialogue…

Comments are closed.