Sustainable Development is Deeply Disturbing

http://www.freedomadvocates.org/images/pdf/SD%20A21%20pamphlet-2010.pdf

This is the most informative pamphlet I could find on it. Does this bother anyone else? It has so many undertones of socialism and totalitarianism that it's disgusting. They're teaching this crap to my children in school, preparing them and brainwashing them to accept the New World Order. I'm not sure what I can do about it, if anything. It's already gone to far for one individual to stop it. I think it would take a massive effort.

I thought you were being sarcastic or something at first.

Equity: Using the Law to Restructure Human Nature
Economy: The International Redistribution of Wealth and
the Creation of Public/Private Partnerships
Environment: Nature Above Man
Educating the Youth to Mold the Minds of Tomorrow
Stakeholder Councils – Restructuring American Government

Holy shit.

http://www.freedomadvocates.org/images/pdf/SD%20A21%20pamphlet-2010.pdf

This is the most informative pamphlet I could find on it. Does this bother anyone else? It has so many undertones of socialism and totalitarianism that it's disgusting. They're teaching this crap to my children in school, preparing them and brainwashing them to accept the New World Order. I'm not sure what I can do about it, if anything. It's already gone to far for one individual to stop it. I think it would take a massive effort.

You are being sarcastic, right?

I thought you were being sarcastic or something at first.

Quote

Equity: Using the Law to Restructure Human Nature
Economy: The International Redistribution of Wealth and
the Creation of Public/Private Partnerships
Environment: Nature Above Man
Educating the Youth to Mold the Minds of Tomorrow
Stakeholder Councils – Restructuring American Government

Holy shit.

You should read the whole pamphlet and do some more research as well. I'm trying to find something more detailed, but that's the best I've got for now.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 06, 2012, 11:58:48 AM

http://www.freedomadvocates.org/images/pdf/SD%20A21%20pamphlet-2010.pdf

This is the most informative pamphlet I could find on it. Does this bother anyone else? It has so many undertones of socialism and totalitarianism that it's disgusting. They're teaching this crap to my children in school, preparing them and brainwashing them to accept the New World Order. I'm not sure what I can do about it, if anything. It's already gone to far for one individual to stop it. I think it would take a massive effort.

You are being sarcastic, right?

Did you read the pamphlet? I'm not sarcastic in the slightest. There's direct quotes from Sustainable Development: Agenda 21 in there. I wish I could find the whole bill, but it's 400 pages long and will take me quite some time to read the whole thing and effectively parse the language into normal English (as opposed to legal English).

Yes, I read the pamphlet. It's an unbelievably partisan (in fact, beyond partisan) piece of nonsense, written by an organisation that believes climate change is a conspiracy.


You know what foreign aid is? Yeah, it's the redistribution of wealth to developing countries. This is the kind of thing they are presenting as global socialism or whatever. This is dumb stuff.


And besides, since when is sustainable development only about Agenda 21 anyway? Sustainable development has been a goal of governments for decades, ever since Detroit showed the consequences of excess.

Yes, I read the pamphlet. It's an unbelievably partisan (in fact, beyond partisan) piece of nonsense, written by an organisation that believes climate change is a conspiracy.


You know what foreign aid is? Yeah, it's the redistribution of wealth to developing countries. This is the kind of thing they are presenting as global socialism or whatever. This is dumb stuff.


And besides, since when is sustainable development only about Agenda 21 anyway? Sustainable development has been a goal of governments for decades, ever since Detroit showed the consequences of excess.

Do some more research. The idea of "sustainable development" is a good one. I totally agree, development should be sustainable. I'm conducting more research into it, but from what I've found about Agenda 21 so far (I'm attempting to find as many sources as possible), it's more about gaining control over people because "the individual can't be trusted," and "higher education is not sustainable," and "people must get rid of the self and work towards the collective." It doesn't sound so pleasant to me.

You do realise that the only people talking about Agenda 21 are those who believe it is a global leftist conspiracy?

You do realise that the only people talking about Agenda 21 are those who believe it is a global leftist conspiracy?

The only people that are talking about it are the people who don't support it?

No one else talks about it?

You do realise that the only people talking about Agenda 21 are those who believe it is a global leftist conspiracy?

It's not left, right, middle, top, bottom. It's a policy put through by the UN. No party affiliations, I'm sure no one bothers to read the damned thing when they're handed the crap to start implementing it.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 06, 2012, 01:03:10 PM

You do realise that the only people talking about Agenda 21 are those who believe it is a global leftist conspiracy?

The only people that are talking about it are the people who don't support it?

No one else talks about it?

Yes. No-one else is treating this as a serious issue. It's a non-binding agreement that was signed 20 years ago by a Republican President.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 06, 2012, 01:03:10 PM

You do realise that the only people talking about Agenda 21 are those who believe it is a global leftist conspiracy?

It's not left, right, middle, top, bottom. It's a policy put through by the UN. No party affiliations, I'm sure no one bothers to read the damned thing when they're handed the crap to start implementing it.

Yes, but the only people sending out pamphlets are the fringe of the Republican party, and those companies who have a vested interest in attacking green initiatives (and even they're not too interested because it's so out-there). Nobody else thinks this is remotely important, for the reasons I gave above.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 06, 2012, 01:11:51 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 06, 2012, 01:03:10 PM

You do realise that the only people talking about Agenda 21 are those who believe it is a global leftist conspiracy?

It's not left, right, middle, top, bottom. It's a policy put through by the UN. No party affiliations, I'm sure no one bothers to read the damned thing when they're handed the crap to start implementing it.

Yes, but the only people sending out pamphlets are the fringe of the Republican party, and those companies who have a vested interest in attacking green initiatives (and even they're not too interested because it's so out-there). Nobody else thinks this is remotely important, for the reasons I gave above.

I don't understand why you think this is some conspiracy. I haven't read anywhere, anywhere that it's left side. All I've read is that it has no party affiliations. I've also read about it being implemented. I personally know one of the MA Republican delegates showing me where and how it's being implemented in my area, and showing me copies of some of the paperwork with the words, very distinct, "sustainable development," that have been handed down from "governmental," but not government, bodies. Arizona has opted out of it.

I don't understand why you think this is some conspiracy. I haven't read anywhere, anywhere that it's left side. All I've read is that it has no party affiliations.

So why did you refer to it as "socialism" in your OP? Socialism is fairly synonymous with the left. As for it not having any party affiliations, no, it doesn't. But the criticism of Agenda 21 is almost entirely based in the Republican fringe, especially the 'Tea Party' movement.

I've also read about it being implemented. I personally know one of the MA Republican delegates showing me where and how it's being implemented in my area, and showing me copies of some of the paperwork with the words, very distinct, "sustainable development," that have been handed down from "governmental," but not government, bodies. Arizona has opted out of it.

First of all, what is wrong with implementing sustainable development policies? Of course sustainable development policies are being implemented. That is because prior urban planning policies were unsustainable. We cannot have continuous urban sprawl, because it is environmentally and economically disastrous.


Secondly, you seem to have bought the idea that because the Agenda 21 conspiracy theorists say Agenda 21 is a plot to destroy private property under the guise of sustainable development, anything to do with sustainable development must therefore be part of the Agenda 21 conspiracy. There are two problems with this:

1) The Agenda 21 conspiracy theory is derptarded - it does not exist

2) Even if it DID exist, the above is a massive non sequitur. Just because A-21 calls all its evil plans 'sustainable development', does not mean that all sustainable development plans are part of the conspiracy.

Seriously, this is crazy, looper stuff. Even the Republican establishment is embarrassed by it. They were mortified when it got onto the party platform.

Agenda 21 isn't a bill, and it's written in perfectly normal English.  Here it is:

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml

You don't need to read all of it, but even if you just look through it briefly, you'll see that it's comprised of recommendations, not demands, and even then they're kept pretty vague.

it's comprised of recommendations

No Saddam. It comprises recommendations; it's composed of recommendations.

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on November 06, 2012, 02:12:30 PM

it's comprised of recommendations

No Saddam. It comprises recommendations; it's composed of recommendations.

And there should be a comma after "[N]o."   You're not going to beat me in a grammar war, so don't try.

watch out guys we have a grammer master over here

Quote from: Particle Person on November 06, 2012, 02:46:16 PM

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on November 06, 2012, 02:12:30 PM

it's comprised of recommendations

No Saddam. It comprises recommendations; it's composed of recommendations.

And there should be a comma after "[N]o."   You're not going to beat me in a grammar war, so don't try.

The difference between us is that I understand the rule that I broke; it was intentional. If that post were read aloud, I wouldn't want the reader to pause. It sounds more admonishing without the pause. Also, don't start a sentence with "and".

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 06, 2012, 01:32:42 PM

I don't understand why you think this is some conspiracy. I haven't read anywhere, anywhere that it's left side. All I've read is that it has no party affiliations.

So why did you refer to it as "socialism" in your OP? Socialism is fairly synonymous with the left. As for it not having any party affiliations, no, it doesn't. But the criticism of Agenda 21 is almost entirely based in the Republican fringe, especially the 'Tea Party' movement.

The full implementation of the US's version of A-21 requires that everyone work for the state and only stays where "people are allowed." There will be massive sections of land cut off from any and all human use, and other large sections of land for limited human use. I agree that we need "sustainable development," but I don't agree with big parts of what A-21 states.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 06, 2012, 01:32:42 PM

I've also read about it being implemented. I personally know one of the MA Republican delegates showing me where and how it's being implemented in my area, and showing me copies of some of the paperwork with the words, very distinct, "sustainable development," that have been handed down from "governmental," but not government, bodies. Arizona has opted out of it.

First of all, what is wrong with implementing sustainable development policies? Of course sustainable development policies are being implemented. That is because prior urban planning policies were unsustainable. We cannot have continuous urban sprawl, because it is environmentally and economically disastrous.

Nothing wrong with making sure we don't destroy the planet we live on. I'm totally okay with keeping nature as is. However, "higher education is not sustainable"?

Secondly, you seem to have bought the idea that because the Agenda 21 conspiracy theorists say Agenda 21 is a plot to destroy private property under the guise of sustainable development, anything to do with sustainable development must therefore be part of the Agenda 21 conspiracy. There are two problems with this:

I didn't know there was any "conspiracy," until I started reading about it. I was specifically looking for verbiage from A-21 so that I could draw my own conclusions. I'm still researching. I plan on reading all 400 pages of the thing.

1) The Agenda 21 conspiracy theory is derptarded - it does not exist

I did not say there was a conspiracy.

2) Even if it DID exist, the above is a massive non sequitur. Just because A-21 calls all its evil plans 'sustainable development', does not mean that all sustainable development plans are part of the conspiracy.

I'm aware of that.

Seriously, this is crazy, looper stuff. Even the Republican establishment is embarrassed by it. They were mortified when it got onto the party platform.

I'm not really sure why I should care what the Republican establishment thinks.

The full implementation of the US's version of A-21 requires that everyone work for the state and only stays where "people are allowed." There will be massive sections of land cut off from any and all human use, and other large sections of land for limited human use. I agree that we need "sustainable development," but I don't agree with big parts of what A-21 states.

I don't see anything like that in A-21.

Nothing wrong with making sure we don't destroy the planet we live on. I'm totally okay with keeping nature as is. However, "higher education is not sustainable"?

What about it?  Quote-mining is the oldest trick in the book.  I'd like to see what the actual context of that line is, and what they recommend doing to fix it before I jump to any conclusions.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 07, 2012, 05:36:49 AM

The full implementation of the US's version of A-21 requires that everyone work for the state and only stays where "people are allowed." There will be massive sections of land cut off from any and all human use, and other large sections of land for limited human use. I agree that we need "sustainable development," but I don't agree with big parts of what A-21 states.

I don't see anything like that in A-21.

Either you or I will have to find the maps of the cordoned off areas. There's one in the pamphlet that I linked in the OP, but I believe it's a low resolution. I'd also like to see more in-context verbiage that relates to the maps.

Quote

Nothing wrong with making sure we don't destroy the planet we live on. I'm totally okay with keeping nature as is. However, "higher education is not sustainable"?

What about it?  Quote-mining is the oldest trick in the book.  I'd like to see what the actual context of that line is, and what they recommend doing to fix it before I jump to any conclusions.

As would I, but I'm discussing what I've currently found. As I find more, I can bring it to this thread. I could use some help, 400 pages of UN legal garbage is going to be a project.

Either you or I will have to find the maps of the cordoned off areas. There's one in the pamphlet that I linked in the OP, but I believe it's a low resolution. I'd also like to see more in-context verbiage that relates to the maps.

The map in the pamphlet has nothing to do with A-21.  FA even admits this in the fine print around the map.  It was created by an environmental activist group years ago.  FA does claim that they have documentary evidence that the UN was planning to use it against the US for the enforcement of a different international agreement, this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Biological_Diversity

However, they have never taken the time to actually show this evidence.  In any case, even if there was such documentation, it's not relevant to A-21.  There are no maps in the agenda, nor directives on how to preserve land.  Here is the relevant section:

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_10.shtml

As would I, but I'm discussing what I've currently found. As I find more, I can bring it to this thread. I could use some help, 400 pages of UN legal garbage is going to be a project.

I can't actually find that specific phrase in any of the sections using Ctrl+F, but here's the section where they talk about education:

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_36.shtml

Doesn't look that sinister to me.

TM for once you are on the right track, Agenda 21 is suspicious.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 07, 2012, 09:03:49 AM

Either you or I will have to find the maps of the cordoned off areas. There's one in the pamphlet that I linked in the OP, but I believe it's a low resolution. I'd also like to see more in-context verbiage that relates to the maps.

The map in the pamphlet has nothing to do with A-21.  FA even admits this in the fine print around the map.  It was created by an environmental activist group years ago.  FA does claim that they have documentary evidence that the UN was planning to use it against the US for the enforcement of a different international agreement, this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Biological_Diversity

However, they have never taken the time to actually show this evidence.  In any case, even if there was such documentation, it's not relevant to A-21.  There are no maps in the agenda, nor directives on how to preserve land.  Here is the relevant section:

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_10.shtml

I thought that the Convention on Biological Diversity was an NGO organized in order to promote the A-21 Sustainable Development plan.

Quote

As would I, but I'm discussing what I've currently found. As I find more, I can bring it to this thread. I could use some help, 400 pages of UN legal garbage is going to be a project.

I can't actually find that specific phrase in any of the sections using Ctrl+F, but here's the section where they talk about education:

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_36.shtml

Doesn't look that sinister to me.

You're right. I'm not saying there's anything sinister. I'm saying what I've read about it is not sitting well with me, and it seems like a very, very bad way to go. Again, I have to do more research. I read some of that, but I plan on reading the entirety of the documentation and parsing it all for myself. I want to know what is defined as sustainable and unsustainable, and what is planned for implementation strategies, and how it will be enforced, if implemented. I have a vague idea on all of those, but I want more solid knowledge.

Again, I was just presenting this information (what little I have) to see what people thought, and maybe to spark people into researching it themselves. Especially since hardly anyone I know has ever heard about this, and one of the main points I read in the education section of the document that is repeated over and over is about "raising public awareness on sustainable development." As far as I know, there's not many people that are aware. Perhaps I'm doing them a favor. I wont know until I've done more research.