AGENDA 21/SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Explained: North America - US - CANADA - Nova Scotia

AGENDA 21/SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Explained: North America - US - CANADA - Nova Scotia

Link here to view related topics:

1. AGENDA 21/ Sustainable Development Explained: North America - US - Canada - Nova Scotia ( YOU ARE HERE - It is reccomended that you read this 1st)

2. AGENDA 21/ SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: Population Cut/ Cull (kill) Part 1
(They want to kill us, You should question, Vaccines, Fluoride, Water, GMOs, Chemtrails, Morgellons - GMO/Chemtrail desease.

3. AGENDA 21/ SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: Population Cut/ Cull (kill) Part 2
(Morgellons, Meat, Aspartame, No home gardens, Planned vitamin, mineral and organic food ban, Smart meters, Cancer cures, Pollution free energy and cars, Abortion, After birth abortion, Denying medical care, Killing our own troops, Gun control)

4. AGENDA 21/ SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: Pushback - People are waking up Part 1
(States, Governors, Sheriffs)

5. AGENDA 21/ SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: Pushback - People are waking up Part 2
(Militia, Military, Whistleblowers)

6. Agenda 21/Sustainable Development: The Bigger picture

7. AGENDA 21/ SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: Political Takeover

8. AGENDA 21/ SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: Canada - New World Order (NWO)

Related Links on this site:

1. Mind Control: Through the Education System

2. 3Ps: Public - Private Partnerships

3. (Common Purpose) in topic Child Stealing by the State - Brian Gerrish

4.Education - Dept of Education

5. Mind Control: Through the Education System

Other Links outside this site:

1. People across Canada Speak Out About Agenda 21

2. Democrates Against UN Agenda 21 (Includes article: Is UN Agenda 21 in Canada?  You Bet It Is)

3. UN Division for Sustainable Development

4. Agenda 21 Canada - An Attack on Canadian Liberty

INTRODUCTION:

Agenda 21 is a programme run by the United Nations (UN) related to sustainable development and was the planet's first summit to discuss global warming related issues. It is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which humans impact the environment.

'Sustainable Development' has become the popularized expression for Agenda 21, so lets list a few of these sustainable developers objectives;

- The end of Nation Sovereignty

- Abolition of private property (This includes land, homes and cars - land grabs and expropriations already beginning in the US)
 

Know Your Enemy (Pt. 67 - The War on Parents)
Link here to view full series Know Your Enemy
 

- Restructure of the family unit (note how vague this is - for now)

Obama Admin Plans To 'Force' Americans To Move Into Cities

"Redistributing" the Wealth

Manhattanize America! Wildlands Project=Where You Can't Live in America After Agenda 21 NWO Takeover

- Increasing restrictions and limitations on mobility and opportunity (We will be restricted from rural areas and confined to large cities -  Move people out of the country and into pack and stack super cities.)

- Human beings are to be concentrated into a very few 'Human Settlement Zones'

- Irrigation - Unsustainable (Dams are already being removed in the US)

- Grazing of Livestock - Unsustainable

- Farmlands - Unsustainable

- Higher education - Unsustainable (People with More education use more resources - unsustainable.  Children will be taught not to challenge or question but to obediently follow the State)

and much, much more .....

This 40 chapter document is designed as the philosophy to bring human beings across the globe under the full control of a narrow group of elite. It elevates Nature above Mankind, and contains a little ditty called 'The Precautionary Principle' where basically you are guilty until proven innocent and where the state can take any action against you on the grounds of defending the environment and not have to prove it in any way, scientifically or otherwise.

How do these people plan to do this and make it last ?

You 'steal' a generation of children and you indoctrinate them so that they accept these ideas and become "Global Citizens" in the coming "Global Village." To understand the history and the well planned scheme to indoctrinate our children view topics: Education http://revealingtruthinnovascotia.blogspot.ca/search/label/0.%20.%20Education%20-%20Dept%20of%20Education  and Mind Control: Education http://revealingtruthinnovascotia.blogspot.ca/search/label/0.%20MIND%20CONTROL%3A%20Education%20System. Quite easy really when you can control the education of the planet using a plethora of United Nations agencies.

UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) as one example, came out and declared 2005 - 2014 as the "Decade of Education for Sustainable Development." They go on to say that "...it will encompase the 40 chapters of 'Agenda 21"

"Generally, more highly educated people, who have higher incomes, consume more resources than poorly educated people, who tend to have lower incomes. In this case, more education increases the threat to sustainablility"

Quoted from a Teachers Guide 'Education for Sustainable Development Toolkit' by Rosalyn McKeown

At a meeting of ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives), which is an agency that helps with the implementation of Agenda 21 in local communities, (Its headquarters are in Toronto, Canada) Harvey Ruvin, who was the Vice Chairman of ICLEI, was asked about the clash between the corrolative rights derived from the bill of rights of the people which includes, individual liberties, private property, freedom of speech etc, and Agenda 21.  His response was "Individual rights must take a back seat to the collective.

Agenda 21: How Will It Affect You?

The Real CLIMATE-GATE - THE AGENDA

Globalist Plan to Downsize Americans into Jail Cell Like Homes

http://www.infowars.com/

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/

http://twitter.com/#!/RealAlexJones

http://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEmerikJones

Conspiracy Theory W/ Jesse Ventura: Global Warming

Agenda 21's Globalist Death Plan for Humanity

Lord Christopher Monckton is a British politician, public speaker, former newspaper editor, and a spirited critic of the globalist theory of anthropogenic global warming. He speaks out against Agenda 21 and the upcoming Summit meeting this month.

AGENDA 21/ Sustainable Development Explained:
North America - US - Canada - Nova Scotia

Tom DeWeese - Agenda 21
For those who like to read, link here to read Tom DeWeese on Agenda 21



Agenda 21 for [Local] Public Officials

- First up on this page: View and read to find out what Agenda 21 is all about.

- Next, the 2 videos of Michael Shaw explain the local community connections including the removal of all private property ( real estate, cars, our own independance).

- Then view video Rosa Koire - Speaks out on U.N. Agenda 21, The Agenda for the 21st Century. Rosa Koire speaks about the local community meetings being conducted across the US designed to bring to bring Agenda 21 land use policy to the local communities using the Delphi technique. This same technique is being used in Canada, (including Halifax under the name HRM by Design) utilizing the descriptor "densification"

- This will be followed by a description of this Delphi technique used at community meetings to manipulate and deceive the people.

- After this view the False Religion connection with Agenda 21

- Lastly, a description of the local  HRM by Design manipulations in Halifax Nova Scotia Canada connection. Wake up! ! ! Agenda 21 is on your dooorstep!

Click here to read Last Chance for Freedom- "Our freedom is our problem. Freedom to use our natural resources. . . . Freedom to run our own lives. Freedom from government propaganda and its false, earth-worship religion. Our enemies use the climate change fraud to distract us. They use it as a reason to shut down our energy production and to steal our land and natural resources. "

Citizens of Halifax:  Please pay attention to everything that has been posted !  We will learn a lot from others in the U.S. who have been exposed to this same deception before us.

Developers:  You are pons and stooges. You are being used to do the dirty work of the global "big boys".  You are being enticed by the money you can make.  But understand, Agenda 21 will eventually bite you in the rear - Do not be deceived - You will  NOT be exempt. Your property and your money will eventually be taken and you will be put down with the rest of us.  The global elite which is favored is a VERY small club and you are not and never will be a part of it!

Politicians: The same goes for you!

"In Educating for the New World Order by Beverly Eakman, http://www.halcyon.org/enwoinfo.html
the reader finds reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion that there is '…lay, or community, participation (in the decision-making process), while lay citizens were, in fact, being squeezed out.' The Delphi Technique http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/acf001.htm is the method being used to squeeze citizens out of the process."

Agenda 21 For Dummies

Agenda 21: The U.N. Global Land Grab for Local Dummies

This is the beginning of the pushing out of people from the lands designated as "wildlands" according to Agenda 21.

Thomas Jefferson once warned the American People that:

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

The Video: Agenda 21 U.N. Land Grab for Dummies is a straight shooting report by Darrin McBreen of Infowars Nightly News that explains how the U.N.'s Agenda 21 Program is using the corrupt nature of local politicians to pass unrighteous legislation to seize traditional family farm, and ranch lands from the citizens of their own towns, cities, and counties. Under the pretext of creating "Local commons" where nature gets an opportunity to replenish itself, these lands which are seized for mere pennies on the dollar are often times later sold to developers for a heavy profit to the PolyTickians!

Unfortunately Land Grabbing is the kinder, gentler side of Agenda 21, The Beastly Side is that it is the primary program by which the Global Elite are using to implement their Draconian Global Depopulation/Eugenics Agenda which is hell-bent on reducing the worldwide Human Population Levels to UNder 1 Billion survivors on Planet Earth in their twisted vision of the New World Order. [ Link here to view topic, this website, AGENDA 21/ SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: Population Cut/ Cull (Kill) ]

Agenda 21 For Even Bigger Dummies Part 1

A movement of vital proportion, ignored by the major media, kept off-limits from the general public, has been on the United Nations (UN) drawing board for well over ten years. This movement would nullify our Constitutional structure with its freedoms and prerogatives enshrined in the Bill of Rights, including our unhampered right to religious freedom. It masquerades behind the facade of "sustainable development."

In December 1983, Javier Perez de Cuellar, UN Secretary-General, asked Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland, Norway, to chair a World Commission on Environment and Development (UNCED) focusing on "long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development by the year 2000 and beyond."1 Previously she had been Prime Minister of Norway and had served on other UN Commissions - the Brandt Commission on North-South Issues and the Palme Commission on security and disarmament. Now she was asked "to help formulate a third and compelling call for political action" on environment and development."2

Here a one-world pattern begins to emerge: the Brandt Commission bore the title "Program for Survival and Common Crisis"; the Palme Commission "Common Security"; and the Brundtland Commission, "Common Future"3 There is also a political cord common to the chairmen: Willy Brandt, former Prime Minister of Germany, was until his death president of the Socialist International. Olof Palme, Prime Minister of Sweden, was a socialist leader and Chairman of the Social Democratic Party who was assassinated in Stockholm. Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Prime Minister of Norway was also a "member of the Socialist International." These chairmen shared the bond of socialism, a bond at variance with both the U.S. Constitution and the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church.

The Resolution adopted at the UN General Assembly in 1983 directed the chair and vice-chair of the new UNCED to "jointly appoint the remaining members of the Commission, half of whom were to be selected from the developing world."4 Members of the Brundtland Commission came from 21 "very different nations" and included Jim McNeill and Maurice Strong from Canada and the American, William D. Ruckelshaus, the first head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (ERA). He is also a member of the Business Council for Sustainable Development launched in 1990 by Maurice Strong. The Business Council called for "new forms of cooperation between government, business and society to achieve sustainable development."5 What Is Meant By Sustainable Development?

The Brundtland Commission describes Sustainable Development as "Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."6 It is further defined: ". . . Sustainable Development can only be pursued if demographic developments are in harmony with the changing productive potential of the ecosystem."7 And again, . . . "at a minimum Sustainable Development must not endanger the natural systems that support life on Earth - the waters, the soils, and the living beings" The pattern that begins to surface here becomes more pronounced in the body of the Commission's report which was presented to the UN General Assembly in 1987.

The thrust of the "unanimous report" after three years of hearings held on five continents appears in the Chairman's Foreword in comments such as "the rights of people to adequate food, sound housing, safe water, to access to means of choosing the size of their families" (xi); ". . . survival issues relating to uneven development, poverty and population growth" (xii); "the need for 'major changes' . . . in attitudes and in the way our societies are organized" (xiii).8

Agenda 21 For Even Bigger Dummies Part 2

Agenda 21 EXPLAINED, full version
Here is a detailed presentation on what is really in Agenda 21. How it will ultimately take your private property away.

This is an excellent explanation, using the documents and published papers, that chronologically spells out the unfolding of Agenda 21 on America.

4:14 - 1979 the United Nations (UN) requested that Gro Brundtland and Maurice Strong work toward putting together a report outlining a global environmental plan for the future - Result: 1987 - Our Common Future

11:15 - June 3-14, 1992- the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit ( the UN Conference on Environment and Development)- 18,000 people attended. Result: Agenda 21 Signed by George Bush but soft law treaty

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

14:18 - 1995 - Global Biodiversity Assessment (1,140 pages) - completed under the auspices of UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme ) - Spells out, specifically, what is considered unsustainable, including roadways, dams, and the scales of justice.

20: 04 - Wildland Project for animals and high density habitats for people. (soft law treaty)

22:45 - June 1993 President Clinton signed Executive Order 12852 creating the President's Council on Sustainable Development. Result: 1999 Towards a Sustainable America to begin implementation in federal agencies. - Hard Law

http://www.scribd.com/doc/39565248/Towards-a-Sustainable-America-Bill-Clinton-1999

23:30 - Review of progressive steps so far.

24:21- 1997 - US Conference of Mayors creates the Joint Center for Sustainable Communities.

25:05 - 2001 - National Governor's Association endorses Smart Growth advancing statewide Sustainable Development.

25:10 - June 2001 - Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13575 creating White House Rural Communities Act / White House Rural Council enabling implementation of Sustainable Development in 16% of the US.

Click HERE to get more detailed info.

25: 40  In 1993, by Executive Order 12852, President Clinton created the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) The Council is is explicitly charged with recommending a national action plan for sustainable development to the President. The PCSD is composed of leaders from government and industry, as well as from environmental, labor and civil rights organizations. The PCSD submitted its report, "Sustainable America: A New Consensus" , to the President in early 1996.  In the absence of a multi-sectoral consensus on how to achieve sustainable development in the United States, the PCSD was conceived to formulate recommendations for the implementation of Agenda 21.

Link HERE to view actual document:

http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/usa/inst.htm

Followed in 1999 by Towards a Sustainable America .  Link to above at 22:45

 

26:33 Agenda 21 principals embedded into every federal agency and NGOs:

- Sustainable Development is development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to .meet their own needs.

- The 3Es of Agenda 21:
Social Equity (Individual gives up personal needs for the needs of the community)
Economic Prosperity (Free market replaced by public/private partnership -International wealth transfer)
Ecological Integrity (Individual rights subordinated to environmental needs)

- "Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective." - Harvet Ruvin

- "Paticipating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society…. 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 [Local Agenda 21]. So, we call our processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth. [or HRM by design]" - J Gary Lawrence  in  The Future of Agenda 21 in the New Millennium  - The Millennium Papers

- 2 Systems: Smart Growth in the cities (stack and pack / high density) and Wildlands Project in the rural areas.

40:34 - Implementation - Money from Presidents Council allocated to various agencies that contracted with various planning associations. Result: 2002 Growing Smart: Legislative Guidebook.

43:09 - NGOs (Non-Government Organizations) logos of some above - fund and develop grants to implement Agenda 21/ Sustainable Development

Henry Lamb - Global governance Lecture

Sustainable Development: Transforming America

by Henry Lamb

http://freedom.org/reports/sd-transform.html

Environmental Conservation Organization Hollow Rock,

Tennessee December 1, 2005

As the "sustainable development" movement continues to gain momentum, it is worthwhile to step back and take a long look at the big picture, painted with a broad brush to reveal what the United States might look like as the movement's vision is more fully implemented over the next 50 years or so.

The picture painted here is based on official documents published by several government agencies and non-government organizations during the last decade. These documents were rarely reported in the news, and average working people have no idea what sustainable development really means, and even less knowledge of what is in store for the future. If the vision of sustainable development continues to unfold as it has in the last decade, life in the United States will be quite different in the future.

The Vision

Half the land area of the entire country will be designated "wilderness areas," where only wildlife managers and researchers will be allowed. These areas will be interconnected by "corridors of wilderness" to allow migration of wildlife, without interference by human activity. Wolves will be as plentiful in Virginia and Pennsylvania as they are now in Idaho and Montana. Panthers and alligators will roam freely from the Everglades to the Okefenokee and beyond.

Surrounding these wilderness areas and corridors, designated "buffer zones" will be managed for "conservation objectives." The primary objective is "restoration and rehabilitation." Rehabilitation involves the repair of damaged ecosystems, while restoration usually involves the reconstruction of natural or semi-natural ecosystems. As areas are restored and rehabilitated, they are added to the wilderness designation, and the buffer zone is extended outward.

Buffer zones are surrounded by what is called "zones of cooperation." This is where people live - in "sustainable communities." Sustainable communities are defined by strict "urban growth boundaries." Land outside the growth boundaries will be managed by government agencies, which grant permits for activities deemed to be essential and sustainable. Open space, to provide a "viewshed" and sustainable recreation for community residents will abut the urban boundaries. Beyond the viewshed, sustainable agricultural activities will be permitted, to support the food requirements of nearby communities.

Sustainable communities of the future will bear little resemblance to the towns and cities of the 20th century. Single-family homes will be rare. Housing will be provided by public/private partnerships, funded by government, and managed by non-government "Home Owners Associations." Housing units will be designed to provide most of the infrastructure and amenities required by the residents. Shops and office space will be an integral part of each unit, and housing will be allocated on a priority basis to people who work in the unit - with quotas to achieve ethnic and economic balance. Schools, daycare, and recreation facilities will be provided. Each unit will be designed for bicycle and foot traffic, to reduce, if not eliminate, the need for people to use automobiles.

Transportation between sustainable communities, for people and for commodities, will be primarily by light rail systems, designed to bridge wilderness corridors where necessary. The highways that remain will be super transport corridors, such as the "Trans-Texas Corridor" now being designed, which will eventually reach from Mexico to Canada. These transport corridors will also be designed to bridge wilderness corridors, and to minimize the impact on the environment.

Government, too, will be different in a sustainable America. Human activity is being reorganized around ecoregions, which do not respect county or state boundaries. Therefore, the governing apparatus will be designed to regulate the activities within the entire region, rather than having multiple governing jurisdictions with services duplicated in each political subdivision. It is far more efficient to have regional governing authorities with centrally administered services.

Sierra Club's proposal to reorganize North America into 21 Ecoregions.

The Sierra Club, one of hundreds of non-government organizations actively working to bring about this transformation, has suggested that North America be divided into 21 ecoregions, that ignore existing national, state, and county boundaries. In 1992, they published a special issue of their magazine which featured a map, and extensive descriptions of how these ecoregions should be managed. (1)

The function of government will also change. The legislative function, especially at the local and state level, will continue to diminish in importance, while the administrative function will grow. Already, in some parts of the country, counties are combining, and city and county governments are consolidating. Regional governing authorities are developing; taking precedence over the participating counties, which will eventually evaporate. State governments will undergo similar attrition; as regulations are developed on an ecoregions basis, there will be less need for separate state legislation. The administrative functions of state governments will also collapse into a super-regional administrative unit, to eliminate unnecessary duplication of investment and services.

The Reality

This vision is quite attractive to many Americans, especially those born since 1970, who have been educated in the public school system. To these people, nothing is more important than saving the planet from the certain catastrophe that lies ahead, if people are allowed to continue their greedy abuse of natural resources. The public school system, and the media, have been quite successful is shaping new attitudes and values to support this vision of how the world should be.

This vision did not suddenly spring from the mind of a Hollywood screenwriter. It has been evolving for most of the last century. Since the early 1960s, it has been gaining momentum. The rise of the environmental movement became the magnet which attracted several disparate elements of social change, now coalesced into a massive global movement, euphemistically described as sustainable development.

The first Wilderness Act was adopted in 1964, which set aside nine million acres of wilderness so "our posterity could see what our forefathers had to conquer," as one Senator put it. Now, after 40 years, 106.5 million acres are officially designated as wilderness. (2) At least eight bills have been introduced in the 109th Congress to add more wilderness to the system. (3) And every year, Congress is asked to designate more and more land as wilderness. Most of this land is already a part of a global system of ecoregions, recognized internationally as "Biosphere Reserves."

In the United States, there are 47 Biosphere Reserves, so designated by the United Nations Education, Science, and Cultural Organization, (4) which are a part of a global network of 482 Biosphere Reserves. This global network is the basis for implementing the U.N.'s Convention on Biological Diversity, (5) a treaty which the U.S. Senate chose not to ratify. (6) The 1140-page instruction book for implementing this treaty, Global Biodiversity Assessment, provides graphic details about how society should be organized, and how land and resources should be managed, in order to make the world sustainable. This treaty was formulated by U.N. agencies and non-government organizations between 1981 and 1992, [not elected people] when it was formally adopted by the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro.

Consider this instruction from the Global Biodiversity Assessment:

"...representative areas of all major ecosystems in a region need to be reserved, that blocks should be as large as possible, that buffer zones should be established around core areas, and that corridors should connect these areas. This basic design is central to the recently proposed Wildlands Project in the United States." (7)

Now consider "this basic design" as described in the Wildlands Project:

"...that at least half of the land area of the 48 conterminous states should be encompassed in core reserves and inner corridor zones (essentially extensions of core reserves) within the next few decades.... Nonetheless, half of a region in wilderness is a reasonable guess of what it will take to restore viable populations of large carnivores and natural disturbance regimes, assuming that most of the other 50 percent is managed intelligently as buffer zones. Eventually, a wilderness network would dominate a region...with human habitations being the islands. The native ecosystem and the collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans." (8)

Even though this treaty was not ratified by the United States, it is being effectively implemented by the agencies of government through the "Ecosystem Management Policy." The U.S. Forest service is actively working to identify and secure wilderness corridors to connect existing core wilderness areas. (9)

Both state and federal governments have enacted legislation in recent years to provide for systematic acquisition of "open space," land suitable for restoration and rehabilitation, to expand wilderness areas, and to provide "viewsheds" beyond urban boundaries.

In the last days of the Clinton Administration, the Forest Service adopted the "Roadless Area Conservation Rule," which identified 58.5 million acres from which access and logging roads were to be removed. In the West, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are driving ranchers off the land by reducing grazing allotments to numbers that make profitable operations impossible. Inholders, people who have recreational cabins on federal land, are discovering that their permits are not being renewed. The Fish and Wildlife Service is forcing people off their land through designations of "wetlands," and "critical habitat" which render the land unusable for profit-making activities.

Much to the chagrin of the proponents of sustainable development, some of these policies have been slowed, but not reversed, by the Bush administration. Nevertheless, agencies of government, supported by an army of non-government organizations, continue to transform the landscape into the vision described in the Wildlands Project, and in the Global Biodiversity Assessment.

Blueprint for Sustainable Development

Other agencies of government are working with equal diligence, to create the "islands of human habitation," otherwise called sustainable communities. The blueprint for these communities was also adopted at the 1992 U.N. Conference in Rio de Janeiro. Its title is "Agenda 21." This 300-page document contains 40 chapters loaded with recommendations to govern virtually every facet of human existence. Agenda 21 is not a treaty. It is a "soft law" policy document which was signed by President George H.W. Bush, and which does not require Senate ratification.

One of the recommendations contained in the document is that each nation establish a national council to implement the rest of the recommendations. On June 29, 1993, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order Number 12852 which created the President's Council on Sustainable Development. (PCSD) (10) Its 25 members included most Cabinet Secretaries, representatives from The Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club and other non-government organizations, and a few representatives from industry.

The PCSD set out to implement the recommendations of Agenda 21 administratively, where possible, and to secure new legislation when necessary. One of the publications of the Council is "Sustainable Communities, Report of the Sustainable Communities Task Force." (11) This document, in very generalized language, makes sustainable communities sound like the perfect solution to all the world's ills. Another document, "Community Sustainability; Agendas for Choice-making and Action," however, describes in much more precise detail exactly what sustainable communities will be. This document was prepared by the Department of Housing and Urban Development as a report to the U.N. Conference on Human Settlements in Istanbul, June, 1996.

This report says that current lifestyles in the United States will "...demolish much of nature's diversity and stability, unless a re-balance can be attained - an urban-rural industrial re-balance with ecology, as a fundamental paradigm of authentic, meaningful national/global human security." (12)

This highly detailed 25-page report goes on to describe the sustainable community of the future:

"...Community Sustainability Infrastructures [designed for] efficiency and livability that encourages: in-fill over sprawl: compactness, higher density low-rise residential: transit-oriented (TODs) and pedestrian-oriented development (PODs): bicycle circulation networks; work-to-home proximity; mixed-use-development: co-housing, housing over shops, downtown residential; inter-modal transportation malls and facilities ...where trolleys, rapid transit, trains and biking, walking and hiking are encouraged by infrastructures."

"For this hopeful future we may envision an entirely fresh set of infrastructures that use fully automated, very light, elevated rail systems for daytime metro region travel and nighttime goods movement, such as have been conceptualized and being positioned for production at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis; we will see all settlements linked up by extensive bike, recreation and agro-forestry "E-ways" (environment-ways) such as in Madison, Wisconsin; we will find healthy, productive soils where there is [now] decline and erosion, through the widespread use of remineralization from igneous and volcanic rock sources (much of it the surplus quarry fines, or "rockdust", from concrete and asphalt-type road construction or from reservoir silts); we will be growing foods, dietary supplements and herbs that make over our unsustainable reliance upon foods and medicines that have adverse soil, environmental, or health side-effects. Less and less land will go for animal husbandry, and more for grains, tubers and legumes." (13)

Sustainable communities cannot emerge as the natural outgrowth of free people making individual choices in a free market economy. Nor can they be mandated in the United States, as they might be in nations that live under dictatorial rule. Therefore, the PCSD developed a strategy to entice or coerce local communities to begin the transition to sustainability.

The EPA provided challenge grants, and visioning grants to communities that would undertake the process toward sustainability. Grants were also made available to selected non-government organizations to launch a visioning process in local communities. This process relies on a trained facilitator who uses a practiced, "consensus building" model to lead selected community participants in the development of "community vision." This vision inevitably sets forth a set of goals - each of which can be found in the recommendations of Agenda 21 - that become the basis for the development of a comprehensive community plan. (14)

According to the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), 6,400 local communities in 113 countries have become involved in the sustainable communities Local Agenda 21 process since 1995. (15) ICLEI is one of several international non-government organizations whose mission is to promote sustainable development and sustainable communities at the local level. Dozens of similar national NGOs are at work all across the United States. A cursory search on the term "sustainable communities" through Google or Yahoo will return a staggering number of responses.

The federal government deepened its involvement in the transformation of America by providing millions of dollars in grants to the American Planning Association to develop model legislation which embodies the principles of sustainable development. The publication, Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change, provides model legislation to be adopted by states. Typically, this legislation, when adopted, requires the creation of a statewide comprehensive land use plan that defines the administrative mechanisms for regional government agencies, and provides planning models for counties to use in creating county-wide land use plans. Municipalities within the county are required to produce a plan that conforms with, and is integrated into the county and state plans. (16)

Using the coercive power of the federal budget, which the PCSD describes as using "financial incentives and disincentives," the federal government had little trouble getting states to rush to adopt some form of the model legislation. The state of Wisconsin, for examples, says this about its comprehensive planning act:

"The Comprehensive Planning Law was developed in response to the widely held view that state planning laws were outdated and inconsistent with the current needs of Wisconsin communities. Commonly recognized as Wisconsin's "Smart Growth" legislation, significant changes to planning-related statutes were approved through the 1999-2001 state biennial budget. Under the new law, any program or action of a town, village, city, county, or regional planning commission, after January 1, 2010, that affects land use must be guided by, and consistent with, an adopted Comprehensive Plan, s. 66. 1001, Wis. Stats." (17)

The APA's Legislative Guidebook offers several forms of the model legislation. States have considerable latitude in the legislation that is adopted. Consequently, each state's legislation may be different, and may impose different requirements on county and city governments. Regardless of the difference, however, they all contain the basic principles set forth in Agenda 21, and they all require the development of plans that result in the implementation of the recommendations contained in Agenda 21.

One of the fundamental elements of all the plans requires limiting development (growth) to certain areas within the county. Planners draw lines on maps, supposedly to prevent development in "environmentally sensitive" areas, but which, in fact, are often quite arbitrary and sometimes influenced by political considerations. The value of land inside the development areas skyrockets, while the value of land outside the development areas plummets - with no hope of future appreciation.

Another common element of these plans is to limit the activity that may occur within the various plan designations. In King County, Washington, for example, property owners in some parts of the county are required to leave 65% of their land unused, in its "natural" condition.

"Known as the 65-10 Rule, it calls for landowners to set aside 65 percent of their property and keep it in its natural, vegetative state. According to the rule, nothing can be built on this land, and if a tree is cut down, for example, it must be replanted. Building anything is out of the question." (18)

These plans also focus on reducing automobile use. Measures sometimes include making driving less convenient by constructing speed bumps and obstructive center diversions on residential streets, prohibiting single occupant use of certain traffic lanes, as well as a variety of extra "tax" measures for auto use. Oregon is experimenting with a mileage tax, based on miles driven. London has imposed a special tax on automobiles that enter a designated "high traffic area." Several U.S. cities are studying this idea. Santa Cruz, California's plan seeks to ban auto use in certain municipal areas. Hundreds of NGOs have popped up to form a "World Carfree Network" (19) which lobbies local officials to reduce or eliminate auto use.

Alternative transportation is another common element of these plans. Light rail is a favorite, even in communities that have no hope of achieving economic viability. Proponents of sustainable development argue that even if a light rail system has to be subsidized forever, it is a bargain just to get automobiles off the streets. Bicycle paths and "Trails" are always a substantial part of sustainable community plans.

Housing in sustainable communities presents special problems. Space limitations, imposed by growth boundaries, force higher densities and smaller housing units. The term "McMansions" has been coined to describe new homes that are larger than necessary, as determined by sustainable development enthusiasts. Multiple housing units are preferred over single-family structures. Since sustainable communities cannot grow horizontally, they must grow vertically - if they grow at all.

These problems have produced a variety of responses. Some of the new terms that are becoming common in sustainable communities are: Limited Equity Co-ops; Resident-controlled Rentals; Co-housing; Mutual Housing; and many others. (20) Invariably, these schemes are alternatives to the conventional single-family home. Most often, these schemes vest ownership in a corporation that owns the housing units, and residents may, but not always, own shares of the corporation. Living conditions are determined, not by the individual resident, but by the corporation. Financing for the construction of these units, typically requires construction to meet "sustainable" standards, if federal money is used, either directly or indirectly, as in a mortgage guarantee.

Single family homes and business structures that already exist when a community is transformed to sustainability are a special problem, since they rarely meet the criteria required by the comprehensive plan. APA's Legislative Guidebook offers a new solution for this problem: "Amortization of Non-Conforming Uses." This means that a city or county may designate a period of time in which existing structures must be brought into conformity with the new regulations.

"But for homeowners who live in a community that adopts the Guidebook's vision, the APA amortization proposal means the extinguishing, over time, of their right to occupy their houses, and without just compensation for loss of that property. How long they have before they must forfeit their homes would be completely up to the local government." (21)

Eminent domain is another tool used by government to bring their communities into compliance with the sustainable communities vision. With increasing frequency, governments have used this technique to take land, not for "public use," as required by the U.S. Constitution, but for whatever the government deems to be a "public benefit." (22) Governments may condemn and seize the private property of an individual, and then give, or sell it, to another private owner who promises to use the property in a way that satisfies the government's vision.

Plans adopted at the local level can have extremely detailed requirements. It is not unusual for these plans to specify the types of vegetation that must be used for landscaping, the color of paint to be used - inside and outside the structure, and even the types of appliances and fixtures that must be used. Businesses can be required to use signs that conform in size and color to all the other signs in the neighborhood. There is virtually no limit to the restrictions that these plans may impose.

These comprehensive plans are often complicated by an assortment of sub-authorities, such as Historic Districts; Conservation Districts; Economic Development Districts; Scenic Highways and Byways; Scenic Rivers and Streams; and more. These quasi-government agencies are most often created by ordinance, and populated with political appointees. They are frequently given unwarranted authority to dictate the use of private property within their jurisdiction. Individuals caught up in conflict with these agencies are often frustrated by the indifference of elected officials, and financially drained by the legal costs required to resist their dictates.

In one form or another, sustainable development has reached every corner of the United States. It has impacted millions of Americans, most of whom have no idea that their particular problem is related to a global initiative launched more than 15 years ago, by the United Nations. Many, if not most of the bureaucrats at the local and state level, charged with implementing these policies, have no knowledge of their origin. What's worse, few people have considered the possible negative consequences of these policies.

Consequences of Sustainable Development

What is perhaps the most serious consequence of sustainable development is the least visible: the transformation of the policy-making process. The idea that government is empowered by the consent of the governed is the idea that set the United States apart from all previous forms of government. It is the principle that unleashed individual creativity and free markets, which launched the spectacular rise of the world's most successful nation. The idea, and the process by which citizens can reject laws they don't want, simply by replacing the officials who enacted them, makes the ballot box the source of power for every citizen, and the point of accountability for every politician.

When public policy is made by elected officials who are accountable to the people who are governed, then government is truly empowered by the consent of the governed. Sustainable development has designed a process through which public policy is designed by professionals and bureaucrats, and implemented administratively, with only symbolic, if any, participation by elected officials. The professionals and bureaucrats who actually make the policies are not accountable to the people who are governed by them.

This is the "new collaborative decisions process," called for by the PCSD. (23) Because the policies are developed at the top, by professionals and bureaucrats, and sent down the administrative chain of command to state and local governments, elected officials have little option but to accept them. Acceptance is further ensured when these policies are accompanied by "economic incentives and disincentives," along with lobbying and public relations campaigns coordinated by government-funded non-government organizations.

Higher housing costs are an immediate, visible consequence of sustainable development. Land within the urban growth boundary jumps in value because supply is limited, and continues to increase disproportionately in value as growth continues to extinguish supply. These costs must be reflected in the price of housing. Add to this price pressure, the regulatory requirements to use "green seal" materials; that is, materials that are certified, either by government or a designated non-government organization, to have been produced by methods deemed to be "sustainable."

Higher taxes are another immediate, visible, and inevitable consequence of sustainable development. Higher land values automatically result in higher tax bills. Sustainable development plans include another element that affects property taxes. Invariably, these plans call for the acquisition of land for open space, for parks, for greenways, for bike-and- hike trails, for historic preservation, and many other purposes. Every piece of property taken out of the private sector by government acquisition, forces the tax burden to be distributed over fewer taxpayers. The inevitable result is a higher rate for each remaining taxpayer.

Another consequence of sustainable development is the gross distortion of justice. Bureaucrats who draw lines on maps create instant wealth for some people, while prohibiting others from realizing any gain on their investments. In communities across the country, people who live outside the downtown area have lived with the expectation that one day, they could fund their retirement by selling their land to new home owners as the nearby city expanded. A line drawn on a map steals this expectation from people who live outside the urban growth boundary. Proponents of sustainable development are forced to argue that the greater good for the community is more important than negative impacts on any individual. There is no equal justice, when government arbitrarily takes value from one person and assigns it to another.

Nowhere is this injustice more visible than when eminent domain is used to implement sustainable development plans. The Kelo vs. The City of New London case brought the issue to public awareness, but in cities throughout the nation, millions of people are being displaced, with no hope of finding affordable housing, in the new, "sustainable" community. In Florida, this situation is particularly acute. Retirees have flocked to Florida and settled in mobile home parks to enjoy their remaining days, living on fixed incomes, too old or infirm to think about a new income producing career. Local governments across the state are condemning these parks, and evicting the residents, in order to use the land for development that fits the comprehensive plan, and which produces a higher tax yield. These people are the victims of the "greater good," as envisioned by the proponents of sustainable development.

Less visible, but no less important, is the erosion of individual freedom. Until the emergence of sustainable development, a person's home was considered to be his castle. William Pitt expressed this idea quite powerfully in Parliament in 1763, when he said:

''The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the crown. It may be frail - its roof may shake - the wind may blow through it - the storm may enter, the rain may enter - but the King of England cannot enter - all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.'' (24)

No more. Sustainable development allows king-government to intrude into a person's home before it becomes his home, and dictate the manner and style to which the home must conform. Sustainable development forces the owner of an existing home to transform his home into a vision that is acceptable to king-government. Sustainable development is extinguishing individual freedom for the "greater good," as determined by king-government. Conclusion

The question that must be asked is: will sustainable development really result in economic prosperity, environmental protection, and social equity for the current generation, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs? (25)

Even in the early days of this century-long transition to sustainability, there is growing evidence that the fundamental flaws in the concept will likely produce the opposite of the desired goals. Forests that have been taken out of productive use in order to conform to the vision of sustainable development have been burned to cinders, annihilating wildlife, including species deemed to be "endangered," resulting in the opposite of "environmental protection." Government- imposed restrictions on resource use in land that is now designated "wilderness," or "buffer zones" have resulted in shortages, accompanied by rapid price increases that result in the opposite of "economic prosperity." In sustainable communities, it is the poorest of the poor who are cast out of their homes to make way for the planners' visions; these victims would not define the experience as "social equity."

Detailed academic studies show that housing costs rise inevitably as sustainable development is implemented. Traffic congestion is often worsened after sustainable development measures are installed. (26) And always, private property rights and individual freedom are diminished or extinguished.

Sustainable development is a concept constructed on the principle that government has the right and the responsibility to regulate the affairs of people to achieve government's vision of the greatest good for all.

The United States is founded on the principle that government has no rights or responsibility not specifically granted to it by the people who are governed. These two concepts cannot long coexist. One principle, or the other, will eventually dominate. For the last 15 years, sustainable development has been on the ascendency, permeating state and local governments across the land. Only in the last few years have ordinary people begun to realize that sustainable development is a global initiative, imposed by the highest levels of government. People are just beginning to get a glimpse of the magnitude of the transformation of America that is underway.

The question that remains unanswered is: will Americans accept this new sustainable future that has been planned for them and imposed upon them?. Or, as Americans have done in the past, will they rise up in defense of their freedom, and demand that their elected officials force the bureaucrats and professionals to return to the role of serving the people who pay their salaries, by administering policies enacted only by elected officials, rather than conspiring to set the policies by which all the people must live.

Endnotes

1. Sierra Club ecoregions: http://www.sierraclub.org/ecoregions/

2. Wilderness.net (http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=fastFacts), a project of the Wilderness Institute, the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center, and the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute. (October 27, 2005)

3. Campaign for America's Wilderness (http://www.leaveitwild.org/psapp/view_art.asp?PEB_ART_ID=397) (As of May 1, 2005)

4. See Eco-logic Powerhouse, November, 2005, and http://eco.freedom.org/el/20020302/biosphere.shtml

5. Agenda Item 1(7), Report of the First Meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice, Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Second Meeting, 6-17 November, Jakarta, Indonesia, (UNEP/CBD/COP2/5, September 21, 1995). See also: http://www.freedom.org/prc/legis/hr901test.htm.

6. "How the Convention on Biological Diversity was Defeated," Sovereignty International, Inc, 1998 - http://sovereignty.freedom.org/p/land/biotreatystop.htm .

7. "Measures for conservation of biodiversity and Sustainable Use of its Components," Global Biodiversity Assessment, Cambridge University Press for the United Nations Environment Program, Section 13.4.2.2.3, p. 993.

8. Reed F. Noss, "The Wildlands Project," Wild Earth, Special Issue, 1992, pp.13- 15. (Wild Earth is published by the Cenozoic Society, P.O. Box 492, Canton, NY 13617).

9. Report to the Interagency Grizzly Bear Working Group on Wildlife Linkage Habitat, Prepared by Bill Ruediger, Endangered Species Program Leader, USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT, February 1, 2001. See also: http://www.eco.freedom.org/el/20020202/linkage.shtml.

10. See: http://clinton4.nara.gov/PCSD/

11. See: http://clinton4.nara.gov/PCSD/Publications/suscomm/ind_suscom.html

12. "Community Sustainability; Agendas for Choice-making and Action," U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, September 22, 1995. See also: http://eco.freedom.org/reports/sdagenda.html

13. Ibid, pp 21f.

14. See http://eco.freedom.org/col/?i=1997/9 And http://www.sovereignty.net/p/sd/suscom.htm For a discussion of the consensus process, and sustainable communities.

15. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives web site, October 28, 2005 (http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=798)

16. Summary of the Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook, 2002 Edition, (http://www.planning.org/growingsmart/summary.htm)

17. State of Wisconsin, Department of Administration web site: http://www.doa.state.wi.us/pagesubtext_detail.asp?linksubcatid=366

18. FoxNews.com, July 10, 2004 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124358,00.html

19. See http://www.worldcarfree.net/links/traf.php.

20. See http://www.worldcarfree.net/links/traf.php for descriptions of these housing alternatives.

21. "Forfeiting the American Dream: The HUD-Funded Smart Growth Guidebook's Attack on Homeownership," The Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/Research/SmartGrowth/BG1565.cfm), July 2, 2002.

22. "Eminent domain; eminent disaster," Eco-logic Powerhouse, August, 2005 (http://www.eco.freedom.org/articles/maguire-805.shtml) , for a discussion on this issue.

23. President's Council on Sustainable Development, We Believe Statement #8 http://sovereignty.freedom.org/p/sd/PCSD-webelieve.htm

24. William Pitt, the elder, Earl of Chatham, speech in the House of Lords.--Henry Peter Brougham, Historical Sketches of Statesmen Who Flourished in the Time of George III, vol. 1, p. 52 (1839). (http://www.bartleby.com/73/861.html)

25. Sustainable Development as defined by the U.N.'s Bruntland Commission report, Our Common Future, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 43

26. This website, http://www.demographia.com/dbr-ix.htm provides an abundance of reports and studies that challenge effectiveness of sustainable development.

MICHAEL SHAW:
Agenda 21, "The Ultimate War: Globalism vs. America"
part-1

Chapter markers
00:00 Conference Opening
01:42 Introduction: Rosa Koire
02:53 Presentation: Michael Shaw
07:19 A comprehensive Plan of action
07:53 Johannesburg Summit 2002
09:04 Global to Local
09:37 Santa Cruz County
10:38 Global Biodiversity Assessment
13:46 Warm and Fuzzy terms
15:35 Sustainable Development
18:06 The Contemporary Dialectic
19:30 Which Philosophy of Rights?
23:11 Principles 29:53 Map
31:40 U.N. Quote
33:58 NARC
35:45 What is a Metropolitan Planning Organization
37:22 CALCOG
39:21 What does Soviet mean?
40:38 California Regional Progress Report
42:06 ICLEI - treason! http://www.iclei.org/  http://www.freedomadvocates.org/

47:14 The Super Highway

This video was recorded at Rosa Koire's conference on Agenda 21, "Behind the Green Mask", August 6, 2011 in Santa Rosa California.

Agenda 21 is the Master Plan put forth by the United Nations in 1992 and adopted by President Bill Clinton. Agenda 21 is a green initiative which targets cars and people living away from cities who must commute. Their goal is to develop large, congested city centers for people to reside, and provide mass transit for the city dwellers to commute to work. It also targets large parcels of land in the world, including the United States, to be redistricted to "open space land", thereby making it undevelopable.

Agenda 21 is now being adopted in California, specifically in the San Francisco Bay Area, under the name "Plan Bay Area". Plan Bay Area's goal is to develop large congested downtown metro areas, with shops, stores, theaters, and mass high rise housing. They aim to get people out of their private suburban residences and cars, and warehouse them in these large metro areas. These areas will also house California's large immigrant population, including illegal immigrants.

MICHAEL SHAW: Agenda 21,

"In Sonoma County California", part-2

Chapter markers (click the link to jump to topic)

00:00 Conference Opening

01:42 Introduction: Rosa Koire

02:55 Presentation: Michael Shaw

03:21 ABAG

04:02 Focus

04:54 ABAG Energy Programs

06:22 Service Matters

10:04 ICLEI Members

20:59 Bay Area Open Space Council

28:14 NGO

30:31 Sonoma Valley Economic Partnership

33:57 North Bay Watershed Association

34:53 INECE

36:24 Brainwashing our children

37:27 Cool Schools

AGENDA 21: Stealth TAKEOVER EXPOSED!
Sept 2012

Aaron Dykes and Melissa Melton investigate the local initiatives driving the spread of "sustainable communities," now taking over Central Texas and driving its population into a containment grid under the guise of "smart growth" and other such measures. The Infowars team visits several local meetings working to inject 'sustainable' principles into the region, confronting bureaucrats who deny any connection with or sufficient knowledge of the UN's Agenda 21, while Melissa Melton interviews an Urban Design and Landscape Architecture professor at the University of Texas who teaches a class on Agenda 21.

What's behind these "sustainable community" grants, implemented federally through Obama's Partnership for Sustainable Communities and locally through NGOs including the ICLEI and a consortium of regional boards and environmental funds? Research shows that it is little more than a takeover of both metropolitan and rural sites via heavy-handed planning techniques and deep connections to Rockefeller/UN interests.

Rosa Koire - Speaks out on U.N. Agenda 21, The Agenda for the 21st Century

ROSA KOIRE, ASA is a forensic commercial real estate appraiser specializing in eminent domain valuation. Her nearly thirty years of experience analyzing land use and property value enabled her to recognize the planning revolution sweeping across the nation.

UN Agenda 21 is a worldwide plan to undermine US national sovereignty as a constitutional republic and replace it with global and UN control through a one-world government. Hijacking the environmental movement, this plan is currently being carried out locally in US cities, counties and states through the guise of "sustainable development" and environmental "green" stewardship.

This includes efforts to facilitate, through manufactured consensus, high density urban populations while limiting rural living options, private property rights, and individual freedoms and privacy. Our representative republic is being transformed into a socialist state, where instead of being governed by elected officials, we will be governed by un-elected, appointed commissioners.

The Green Mask must be drawn back---far back from the personalities; the little dictators running trusts, foundations, planning departments, city and town councils, provinces and states, non-governmental foundations and the like.

You are in the midst of the biggest public relations scam in the history of the world. The pretty pastel version of life in a Smart Growth development is a manipulation, a mask. In fact these plans are designed to restrict your freedom.

Awareness is the first step in the resistance.

Get Rosa's book Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21

Visit: http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/ http://www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org/

America's Choice/ UNA21 : Sustainable Development Manipulation 1 of 6

Beverly Eakman ~ D e l p h i :
The Techniques of Unethical Consensus-Building Unmasked

Beverly Eakman ( website: http://beverlye.com/) discussing the Delphi Technique used in Education and the "Green" Movement (Agenda 21) and How To Counter Group Manipulation Tactics. Red Pill Politics radio podcast. Her books include:
- How to Counter Group Manipulation Tactics: The Techniques of Unethical Consensus-Building Unmasked,
- Cloning of the American Mind: Eradicating Morality through Education,
- Walking Targets: How Our Psychologized Classrooms Are Producing a Nation of Sitting Ducks, - Educating for the New World Order

Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus:

The Delphi Technique and consensus building are both founded in the same principle — the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, with synthesis becoming the new thesis. The goal is a continual evolution to "oneness of mind" (consensus means solidarity of belief) — the collective mind, the wholistic society, the wholistic earth, etc. In thesis and antithesis, opinions or views are presented on a subject to establish views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All participants in the process are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, "oneness of mind" will supposedly occur.

In group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics. It requires well-trained professionals, known as "facilitators" or "change agents," who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear "sensible," while making opposing views appear ridiculous.

In her book Educating for the New World Order, author and educator Beverly Eakman makes numerous references to the need of those in power to preserve the illusion that there is "community participation in decision-making processes, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out."

The setting or type of group is immaterial for the success of the technique. The point is that, when people are in groups that tend to share a particular knowledge base, they display certain identifiable characteristics, known as group dynamics, which allows the facilitator to apply the basic strategy.

The facilitators or change agents encourage each person in a group to express concerns about the programs, projects, or policies in question. They listen attentively, elicit input from group members, form "task forces," urge participants to make lists, and in going through these motions, learn about each member of a group. They are trained to identify the "leaders," the "loud mouths," the "weak or non-committal members," and those who are apt to change sides frequently during an argument.

Suddenly, the amiable facilitators become professional agitators and "devil's advocates." Using the "divide and conquer" principle, they manipulate one opinion against another, making those who are out of step appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." They attempt to anger certain participants, thereby accelerating tensions. The facilitators are well trained in psychological manipulation. They are able to predict the reactions of each member in a group. Individuals in opposition to the desired policy or program will be shut out.

The Delphi Technique works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and community groups. The "targets" rarely, if ever, realize that they are being manipulated. If they do suspect what is happening, they do not know how to end the process. The facilitator seeks to polarize the group in order to become an accepted member of the group and of the process. The desired idea is then placed on the table and individual opinions are sought during discussion. Soon, associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and they pressure the entire group to accept their proposition.

(excerpt from 1998 article: Lynn M. Stuter)

Exposing the Delphi Technique in Public Meetings

Clarification: A shill, plant, or stooge is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that he has a close relationship with that person or organization. Shill typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that he is an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom he is secretly working. The person or group who hires the shill is using crowd psychology, to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed). Shills are often employed by professional marketing campaigns. Plant and stooge more commonly refer to any person who is secretly in league with another person or organization while pretending to be neutral or actually a part of the organization he is planted in, such as a magician's audience, a political party, or an intelligence organization .

This video shows the manipulation of the audience to gain public consensus for a regional transportation plan the metropolitan transportation commission was assembled by a number of radical environmentalist groups, social justice, social equity groups, in response to California's AB 32 and SB375. AB32 is currently held up in court, and was based on doctored data generated by a California Air Resources Board member, that falsely claimed to have a PhD. He was exposed, but the radically liberal and union owned democratic legislature decided to proceed with the legislation anyway that mis-informed california population voted for. Wake up viewers! This technique is headed your way!

ONE BAY AREA: "AGENDA 21"

the UN's diabolical plan comes to the San Francisco Bay Area

This is the video viewers of the above video were directed to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH5KYGV8314

Chapter markers

01:16 - Comments on the meeting by the Public

05:31 - Erica Wood - Silicon Valley Community Foundation

06:14 - Federal Glover - Metropolitan Transportation Commission

07:24 - Amy Worth - Metropolitan Transportation Commission

20:52 - Dave Biggs - MetroQuest

27:57 - AUDIENCE Interaction

35:57 - Open Space

39:55 - Lots in urban areas

41:57 - AUDIENCE Interaction

45:36 - AUDIENCE Interaction

46:58 - AUDIENCE Interaction

49:19 - AUDIENCE Interaction

58:54 - AUDIENCE Interaction

1:05:01 - AUDIENCE Interaction

1:07:06 - AUDIENCE Interaction

1:13:58 - AUDIENCE Interaction

1:15:59 - AUDIENCE Interaction

1:19:15 - Matt Vander Sluis - Greenbelt Alliance

1:23:53 - THE VISION

1:33:30 - Land use

1:38:14 - 200 Billion for Transportation

1:40:01 - The Policies

1:42:17 - AUDIENCE Interaction

1:45:32 - AUDIENCE Interaction

1:59:23 - AUDIENCE Interaction

Agenda 21 is the Master Plan put forth by the United Nations in 1992 and adopted by President Bill Clinton. Agenda 21 is a green initiative with targets cars and people living away from cities who must commute. Their goal is to develop large, congested city centers for people to reside, and provide mass transit for the city dwellers to commute to work. It also targets large parcels of land in the world, including the United States, to be redistricted to "open space land", thereby making it undevelopable.

Agenda 21 is now being adopted in California, specifically in the San Francisco Bay Area, under the name "Plan Bay Area". Plan Bay Area's goal is to develop large congested downtown metro areas, with shops, stores, theaters, and mass high rise housing. They aim to get people out of their private suburban residences and cars, and warehouse them in these large metro areas. These areas will also house California's large immigrant population, including illegal immigrants.

Plan Bay Area had hosted a 'dog and pony' show in April and May of 2011 to showcase their "vision" and to "solicit" public feedback. This is one of those meeting which did not go very well due to a number of suspicious and disgruntled citizens.

For a detailed account of the meeting by Heather Gass, go to: http://www.theeastbayteaparty.com/news/20110507a_news.html

The False Christian Connection

Rick Warren, Dr. Oz, and the Dangers of the Daniel Plan
Agenda 21

Halifax / HRM by Design

Please everyone, wake up! This Halifax by Design or “densification”, as it has been referred to, should set off red flags. The whole process has been meticulously designed to manipulate, steer and funnel the people into the predetermined outcome that the politicians, developers, and other global powers desire, and all the while, they are trying to convince us that our ideas and opinions count – this is a lie!


1. The original timeframe for this project was to have a wrap-up date of 2015 but because of the push by developers we were informed in the meetings that the wrap-up date was pushed up to October 2012!

This is a significant difference of 3 years! To whose advantage is this? This reminds me of lawyers catching their clients at the last minute before they go into court to bring them some “new” deal that is being offered by the opposition. This is by design – to catch you off guard. You do not have time to think it through, to research and understand all the pros and cons and the long term ramifications of the snap decision your opponent is attempting to secure from you.

We are being played in exactly the same way. Pushing this forward does not allow the people of HRM to think this through. It does not allow us time to discuss amongst ourselves, our views and opinions. Most importantly, it does not allow time for the organization of possible opposition. And, understand this, as citizens of a free and democratic country, we have the right to dissent. In fact, we have the obligation to express dissent when we do not agree with the actions of the government or other bodies that attempt to impose change on our communities.

2. Apparently there was a “kick off” intro meeting before the public consultation meetings that was to include developers, politicians and the public. There were no mail outs for this meeting.

By design there were no mail outs! I would have liked to have heard what the developers and other stakeholders ( these are always the money makers) had to say. If I had known of this meeting, I would have been there!

3. The mail-outs announcing the public consultation meetings was limited to the residents within the specific areas slated for future densification and those whose property is situated within 250 meters of the proposed densification areas.

If it was important enough to send mail outs to those within and those immediately outside the densification area, then it would have been expedient to send mail-outs to all the citizens of HRM. After all, any change to HRM is the business of all the citizens. And when we are talking about densification, we are speaking of increases to traffic lanes that extend far beyond the immediate densification areas. Many people farther afield in both residential and commercial areas are interested and concerned about any increase or divergence in traffic flow and how it might affect them. They had the right to be specifically invited to these public consultations. All the citizens had the right to be there.

The excuse of posting the information concerning these upcoming meetings in the newspapers just is NOT good enough in this day and age. I am sorry, but the truth is that we are not the mass newspaper consumers we were in past generations. This is evidenced by the newspapers across the country shutting down their presses. We have experienced this, ourselves, here in Halifax. The city needs to recognize this: newspapers can no longer be accepted as appropriate and sufficient “public notice” as they were in the past.

It was by design that only a limited number of people were invited to the consultations, to limit the input of the people and, in turn, to limit the input of those who might criticise this project. This is called divide and conquer by lethargy and/or lack of knowledge.

This was the strategy the Japanese used when they first invaded China before WWII. At that time, China was not a united nation. It was more a loose collection of little kingdoms. So slowly and stealthfully Japan moved in and picked off one kingdom after the other. And the others did not pay attention or care. Or perhaps you might think of Hitler’s first takeover movements, taking this and that geological area with reasons and excuses for all, and we appeased him at out peril!

4. In total there are, CURRENTLY, 11 areas in HRM that are slated for this densification and 5 separate sets of meetings were distributed across the HRM area to deal specifically with only 2-4 areas.

Do not be fooled this was NOT for our convenience. The division of these meeting was by design, to keep us separated so that the people would be less likely to converge to share ideas and concerns with each other and thus prevent the formation of a consolidated front against any or all aspect of this plan. This is also called “divide and conquer”, again by lethargy and/or lack of knowledge. However, I must say, after our 1st meeting, I met one smart cookie. He was a young man from Halifax who had come to see how our meeting was unfolding so he would be prepared when the 1st meeting came to his community.

5. During open microphone time after the presentations, when people in the audience attempted to speak out, demanding information and assurance on parking and traffic matters, they were given vague information and were firmly told that this meeting was not the place to raise these concerns.

Considering we were only slated these 2 community meetings, I would say that this was the perfect and only time to raise concerns. Commenting on twitter and comment sections on the internet is not equivalent to open discussion at a community meetings.

But by design, they quickly and firmly stopped all discussion. Limited comments were allowed but discussions or asking for information that the people leading the meeting were not prepared to answer was not allowed.

6. After the open presentation we were then directed to divide into smaller groups where the plan was to try to make us believe that our opinions mattered. Here we were permitted to speak a bit more.

Are you getting the picture? To begin with, only a limited number of people received hand-outs to come to the meetings. Then, these meetings were divided into specific geographic areas on different dates so that all those invited were never in one room together. As a result, all the groups were smaller and more manageable (easier to control and manipulate). And then when we were encouraged to speak out, we had been divided into even smaller groups so that it would be impossible for any opinion expressed by a member of the community to gain popular support.

7. At the 1st meeting we were sold on maximum 3 story street fronts with 45 degree sliding pyramidal shapes for additional floors that were to ensure minimal wind disturbances and maximum sunlight on all the street fronts, including corners, fronts and backs that sided onto streets and private property. This was sold to us as “friendly” “warm” “an inviting ambiance to beckon people to stop and visit the proposed “quaint” commercial sites within our residential community, a new setting that would beckon us out of our houses to stroll and enjoy our communities. The diagrams shown to us at this 1st meeting were cross sections of full pyramids.

But at the 2nd meeting we were now being shown cross sections of half pyramids – no explanation given. By design, this change was suppose to fly over our heads. Only after being questioned by the audience was it clear that, now, any development on streets within the interior of the densification areas did not have to conform to the 45 degree pyramidal. Now we know the street fronts in my community can be 10.7, 15, and 18.5 meters. Any additional floors need only to be step backed once after this. – AMBIANCE GONE! By design we were sold a bill of goods that did not follow through to the 2nd meeting. I suspect that there were people who fell for the original sunny warm promises and did not come to the 2nd meeting. We were never given any warning that the proposals would or could change.

8. When we were shown the maps for maximum building heights in our proposed densification area, the information was given in meters. This map was not given to us in our handouts. In addition, the maps that are posted on the website giving the maximum street front heights were not even shown at the meeting even though the understanding of this information was raised as a concern.

By design, they did not want us to understand this information. They hoped it would fly over our heads without notice. 1st of all, many people are not familiar or comfortable working in meter units. In addition many people cannot visualize vertical or even horizontal measurements. We usually understand and visualize buildings in units of floors. They know that. But conveniently that information was not given to us in floor units. The inclusion of a meter/floor conversion chart in our hand-outs did not help as the speaker quickly raced through the projected maps – And by design we had no copies of these maps in our handouts to refer back to.

9. At the second community meeting we became aware that there had been a meeting between the pushers of this densification plan and the developers.

By design these meetings with the developers are closed to the public – yet the community meetings are totally open to all - and there were developers in these community meetings. And when we split up into small groups to talk about our particular community they followed us, listening and taking notes.

At the second meeting we were invited to vote on whether we agreed, disagreed or if we were somewhere in the middle concerning this plan. We were asked to acknowledge with a sticky check mark and were e to be continued



Please everyone, wake up! This Halifax by Design, or “densification” as it has been referred to, should set off red flags. The whole process has been meticulously designed to manipulate, steer and funnel the people into the predetermined outcome that the politicians, developers, and other global powers desire.

1. The original timeframe for this project was to have a wrap-up date of 2015 but because of the push by developers we were informed in the meetings that the wrap-up date was pushed up to October 2012!

This is a significant difference of 3 years! To whose advantage is this? This reminds me of lawyers catching their clients at the last minute before they go into court to bring them some “new” deal that is being offered by the opposition. This is by design – to catch you off guard. You do not have time to think it through, to research and understand all the pros and cons and the long term ramifications of the snap decision your opponent is attempting to secure from you.

We are being played in exactly the same way. Pushing this forward does not allow the people of HRM to think this through. It does not allow us time to discuss amongst ourselves, our views and opinions. Most importantly, it does not allow time for the organization of possible opposition. And, understand this, as citizens of a free and democratic country, we have the right to dissent. In fact, we have the obligation to express dissent when we do not agree with the actions of the government or other bodies that attempt to impose change on our communities.

2. Apparently there was a “kick off” intro meeting before the public consultation meetings that was to include developers, politicians and the public. There were no mail outs for this meeting.

By design there were no mail outs! I would have liked to have heard what the developers and other stakeholders ( these are always the money makers) had to say. If I had known of this meeting, I would have been there!

3. The mail outs announcing the public consultation meetings was limited to the residents within the areas slated for future densification and those whose property is situated within 250 meters of the proposed densification areas.

If it was important enough to send mail outs to those within and those immediately outside the densification area, then it would have been expedient to send mail outs to all the citizens of HRM. After all, any change to HRM is the business of all the citizens. And when we are talking about densification, we are speaking of increases to traffic lanes that extend far beyond the immediate densification areas. Many people farther afield in both residential and commercial areas are interested and concerned about any increase or divergence in traffic and how it might affect them. They had the right to be specifically invited to these public consultations.

The excuse of posting the information concerning these upcoming meetings in the newspapers just is NOT good enough in this day and age. I am sorry, but the truth is that we are not the mass newspaper consumers we were in past generations. The city needs to recognize this – newspapers can no longer be accepted as appropriate and sufficient “public notice” as they were in the past.

It was by design that only a limited number of people were invited to the consultations, to limit the input of the people and, in turn, to limit the input of those who might criticise this project. This is called divide and conquer.

4. In total there are 11 areas in HRM that are slated for this densification and 5 separate sets of meetings were distributed across the HRM area.

Do not be fooled this was NOT for our convenience. The division of these meeting was by design, to keep us separated so that the people would be less likely to converge to share ideas and concerns with each other and thus prevent the formation of a consolidated front against any or all aspect of this plan. This is also called divide and conquer.

5. At the 1st meeting we were sold on maximum 3 story street fronts with 45 degree sliding pyramidal shapes for additional floors that were to ensure minimal wind disturbances and maximum sunlight on all the street fronts, including corners, fronts and backs. This was sold to us as “friendly” “warm” “an inviting ambiance to beckon people to stop and visit the proposed “quaint” commercial sites within our residential community, a new setting that would beckon us out of our houses to stroll and enjoy our communities. The diagrams shown to us at this 1st meeting were cross sections of full pyramids.

But at the 2nd meeting we were now being shown cross sections of half pyramids and being told that any development on streets within the interior of the densification areas did not have to conform to the positive beckoning of these sunny streets. Now we know the street fronts in my community can be 10.7, 15, and 18.5 meters. Any additional floors need only to be step backed once after this. – AMBIANCE GONE! By design we were sold a bill of goods that did not follow through to the 2nd meeting. I suspect that there were people who fell for the original sunny warm promises and did not come to the 2nd meeting. We were never given any warning that the proposals would change.

6. When we were shown the maps for maximum heights in our proposed densification area, the information was given in meters. This map was not given to us in our handouts. In addition, the maps that are posted on the website giving the street front measurements were not even shown at the meeting even though the understanding of this information was raised as a concern.

By design, they did not want us to understand this information. They hoped it would fly over our heads without notice. 1st of all, many people are not familiar or comfortable working in meter units. In addition many people cannot visualize vertical or even horizontal measurements. We usually understand and visualize buildings in units of floors. They know that. But conveniently that information was not given to us in floor units. The inclusion of a meter/floor conversion chart in our hand outs did not help as the speaker quickly raced through the projected maps – And remember we had no copies of these maps in our handouts to refer back to. . . . to be continued