Excellent first post on Agenda 21 at OoL from David of WitteringsfromWitney. The key paragraph was probably:
“The philosophy behind Agenda 21 is that our environmental problems are the number one problem that we are facing, and that those problems are being caused by human activity.
Therefore, according to Agenda 21, human activity needs to be tightly monitored, regulated and controlled for the greater good. Individual liberties and freedoms must be sacrificed for the good of the planet.”
This post below follows on from that and was my comment in the comments thread:
This from American Thinker touches on it here:
A detailed history on sustainable development, definitions, and critical actions can be found here.
Section III of the Agenda 21 Plan addresses local community sustainable development. The Preamble and Chapter 28 discuss how Agenda 21 should be implemented at a local level. The United Nations purposely recommends avoiding the term Agenda 21 and suggests a cleverly named alternative: “smart growth.”
The United Nations Millennium Papers – Issue 2(page 5) says this of Agenda 21 and smart growth:
Participating in a UN-advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society such as the National Rifle Association, citizen militias and some members of Congress.
This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21.
So, we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management, or smart growth.
The new godless, dumb, non critically thinking, state-educated child of the C21st, so beloved of Them is required to push the Agenda forward:
Education is a key ingredient in the transformation to a sustainable society. The UN Commission on Sustainable Development reports that in America, “the national strategy on education is prepared by the Department of Education and includes such programmes as Goals 2000 and School to Work” (emphasis added).
The National Environmental Education Advisory Council to the Department of Education consists of eleven individuals appointed by the EPA Administrator and includes representatives of women, NGOs, and local authorities (visioning councils). The U.S. State Department reported to the UN that:
“At the primary school level, school curricula have already been reviewed and revised, and at the secondary school level, the revision of school curricula is being undertaken currently to address environment and development as a cross cutting issue.”
I shan’t lengthen this post by going into the fine detail of the World Core Curriculum, International Baccalaureate etc. but the thing to remember, when you explore it, is that on the surface, it looks like a normal, high quality programme. It’s only when you get into things like reading passages for comprehension or examples which are given here and there to illustrate a concept that you see the Agenda in operation.
It does it, not by teaching it outright but assuming it as a given truth and that’s the insidiousness, given the opening quote at the top here.
The other side to this is the dissemination of opposition to the Agenda and you’ve read that the planners are well aware of the opposition forces. Most of those initially stemmed from the internet and so it is only logical that shills and trolls abound there, as they do in the comments threads of major dailies.
Bloggers who deal with such material are up against two things:
1. Key figures purporting to be on our side, arguing our cause but there is something quite questionable in their effect on society as a whole – people like Icke, Jones, Beck and so on. It turns large portions of the population off and lends verisimilitude to the second here:
2. Many readers are still stuck in this “religious nut”, “NWO nut”, “conspiracy loon” rhetoric we saw some of last evening in comments. Essentially good people at heart, they simply don’t want to know any of these things and the data, the eivdence, is boring, let’s face it. So these readers just dismiss anything, even backed by evidence like the above, as “loonery”.
One can’t have a rational discussion with someone who dismisses everything as loonery or moonbattery without even considering the data properly. So, whether it is deliberate shillery, as in the UNMP I2 above or whether it is the largely unknowing reader who, instead of wishing to learn, decides to dismiss it out of hand as “I don’t do conspiracy theory”, the awareness of what is happening is stalled.
You could throw into this my own bad attitude. As a former educator, I should perhaps be more aware that a topic has to prepared and slipped into the consciousness of kids in easy bites which they can consume.
With adults though, I’d expect them to see a piece of information and if it holds up, i.e. it is factual – to just take it on board and adjust their view on the matter, as I do, as many people do.
I don’t expect anyone to immediately take on board the point of view a post puts and I fully expect it is not going to interest many and so they move on, with or without comment. That’s fine and as it should be.
The issue is where someone does stop to argue, which is absolutely fine again and welcome too. I love a good debate. For sure, put up counter argument and the result is a good read for readers. This happened with something to do with Kentucky some time back with Chrysalis, where she countered with data and I countered that data with a vid which she saw as not representative etc. etc. Rollicking stuff.
Now that was good debate and people got something out of it. However, when someone starts simply putting a counter assertion without any back-up, I really do get most frustrated, especially when they haven’t bothered researching it. This is different to having a different point of view. It’s not Point A v Point B, it’s knowledge from research v ignorance.
But even further research is up against it.
As Google is ubiquitous and as its algorithm means that those who bomb Google get their results near the top, if an unsuspecting person werre to Google, say, climate change, some years back the first page and a half was filled with pro climate change material and the anti-scam people [the majority of bloggers these days] were relegated to the small pages.
So only one point of view gets through.
Then we have what I call the Wolfie Effect. This is when someone comes in with a sharp tongue, making personal references to the blogger and so the following happens:
This is the day I’ve been expecting. Every search term will be indexed and cataloged, traced back to its originator for the state.
This is an important post but its got a bit buried in the trivia that you seem more interested these days.
To which I replied:
No, what I need and what many need is for the bloody PCism to stop. And that is more important than anything Google’s doing.
And what effect does that have? Well it p***es off Wolfie but more importantly, it causes the point to be lost. That point, by the way, is that Google have now done a nasty and as Wolfie says, every search term will now be indexed and catalogued. This is, contrary to my retort, a most important and insidious development.
However, to make it into some sort of competition with “the trivia that you seem more interested these days” is only going to result in aggro, when both issue are very important in themselves.
So those are the vicissitudes of blogging and trying to disseminate information. And the Agenda 21 designers are well aware of the pitfalls and factor them in.
While I’m here, I really must mention David’s piece on the changing conditions of entry to the police – scary.