Saturday, December 28, 2013

Agenda 21: The Real Deal?

Andrew D Atkin

There's a lot of talk on Agenda 21, which is the UN planning document formulated to drive forward a sustainable world. Critics of it (such as myself) have interpreted it as the backbone document behind the international move to force-intensify cities, in the name of making them more environmentally sustainable.

Ok. But how does/has Agenda 21 worked? I don't know exactly, and the following is speculative, but I want to write about the document from what I have read of it myself.

Firstly, it's a massive document and horribly tedious to get through (which I didn't - not to completion). But what I noticed was that the document was heavy on environmental goals yet, overall, extremely weak on actual methods for achieving those goals.

The promoted goals were of the type that few people would fail to respect as commendable, in themselves. On this level it was a good sell. However, what I specifically noticed within Agenda 21 was the constant and repetitive promotion of developing managerial human resources to actualise the promoted goals.

Now this is what interests me. Looking at the Agenda 21 document bluntly, it gives me the impression that the document, before anything else, is just one big advert to get the incumbent power structure (of the time) to accept letting the UN, directly and/or indirectly, train-up the next generation of environmentally-focused managers for the public bureaucracies of the future.

So Agenda 21 seems to have effectively marketed itself by carefully avoiding criticism, by keeping away from the 'methods' conversation in the early days, and instead just sticking to a goals-focus of the type that any reasonable person would probably agree with. And then from there, with an obviously a long-term focus, presumably indoctrinating the methods part of the game into the next generation of managers, through the universities. An indoctrination process safely hidden away behind the tertiary sectors closed doors?

That may not be completely right. To a degree I am speculating. But from what I have seen of the whole mad game of modern urban planning, that is the jacket that fits. We've had an explosion of environmentally-focused education in our tertiary institutes, and the dubious and ideological components of it are quite obvious, and there seems to be a striking lack of internal debate within these new indoctrinated classes (example).

I'm not the only one to see it this way. The late Owen McShane (one of New Zealand's most experienced and esteemed experts on urban development), for example, developed such a contempt for what was being taught in our tertiary institutes that he said a good rule of thumb was "to avoid any individual with the word 'environmental' in the title of their qualification" - expressing contempt for both their education and their intelligence. And McShane, like virtually all of us, was no anti-environmentalist.

But why would the UN have something to hide? What is their objective?

Well, the truth is force-intensifying cities is in fact 'sustainability' policy, but not in the way most people would think it is. High-density cities do not deliver a reduced ecological footprint in themselves. In fact they are, or certainly can be, much worse on this level...

Forced high-density cities deliver greater sustainability by suppressing human fertility. This is done in two basic ways. Forced intensification makes housing hugely expensive by inflating land costs, and high-density cities are associated with a high stress atmosphere that most parents don't like to bring their children up in, as a preference. Forced intensification provides a deterrent to human breeding, especially in the industrialised world where people can comfortably choose to have less children, due to easy access to contraception and the absence of long-range financial incentives.

Population control and Eugenics. Is it real?

Population control sounds evil, like eugenics, but the fact is that any significantly sized government controls its population and is likewise an entity of directed bio-demographics (that's the best term I can think of).

Think about this. The only way our government/s can claim to be non-eugenics is to be wilfully blind to the [direct or indirect] bio-demographic impact of their policy. (And that impact is both a calculable and a serious long-term issue)*.

Now the moment our government admits this, at least to themselves, they are functional eugenicists. So have the social planners and policy makers within the UN run the models and made the calculations? Do they integrate this kind of thinking into their policy formation? I would bet my left arm that they have. Why wouldn't they? It would actually be irresponsible for them not to. And if they integrate this thinking into their policy-formation they will become secretive, because although bio-demographics is a critical dynamic of social evolution you obviously cannot afford to be associated with it (openly) due to modern public sentiment with these issues.


Within the highest levels of public policy development is probably just a bunch of people who model how they think the world should develop, and then from there formulate their methods to achieve their idealised goals. Agenda 21, with its seemingly (or superficially) irrational focus of forcing higher urban densities, may only be one of many methodologies to effectively manage and guide the human animal to an idealised end-point - and the truth be damned? 

I've casually said before that there are only two great problems in the world: Population control and eugenics. Because they are ultimately necessary as a policy focus (unless you believe humans are above natural law. Serious thinkers don't) yet extremely difficult to deploy and be open about. All other problems, by comparison, are academic.

This is why I'm open to the possibility of a kind of conspiracy behind the Agenda 21 movement. Again I might not be completely right, but it really is, overall, a jacket that fits. Agenda 21 looks like another population-control policy.

Addition: 12-1-14: 

The mind of the true elite:

Imagine this scenario. You and your colleagues (all on the same level as you) have a responsibility, as much as anyone else, to form public policy on national and global levels, and are therefore responsible as much as any other human being to think on a long-term basis about the environmental and social evolution of our planet. An extreme but real responsibility.

Now how would this affect your thinking? Really, you would be under huge pressure to confront your comfortable opinions and, basically, become deathly realistic - at least insofar as you can be. You would do this because you know that you simply have to.

Now, from this position how would you think about things like eugenics and population control? Well for a start you would think about them, because they are real concerns and it's up to you to confront them and respond to them, because if you don't then no-one will. And not responding to serious concerns is potentially incredibly dangerous, because you would then be playing Russian roulette with an entire planet.

Can you see my point? If you put yourself in the role of whoever it is at the top of public policy formation, and you can relate to their mentality or what at least should be their mentality.

The common man's emotional programming is to never think in terms of eugenics because it's been so deeply associated with Nazis's and mad scientists. The man on the street goes through some kind of identity crises if he even goes there, in thought. But a true elite would never do this. They would sigh, take a breath, and then say: "Ok, Let's look at the human breeds, and types, quantify the differences insofar as we can understand them, and then relate this understanding to our policy; because as long as we're developing international public policy we must be realistic on all fronts, so that we can model, to the best of our ability, the long-term developmental impacts".

Again, this is why I don't think any of us should assume that eugenics is not a very real part of policy formation at the highest levels of social management. Indeed it should be expected.


  1. This article hits our collective coffin nails squarely on the head in citing the world's ultimate problem of too many people.

    The well developed blueprint to deal with man's extinction from pollution is officially known as United Nations Agenda 21. The ultimate conclusion already reached is that for any of the "sustainability" principles of United Nations Agenda 21 to work, the human population must be immediately and severely reduced. Here are the hard facts of life, or more precisely, facts of death:
    UN commissioned scientists - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    (IPCC), the Royal Society, the World Academy of Arts & Science, World Population
    Fund, World Bank, the UN, NASA, 178 countries, The Earth Charter, etc., etc.,
    have declared a global emergency…terminal Climate Change caused by humans. The
    elites are working on implementing the solution via UN Agenda 21, whether scientifically sound or not. The real problem is over-population.

    The solution is Agenda 21. The bottom-line is this:

    Agenda 21's “sustainability” basic theme relies on the CO2 argument.
    Overpopulation saturating the atmosphere with fossil fuel CO2, will kill the Earth by 2050.
    Even if CO2 emissions fall to zero the plague upon the Earth will remain us …
    you and me.

    The UN commissioned Global Biodiversity Assessment Report, page 773, suggests a
    population reduction to 1 billion people. (An exception is provided: if the
    world is de-industrialized (meaning pre-1765), then a peasant population of 4-5 billion is to be allowed).…

    The Report’s bottom line is clear:
    'Population growth has exceeded the capacity of the biosphere.'
    See Mikhail Gorbachev of Earth Council and its Earth Charter.

    Population will reach 10.8 billion by 2050; 15.8 billion by 2100. To feed
    it, food production must increase in the next 36 years by upwards of 100%. Water
    shortages are unsolvable. See:

    Climate Change Seen Posing Risk to Food Supplies

    CO2 emissions must drop to zero immediately to keep PPMs below 450 and keep
    average temperature from increasing by more than 2 degrees Celsius, the allowable
    ceilings. (A much bigger and imminent threat recently identified is the release of gigatons of methane now taking place due to Arctic ice melts and projected methane release from thawing of the Russian tundra permafrost.) But in order to feed so many, CO2 would have to drastically rise, not fall. So the only conclusion is we must depopulate now by 5-6 billion and slash CO2 fossil fuel emissions to zero. The iron fist of communism is needed to make it work. We are
    already essentially there.

    And that is exactly what is being undertaken, with help from UN Agenda 21 and
    well known billionaires, who contribute huge sums to a broad array of UN and other population control programs. It’s all there if you do the research, as I have.
    See UN World Economic and Social Survey 2011 for a very explicit summary of this whole non-fiction agenda:

    Geoengineering is increasingly being sold to us as a way to cool the planet by
    spraying the skies with toxic chemicals to block the sun, known as Strategic Aerosol Geoengineering (SAG) or Solar Radiation Management (SRM). Who knows what other
    mission it may have? All I know is that they are dead serious.

    "A Hard Rain's Agonna Fall." Bob Dylan

    Good luck, Comrades.

  2. Thanks anonymous. A heck of a lot to look at...but I appreciate all the links and comments.

    I'm not overly convinced that CO2 emissions are or will be a great problem in themselves, but I do certainly believe that populations must ultimately be controlled (or they eventually control themselves, and that's ugly because it can only mean wars and/or famines...the historic norm). Indeed I have written before that I think we're probably living in population-control policy today (the baby boom stopped for reasons).

    But whether or not we are over-populated is technology and lifestyle relative (as you partly appreciated in your post). I'll leave the reader with this link of mine, from a while back. A lot of my older posts relate to achieving sustainable living forms as well.

    Furthermore, the thing that I don't like about the (so-called) environmentalist movement, is the way these people seem to only be interested in promoting solutions that deliver the maximum pain for humans yet for the least environmental profit. Al Gore, for example, spoke for population control...but what about removing planned obsolescence? Promoting small commuter cars that are 10x more energy efficient to run? New geothermal developments? New forms of wind generation technology? Styrofoam based domestic insulation? A physical internet via full-automation micro-cars? Compost toilets? Vegetarianism (that tastes good)?..etc, etc. All I ever seem to hear from environmentalists is the sterilisation/human zoo/de-industrialisation alternatives. Population control is again an ultimate necessity as technology can still only buy us time, but technology, today, is grossly (and curiously) under-sung.

  3. Further thinking: If the UN is serious about population control, then when you think about it "conspiracy" would have to be their only option. How else do you enforce policy that a democratic majority would not otherwise accept? In short, you would have to promote an A policy for B reasons, when really it's for C reasons (as my major article suggests). So relating to this kind of conspiracy, it's hardly a far-out thing to ponder. If conspiracy is necessary then it's necessary. Not everyone in politics believes in respecting the democratic process for when the majority is simply too stupid or short-sighted to respect reason.

    However, if you want to enact population control and eugenics over the long term, without (basically) holding a gun to the worlds head, then the only way you can do it is to change the mentality of the worlds people, and that probably means changing the (functional) religion.

    And how do you do that? Well, people often speak of schools indoctrinating kids by getting them in early, at ever younger ages. Personally I don't think schools are potent enough to outright indoctrinate kids, but they do have the power to undermine the cult-effect that many kids grow up in. In short, they can show kids that there's another way of seeing the world so that their parents view is then seen as only an opinion, and not an absolute. The result being, I presume, that the parents indoctrination doesn't run too deep - or at all. The child is then left in more of an agnostic state with a more open mind.

    That would be a good step-1 to changing the religious mindset, and hopefully getting people to see the need for eugenics and population control in a more scientific light. Maybe a new religion can be allowed to evolve so that people do not form an exaggerated attachment to their physiology, and instead see it more as a container for the spirit, and likewise an object not to be too closely linked to your personal identity. This could help people put aside their vanity in wishing to perputuate their weak gene's (for when this is the case) and in turn feel more comfortable in helping to keep the broader gene pool strong for the coming generations to incarnate into. And to do so without feeling intrinsically inadequate.