Connect with us

Constitution

UN Agenda 21 – abolish private property

Published

on

The United Nations, and especially its General Assembly, is chief instrument of globalism and international government today, and precursor of world government. (And zero population growth) The UN works against the sovereignty of nation-states.

The United Nations wants to abolish private property worldwide. UN Agenda 21 is their tool—and local governments are already cooperating.

What is UN Agenda 21?

UN Agenda 21 means “Agenda for the Twenty-first Century.” It is the environmentalist agenda of the United Nations. In 1992, the UN held a Conference for Sustainable Development—another nice-sounding catch phrase—in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. (Most people remember this conference as the “Earth Summit.”) The UN set out UN Agenda 21 in the “Rio Declaration” at that conference, and set up a Division of Sustainable Development to carry out their plan.

“Sustainable development” means human action that does not harm the environment long-term—but who decides “harm” or “long-term” has always been in dispute. In fact, the UN never says what “sustainable development” means. Joan Veon sounded this warning before she died: “sustainable development” means “control,” and the dictatorship of the environmentalists.

The United Nations says little in public about UN Agenda 21 beyond the Rio Declaration. That document makes general statements that sound pleasant and reasonable. The core publications of the UN Division of Sustainable Development speak of conservation and environmental stewardship—virtues that almost everyone would appreciate. They also speak vaguely of encouraging member countries to invent new ways to “manage” development, get rid of toxic or radioactive wastes, etc.

UN Agenda 21 in detail

To see what UN Agenda 21 really means, read the Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide. This 241-page book talks of balancing the needs of the economy, the community, and the environment. But a close read makes the real goal clear. People would lose many of the rights to their properties—and so would not really have property at all. In fact, people would have no inherent rights to anything.

Francis Bacon said it best:

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.

Sue Ann Penna of the Essex County (New Jersey) Tea Party Coalition last night distinguished between conservation and environmentalism. The first means taking care to use natural resources without ruining them for the next person. The second says that mankind has no rights and suggests that any use of any natural resource causes damage.

Land use planning

Sue Ann Penna delivers a lecture against UN Agenda 21

Sue Ann Penna, Chairman, Essex County (New Jersey) Tea Party Coalition, describes what UN Agenda 21 means in local terms.

A new activist group describes UN Agenda 21 in stark terms: it is land-use planning. That kind of planning is always a problem in a free society. But this planning is far more radical than a simple zoning rule. It means seizing private land and forcing people to move to very dense settlements. UN Agenda 21 even has a new name: “islands of human habitation.”

Penna described what such an “island” might look like. More than 350 of New Jersey’s famous small towns have signed on to a plan called “Sustainable Jersey.” Many of those towns have already restricted or stopped development of single-family homes. In the centers of the towns, one sees a new kind of hybrid building. It has street-level storefronts and several floors of apartments or condominiums on the floors above these stores. This is a new version of the dingbats of the 1950s and 1960s: apartments built atop street-level carports. But these dingbats have no carports, nor indeed any place to park. The notion, says Penna, is that the people living in those condos will not need a car to run their daily errands—and will not be able to keep a car for any other reason.

Already, Sustainable Jersey encourages its member towns to “hassle” motorists at every turn. First comes making it a moving violation to idle your car for three minutes. Next comes making parking more and more expensive—and scarce. With the result that those people would be far less able to take trips or to assemble outside their home towns or neighborhoods.

[ezadsense midpost]

Hoboken, New Jersey, is a prize example. Hoboken now limits parking to residents who have bought the city’s parking permits, expensive municipal garages, and the small number of spaces in select institutions (like the Stevens Institute of Technology). The only convenient way to visit Hoboken is by mass transportation. Once in Hoboken, one must walk or take a taxicab. And, as Penna described, most of Hoboken’s housing consists of apartments and condominiums built above street-level stores, barber shops, restaurants, and the like.

Bicycles are another UN Agenda 21 favored vehicle. The official reason: bicycles do not pollute, and a bicyclist gets exercise while riding it. The real reason: bicycles can’t get you nearly as far as a car can.

The “island” metaphor is important for another reason. It means that most of the land will go wild again. The UN has a Wildlands Project to set aside land where no human (except, for a short while longer, a backpacker) may venture, much less live.

Presidents supporting UN Agenda 21

The elder President Bush attended the 1992 Earth Summit, after he failed of re-election. Every President since has supported UN Agenda 21 to one degree or another. The man now holding office as President, Barack H. Obama, signed Executive Order 13575. (See text here.) That order sets up a Rural Council with direct orders to carry out UN Agenda 21. Its effect: to push or chase people off their small farms and out of their farming towns, and into the cities.

Fighting UN Agenda 21

Several groups are actively watching UN Agenda 21 and suggesting ways to fight it. All activists emphasize one thing: Agenda 21 is not a treaty or UN convention. It is “soft law.” That is why Presidents Bush (Senior and Junior) and Clinton, and now Mr. Obama, could carry it out without going to the Senate. But Agenda 21 is not yet binding on US law in any way.

The most important thing is to remember your rights to life, liberty and property, and not to surrender them because someone says that “the environment” will suffer if you do not. “The environment” is only a pretext. The real purpose is control. Control is much easier if people live in crowds and have no independent way to travel.

The irony of UN Agenda 21, when the FAA and the NHTSA have just “cleared” the world’s first road-legal private airplane for production, is exquisite. The idea of a vehicle that can move through air or land almost at will can only make the UN planners shudder. Moreover, the man who developed it, did so to make people freer. The UN planners would shudder even harder if they really saw what that implies. The FAA and NHTSA must not see it, either—and neither must the Obama administration, or they would have made sure never to allow it. It is a sign that Americans still want to be free. One can only hope that they want it badly enough to fight for it.

Featured image: the flag of the United Nations.

[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B00375LOEG, 0451947673, 0800733940, 0062073303, 1595230734, 1936218003, 0981559662, 1935071874, 1932172378″ /]

[ezadsense leadout]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
+ posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

CATEGORY:Constitution
61 Comments
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

61 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Charles Townley

Truly astounding. I am lost for words.

Richard McShane

I’m just coming across this article now and I loved it. The United Nations needs to be abolished #1 and the US needs to get back on track with the things that MADE THIS COUNTRY GREAT, not what DESTROYED many tyrannical empires. Agenda 21 must be fought with everything and anyone who things humans are causing global warming believe in fairy tales. People need to wake up and see the truth or the disgust that is Agenda 21 will become a reality.

On a side note, why is it that if the mainstream media calls an orange an apple, and someone who can see through the lies and accurately and articulately explain why it is, in fact, an orange becomes a conspiracy theorist?

John

Okay, you’re either a parodist of epic proportions, the same kind of deep cover liberal as Ann Coulter, or you suffer from paranoia.

The parodist bit makes sense. After all, you repeatedly claim that “sea monsters” exist and are proof that evolution is wrong, you routinely make inconsistent and erroneous statements concerning cosmology as prove that God exists, and you fully report any right wing conspiracy theory as hard fact.

In this very article, you’ve claimed that an attempt to get people to ride bicycles as a method of both cutting down greenhouse gases and making for a healthier general population is actually an attempt to ban private property.

See, that sentiment is too funny to not at least consider as parody. If you consider that you’re serious about all this however, it becomes cause for concern.

If you’re actually serious about what you’ve said here, that you actually believe in this conspiracy to ban private property in the name of protecting the environment, I implore you to seek psychiatric help. You’re displaying symptoms of paranoia. Given that 2011 seems to be a banner year for paranoid conservatives (which is starting to become redundant, conservatives are almost defined by their paranoia and persecution complex) murdering people in terrorist acts to express their extreme fear that some broad spectrum of people holding opposing beliefs are actively attempting to destroy the world, this sort of fear mongering is becoming unacceptable, uncivil and almost malicious.

When you write this stuff, it becomes impossible to take your point of view seriously. The optimist in me wants to think that you’re just joking, and this is all just for a laugh. To suggest that the UN is trying to ban private property under the guise of environmentalism is patently absurd. This is the same sort of rhetoric that Timothy McVeigh would have espoused however, and that’s distressing. You have the right to express these opinions, but this is becoming morally untenable in light of the horrible consequences.

But if you’re just joking, good work, I laughed all the way through this article.

Kyle

“Which is a fancy way of saying: I’m accusing you, or that rogues’ gallery at the UN that have you for a friend, anyway.”

Terry, this is the very definition of paranoia.

Relax, we’re not trying to take everything away from you, we just think you’re wrong. It’s ok to be wrong from time to time.

Kyle

“Why do you care, anyway? Could it be that, not only am I correct in my assessment of the ultimate purpose of the UN and its Earth Summit, but also—and more to the point—you’re in on it?”

Or maybe, Terry, I’m just some guy who thinks you’re wrong?

Honestly, which is more likely?

GP

Terry, the whole “sea monsters” thing we’re prepared to write off as mild eccentricity.

However, when you start reaching the point where you think that everybody who disagrees with you, is working for “Them” it’s probably time to take a step back, a few deep breaths and go for a nice, quiet walk around the neighbourhood.

Just watch out for any cars with tinted windows, however. You never know if “They” have caught up with you…

Kacey

Very good article. Thanks for airing this here Terry.
None so blind as those who refuse to do their own research, but at least they are discussing it! Or are they just attacking you?
They will learn, very soon.

Kacey

I assume that you have had some form of Diverity or Leadership training which would explain the ‘closed mind to the ignorant masses’ attitude.
am laughing too, but not at the article!

Joseph

It is evident that either people do not study history or are too naive to believe it could repeat itself. Everyone studies the atrocities of Nazi Germany in school, yet they are completely ignorant of how or why things happened. Germany wasn’t all cheerful one day and then the next was under Nazi rule. It was a slow, gradual process that took several decades to achieve. What too many conservatives fail to understand is that the conditions that produced one of the most evil empires in human history are prevalent in our society today. A depression coupled with anarchy made people all to willing to buy the lies of someone who claims he can save them. The Nazis acted just as modern liberals and progressives do. They claimed to represent the future. To lead the masses into a new golden age. They aggressively attacked anyone who dared question them, but they didn’t have to lift a finger. Instead they mocked them with their air of superiority. They may have called them conspiracy theorists or perhaps talked down to them saying they were simple folk who simply weren’t educated enough to know the Truth. Any law they proposed was said to be in the peoples’ best interest and if anyone opposed it, they were against human rights or something along those lines. Do these talking points sound familiar? Do not take my word for it though. Go find someone who lived through that dark era. Ask them how it happened. And then be horrified as the similarities become apparent. I leave you with but two questions: with history building itself back up, what makes you believe that another holocaust won’t happen? And what makes you believe you have a place in this glorious, new utopia?

Kyle

Joesph, The United States of today is RADICALLY different than Post WWI Germany.

There is no hyperinflation, the USA is not a country just ravaged by a global war, no new consitution has been written.

THESE were the foundations that ultimately led to Nazi Germany. The problems that the US faces today pale in comparison

Kyle

You seem to be willfully ignoring the point I was trying to make. Quoting Joesph “the conditions that produced one of the most evil empires in human history are prevalent in our society today.” No. These conditions are not present. You can present all kinds of hypotheticals about how these things may just be around the corner, but this is all guesswork, and currently none of these things are actually happening.

Your comment about Quartzside is equally baffling. I’m not reffering to isolated incedents where people feel there rights have been trampled on. That happens all the time, in any society. There will always be people feeling they are being treated unfairly, and there will always be times when the government oversteps their bounds. This is not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about post WWI Germany where THERE WAS ACTUALLY A NEW CONSITITUION WRITTEN. This has not happened, this is nowhere near about to happen.

Joesph’s comments that “the conditions that produced one of the most evil empires in human history are prevalent in our society today” are utterly absurd and not based in fact.

bruce

no hyper-inflation, well look over your shoulder because it is catching up to us.the un was set up by american commies to harm our country any way they can so pay attention.read robert silver berg’s the world inside because this is what the liberals=progressives=commies=Nazis want,control.there is no difference they are all bloody dictators.oh i left out [Islam] which is the worst of all the murdering scum.

Kyle

“liberals=progressives=commies=Nazis” is analysis?

“there is no difference they are all bloody dictators” Who? All liberals are bloody dictators?

Pierre Trudeau was Canada’s 15th Prime Minister from 1968-1979, and head of the Liberal Party. Please point out elements of his goverment that were particularly bloody and dictatorial.

Kyle

“I only want to seize a little of their wealth, just a little, they’ll never miss it!”

Is that supposed to be a quote from me? When, at any point, did I say anything like this? When were we even disucssing incrementalism?

Terry, why do you constantly refuse to address any of the points I’ve actually made, and instead simply erect a Straw Man to batter?

Kyle

A few notes:

– “I don’t want to destroy the rich; I only want to seize a little of their surplus to help the poor, just a little, they’ll never miss it!” appears to be the original quote. Why then did you change it to “I only want to seize a little of their wealth, just a little, they’ll never miss it!”? That is not quoting, that is MISquoting.

– “Is that the score? You’ll get away with your cannibalistic philosophy because those of us who somehow can, will “do something”?” I have no idea what you are even asking here. Can you clarify?

– How do you claim to know what my intentions are? Are you psychic? And I ask again, why do you refuse to debate me on anything I ACTUALLY SAY, rather than what you presume my intentions are? Surely if you’re right then there is nothing to fear from open and honest debate.

Kyle

“You betray your intentions by your attitude, your behavior, and by the company you keep.”

You continue to baffle me with every word you type. How do you have any idea what company I keep?

And I am asking you now for the 3rd time, instead of commenting on what you THINK you know about me, why not debate things I have ACTUALLY SAID?

John

Oh Kyle, oh poor, poor misguided Kyle. Don’t you get it? You’re dealing with lunatics.

Terry can’t be reasoned with or bargained with. Mr. Hurlbut is insane. His persecution complex has actually hit the critical mass in which it begins to eat itself. “Renewing the Fourth Estate” is more like “All the Nonsense You Can Eat”. Terry believes that Ayn Rand’s Objectivism is a legitimate philosophy and economic policy, even though no modern philosopher takes her seriously, most modern economists would call her inconsistent and naive and Ayn Rand’s atheism is directly at odds with his own biblical literalism. Terry is clearly emotionally stunted to the point where he is incapable of experiencing cognitive dissonance.

Terry, please report me to the “New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners for practicing psychiatry without a license.” Not only do I live well over a thousand miles away from New Jersey, but you attempting to report me for what they’ll perceive as “Some guy on the internet told me I was crazy, SMITE HIM!” will likely get you the help you so desperately need.

Joseph is so hilariously historically ignorant that he doesn’t even know how the study of history operates. Here’s a guy who claims that liberals and progressives are acting exactly like Nazis as if Godwin’s law wasn’t a sad rhetorical reality. Here’s three groups both Nazism and Conservatism rail against: Communists, Trade Unions and Homosexuals. My point is that Joseph would believe stories about Jesus flying around a magic donkey if only those were in his holy book. He will agree with anything, no matter how plainly factually incorrect, if it confirms his own incredibly skewed beliefs.

Bruce can’t write a proper sentence, much less put together a cohesive thought. I’d like for him to spread his message of “wat?” if only because it will get people laughing, and when you laugh, you cannot be afraid.

Kyle, please save your energy. You actually use your brain, and we will be best served by putting it to more productive purposes. These troglodytes are actively marginalizing their own beliefs, and the best thing we can do is simply laugh, and watch as the evolution of our species passes them by. They don’t believe in evolution, which is great, because that’s like parking your car in the middle of the tracks and screaming that you don’t believe in trains because combustion engines violate (your misunderstanding of) the laws of thermodynamics.

By the way, have you heard the one about the two housewives and the flower delivery?

So two housewives are sitting in a living room gossiping, when there’s a knock at the door. The lady of the house opens it, and it’s a flower delivery guy with a dozen roses. The lady of the house signs for it, shuts the door and then turns to her friend and says, “Great, my husband got me flowers for my birthday, now I’ll have to spend three days on my back with my legs in the air pretending to enjoy it.” Her friend, the other housewife, asks, “Why? Don’t you have a vase?”

aveskde

Making scandalous statements like “The United Nations wants to abolish private property worldwide” only makes you look like you have a screw loose and no one except fellow crazy people are going to take you seriously.

Agenda 21 is simply a set of policy tools which try to assist preservation of our environment and biodiversity. To normal, sane people this means we debate over the costs and benefits of their intended policies and goals. To fringe nutcases like yourself, you imagine a conspiracy to end your property rights. To make it especially funny, you pretend that you have absolute command over your land, and this act takes that away. In any society, your claim to land is a compromise with how it affects others. Controlling the ability to clear-cut forests, or kill certain species is another compromise.

The libertarian basis of your reasoning isn’t even consistent. If you believe that we can claim land because we are autonomous individuals who can discover and exercise claims to property which are products of ourselves, that reasoning must extend to other species which means that our present use of land violates the rights of millions of species on the planet.

aveskde

>>I am in distinguished company indeed. Samuel Adams—John Hancock—George Washington.

None of those men agreed with you, and trying to use their authority to bolster your own opinions is tacky and cliched.

They were liberals of their era because in their time, the standard was that monarchies and aristocracies owned the land. They helped spread the idea that the public could own land, though their ideas compared to now would be considered conservative (it is an example of changing values, what was liberal then is conservative now). In their time it would be considered proper that only wealthy landowners could vote.

The point is that these men would probably not side with tin-hat wearing conservatives of today, because they were revolutionaries who fought against the prevailing ideas of their time and believed in social responsibility (private land ownership is irresponsible if it collectively harms our environment).

>>balderdash and fustian! Man, and only man, is a being of volitional consciousness

Prove it. Prove that in this complex world where life is a series of inherited gradients and diverging branches, that we are somehow unique in this regard despite being related to every animal on Earth; sharing biological processes with them, sharing our nervous system with them, and especially sharing our capacity for higher reasoning with the higher animals like primates and birds.

>>No other animal, and no plant, fungus, bacterium, or virus, can make that claim.

Birds can fashion tools and are aware of patterns, especially parrots and corvids. Primates can count and use sign language.

link to youtube.com
link to pigeon.psy.tufts.edu
link to independent.co.uk

>>Don’t talk to me about animal rights; they have none.

You’re in fine company there. A couple centuries ago, it was widely believed that only white Europeans had the ability of higher reasoning and thought. Blacks, aborigines, etc. were all lower animals who deserved no rights. Men thought the same of women.

The best way to undermine the rights of others is to train yourself to think of them as inferior and therefore not deserving. The same is true with animals now. We are learning that they possess many of our mental traits but men like you prefer to make them suffer and eradicate them.

The problem is, if they are aware of the world like we are, and we know this must be true because they can fashion tools, count, and use language… what right have we to violate their environment? Suddenly we are a cancer to thousands of species.

[…] this have anything to do, perhaps, with UN Agenda 21? Why else try to convince children that global warming is […]

[…] UN Agenda 21 – abolish private property […]

[…] The most important question to ask the candidates is one that the mainstream media are not asking. That is: Will you thwart UN Agenda 21, and how will you do this? The United Nations, as a supra-national body, is unconstitutional anyway. But the worst thing that it is now doing, is deliberately threatening the sovereignty and the liberties of the American people. For a refresher on what UN Agenda 21 is, see here and here. […]

[…] this last: Salanitri sounded a special alarm about UN Agenda 21 and the efforts of groups like Sustainable Jersey to promote it. “Sustainable development” […]

[…] has never once opposed UN Agenda 21, or moved to stop local governments from implementing its […]

Chris

Mr. Terry A. Hurlbut has it 100% right.

@ aveskde
The point is that only MAN has got a soul.
Mr. Terry A. Hurlbut was correct in saying that animals have NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER. This is because they only have spirits but no souls, and each animal spirit will end up in hell after death.
While i think its wrong to torment or make animals suffer, you should not forget that the creator made MAN the master of all worldly creation like plants, animals and earth itself.

If you read the bible, you will eventually read:
“For a man who loves the world, the love of the father is NOT in him.” Think about it.

Tyranny, oppression and enslavement for WHATEVER good and noble your excuses may sound, will never be just or righteous. The people love freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Or at least they should.
Those who don’t care for those values have undoubtedly turned from the almighty.

trackback

Picasso Condos…

How can you be so sure about UN Agenda 21 abolish private property – Conservative News and … ? Although most of the information provided is true as per my knowledge but I don’t agree fully. I think it should be more practical. I visited your website…

[…] υπό πλήρη έλεγχο, όπως ακριβώς έχει ήδη αρχίσει και εφαρμόζεται στο New Jersey. Κάποια στιγμή κάε είδους ιδιοκτησία θα είναι […]

[…] environment over people. The common buzz phrase is “sustainable development.” What that really means […]

[…] Conservative News and Views United Nations wants to abolish private property worldwide. UN Agenda 21 is their tool—and local governments are already cooperating. What is UN Agenda 21? […]

[…] υπό πλήρη έλεγχο, όπως ακριβώς έχει ήδη αρχίσει και εφαρμόζεται στο New Jersey. Κάποια στιγμή κάθε είδους ιδιοκτησία θα είναι […]

[…] υπό πλήρη έλεγχο, όπως ακριβώς έχει ήδη αρχίσει και εφαρμόζεται στο New Jersey. Κάποια στιγμή κάθε είδους ιδιοκτησία θα είναι […]

[…] Abolishing private property […]

[…] υπό πλήρη έλεγχο, όπως ακριβώς έχει ήδη αρχίσει και εφαρμόζεται στο New Jersey. Κάποια στιγμή κάε είδους ιδιοκτησία θα είναι […]

[…] Note: See here for a capsule description of what Agenda 21 would mean. Included: the dingbat dorms, or mixed-use […]

[…] manual transpira de propaganda continuta. Ideologia pe care o promoveaza apartine ONU sub numele de Agenda 21, si care promoveaza abolirea proprietatii […]

[…] The United Nations Agenda 21 project under the guise of Smart Growth is on track to move people into highly regulated compact areas so government has better control and to change the demographics so that election patterns move from right to left wing. The elimination of private property rights is the underlying agenda. The scope of the intention is breathtaking and the underhanded and insidious marketing of this freedom taking idea is brilliant. Beware! […]

Trending

61
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x