(Goodman Brown) According to many “experts”, such as the World Health Organization, and the United Nations, 70% of the world’s population will be living in cities, by 2050. Usually left out of the reporting of this statistic, are the determining factors that will be causing people to move off of rural land, and into the crowded cities.
What would make so many people leave their quiet, rural community, to go and live in a city, that is becoming evermore crowded, or what would stop someone that is living in a crowded city, from moving to a more quiet, rural community? Surely more than 30% of the people in the world will want to have their own piece of land, with a house, away from the city, in 2050.
What these organizations are not telling you is that a massive shift of the population into cities is not a random projection, but a planned goal of many of the world’s top “leaders”, and leading organizations.
By causing an increase in the cost of owning, and living on, property in rural areas (property tax, car tax, utilities, etc.), governments will cause a shift of population from rural communities to the city. This is one of the goals of United Nations Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is a massive plan, or program of action, for the 21st century, developed by the United Nations, and connected organizations, that would require every resource in the world, including humans, to be collectivized, and controlled. If you have never heard of, or are looking to become more familiar with, UN Agenda 21, I have read, and analyzed, the document, and have written a report titled, A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 – United Nations Program of Action, which I highly recommend.
In the following report I will be attempting to convey to the reader, the reality that Agenda 21 has made its way into our local communities, pushed using friendly-sounding terms like “livable communities”, “complete streets”, and “resilient cities”, and is being used to cause a demographic shift, away from rural communities, and into cities, as envisioned, and planned, by the United Nations.
Important to understand is that the specific terms used in Agenda 21 like “human settlement”, and “Local Agenda 21 (LA21)”, are usually not used by organizations pushing Agenda 21 in your local communities. This change in terminology is because of the negative publicity the plan has received since its conception. We know the promoters of Agenda 21 have had to use different terminology, from what J. Gary Lawrence has written.
J. Gary Lawrence has served as an adviser, under President Bill Clinton, on the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), as well as being a Director of the Center for Sustainable Communities at the University of Washington, and Chief Planner in the City of Seattle. Lawrence gave a presentation in London, England, June 29, 1998, titled, “The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium“, where he explained how the terminology of Agenda 21 must be changed, when attempting to influence local legislation, to prevent conspiracy theories about a UN takeover, or a one-world government, from arising:
“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 processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.”
Now that we understand that the people implementing Agenda 21 do not necessarily use the same terminology as the actual document when looking to push their Agenda in your local community, we can more easily begin making connections to things occurring in our local community, with Agenda 21, and the organizations behind it.
The terms Livable Communities, Resilient Cities, and Complete Streets, are only three, of many, programs that I have come across, in operation across the country, that can be directly connected to Agenda 21, and its implementing organizations, that I will discuss here. Important to note, many of these programs are described by the organizations endorsing them as “smart growth”, one of the terms that J. Gary Lawrence said is being used as a replacement for Agenda 21.
Livable Communities, Resilient Cities, and Complete Streets all appear to be, pretty much, the same program, under different names. While attempting to find a more in-depth analysis of these terms, I continued to come across organizations, programs, and events, that used these terms interchangeably, such as the “Vancouver for the 2014 Livable Cities Forum: Building Resilient Communities“, and the “Global Livable Resilient City Network“. Continuing with this likeness in terms, the Complete Streets program claims to help “create“, and “foster” livable communities, while an organization dedicated to creating livable communities, Partners for Livable Communities, has changed the name of their award program from “America’s Most Livable Community” to something called “The City Resilient Awards Program.”
A comparison of the stated goals and objectives of these initiatives, with Agenda 21, will further show that these programs are really just one in the same. Again, while the terminology used may be different, the concepts are the same.
Agenda 21 is based around the idea that a world-wide system must be set-up, to save the planet, from humans, which are destroying it, with their cars, air conditioners, refrigerators, and all around high standards of living.
The planners of the Agenda want to have complete control over all of the resources in the world, in order to implement “sustainable”, or “smart”, growth, which includes the reduction of the standard of living of people in first-world countries. For this plan to work, people must be made to believe that a reduction in their standard of living is good, and is being done to protect the environment, preserve resources for the next generation, reduce carbon emission, prevent climate change, and other wonderful sounding goals.
Agenda 21 recommends for governments to be “protecting the resource base and the environment for the benefit of future generations” (Ch. 8, Sec. 7), and almost exact language is used to describe livable communities: “A livable community is one that preserves resources for the next generation”. The Complete Streets program claims to “help reduce carbon emissions and are an important part of a climate change strategy.”
In this battle to preserve resources, fight climate change, and reduce carbon, Agenda 21 also looks for governments to implement schemes that would “expand areas under forest and tree cover”, and to force “rational water use” on people, through an increase in water services. Using almost the exact terms, The Resilient Cities program also looks to protect the world from carbon, and have cities “function more in harmony with nature”, by “more tree cover“, “reducing the use of resources”, “reduced water use”, and getting people to “alter their behavior and consumption patterns.”
These all appear to be noble goals, but it is how these recommendations will be implemented that is the problem. For example, if I had a plan to stop all fighting, and conflict, in the world, this would be a noble goal, but if my solution to achieve this goal of ending war, was to kill everybody, then my plan should not receive praise.
To achieve the environmental goals of Agenda 21, one of the actions that need to be taken by governments throughout the world, is to move people off of their privately-owned land and into special collectively-owned communities. Extreme changes in society are embraced by the Livable Communities organization, which describes their program as “a radical shift in traditional attitudes.” People will have no other option than to spend the majority of their life, working, shopping, going to school, etc., in the same small community. These communities are referred to, in Agenda 21, as “Human Settlement Zones”.
Agenda 21 calls for governments to create population programs, and policies, that “bring about a demographic transition”, and encourages governments to “concentrate on activities aimed at facilitating the transition from rural to urban lifestyles.” (Ch. 7, Sec. 19) As stated earlier, people will be forced off of their land, by an increase in the cost of government services (water, sanitation, waste collection, roads, etc.), and directed to urban areas where all households, and land, are collectively owned, and accessed. These urban areas that people will be forced to move into are referred to, in Agenda 21, as “sustainable human settlements”, and Chapter 7 of the document is dedicated completely to this idea.
To make sure you remain in your human settlement zone, your means of transportation will be severely limited. Agenda 21 looks to make people less dependent on their vehicles, and encourage “non-motorized transport”, like walking, or using a bicycle. They will do this not just by persuading people to ride their bicycles, and to walk more, but to increase the cost of owning a vehicle, through taxes, fines, and regulations, which will force people to change their lifestyles.
The Livable Communities, Resilient Cities, and Complete Streets programs all share these goals, and a further comparison between these programs, and Agenda 21, will continue to show this.
Agenda 21 recommends for governments to “integrate land-use and transportation planning to encourage development patterns that reduce transport demand”
The Complete Streets program uses almost the exact wording: “A better integration of land use and transportation through a Complete Streets process creates an attractive combination of buildings – houses, offices, shops – and street designs.”
Neighborhoods that are not connected to each other, and do not encourage public transport, and/or non-motorized modes of transport, such as neighborhoods with dead ends, and cul-de-sacs, are against the land-use planning of Agenda 21, which wants governments to “adopt urban-transport programmes favouring high-occupancy public transport”, and “encourage non-motorized modes of transport by providing safe cycleways and footways in urban and suburban centres”.
The Complete Streets program shares in this belief:
“Even where daily destinations are close to home, incomplete streets too often make them inaccessible by foot, bicycle, or public transportation. They are cut off by cul-de-sacs that increase walking distance, or by high-speed roads lacking bike lanes, sidewalks, comfortable transit stations, or safe crossings.”
Similarly, US Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood explicitly described the term “livability” to mean the absence of personal vehicle use:
- “Livability means being able to take your kids to school, go to work, see a doctor, drop by the grocery or post office, go out to dinner and a movie, and play with your kids at the park, all without having to get into your car.” [emphasis added]
Now that we understand how these programs, and others, are related to Agenda 21, in terms of goals, and objectives, without actually referencing Agenda 21, we will have a better understanding of what is going on, when organizations, and foundations, are connected to these programs. If you feel that you need a better grasp of each program, feel free to click the links provided, and research for yourself. For the sake of brevity, I will move on with the analysis.
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
Connecting these programs, and the organizations that are pushing these programs, with the people, and organizations involved with promoting Agenda 21, will help further show a more clear picture of this network that is at operation.
In order for readers to understand how a massive plan, developed at the global level, like Agenda 21, makes its way into your small, local community, I will attempt to document the many interweaving connections, of groups, governments, and organizations, that have brought us Agenda 21, starting at the top of the global pyramid, working our way down to your local community. Local community, in this case, will be communities in the state of Connecticut, as this is the place I am most familiar with.
To understand how events are unfolding in the world today, takes an understanding of the role that Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are playing in shaping many of these events. Though there are millions of NGOs around the world, there are a small number of very powerful, extremely well funded NGOs, that use their tax exempt status to fund certain political movements, and ideologies. The power of these NGOs is not secret, and has been known for some time.
In the early 1950’s, the United States House of Representatives created a special committee to investigate tax-free foundations, after allegations that some major foundations were engaging in activities considered to be subversive to the United States. The committee uncovered surprising information, connecting groups like the Rockefeller, and Ford, Foundations with the funding of anti-American, and collectivist, organizations, and literature. For more information regarding the findings of this committee, I suggest reading the book “Foundations: Their Power and Influence” by Rene Wormser.
Wormser was actually a part of the congressional committee commissioned to investigate the great tax-exempt foundations, and wrote “Foundations” to document some of the findings of the committee. To make this analysis more easy to follow, I will be focusing on only one of the tax-exempt foundations mentioned in the congressional investigation, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF), to show exactly how this massive foundation is able to push its agenda into every small town, and city, across America, and the world, but the reader should understand that many of these top tax-exempt foundations work together on various projects, and share related goals.
Documents obtained from the official website of The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, clearly show that the RBF was involved in the meetings in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where Agenda 21 was drafted:
“The RBF organized and funded some of the earliest meetings of advocates addressing climate change. It was also during this period that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created in 1988 and formal international negotiations on a climate treaty began in 1991; these culminated in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 with a U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that the first President Bush and the U.S. Congress ratified. A review of correspondence between then-RBF president Bill Dietel and program staff clearly indicates that the Rio negotiation and treaty, and the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, were specific aspirations of the RBF program at the time.”
|William K. Reilly|
To further show the connection between the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Rio negotiations, and Agenda 21, a quick description of a man named William K. Reilly is needed. Reilly has worked directly with The Rockefellers Brothers Fund; credited with participating in a RBF-sponsored task force report titled “The Unfinished Agenda“, as well as editing another RBF sponsored task force report titled, “The Use of Land: A Citizen’s Policy Guide to Urban Growth”.
William Reilly appears to be highly influential in the environmental movement, serving as1989, as well as being involved with, and having connections to, other powerful organizations. While serving as an administrator of the EPA, Reilly attended, and represented the United States at, the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, where Agenda 21 was conceived.
Reilly is also the longest serving trustee to the Partners for Livable Communities, an organization that even credits Reilly for the creation of the aforementioned City Resilient Program. There are claims that William K. Reilly was a delegate to the 1976 U.N. Conference on Human Settlements, where he signed the document on behalf of the United States. I have not found concrete evidence of this, but it would not be surprising. Reilly is just one example of an agent of these elite organizations tasked with implementing their goals, in this case Agenda 21-related programs, throughout the country.
Now that we have made the connection between the Rockefellers Brothers Fund, Agenda 21, and related programs, we can see how this world-wide agenda is being implemented, locally, in the state of Connecticut.
There are many organizations in Connecticut that are pushing Agenda-21 related objectives, including the Transit for Connecticut Coalition, Connecticut Fund for the Enviornment, Connecticut for Livable Communities, and many more, but, for the sake of brevity, I will only focus mainly on two; The Tri-State Transportation Campaign (TSTC), and the One Regions Funders Group.
The TSTC is an organization that has the task of pushing Agenda-21 related goals, in the area of transportation. The TSTC, according to their own website, is a “non-profit advocacy organization dedicated to reducing car dependency in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.” In their crusade to force people out of their vehicles, the TSTC lobbies the state legislature to implement changes to the transportation system, that would make it harder, financially, to operate your own private vehicle.
These changes include adding red-light cameraslights across the state, as well as adding tolls to highways in Connecticut. The TSTC also helped win passage of the previously mentioned Complete Streets program, to be implemented in the city of New Haven.
Not only is the TSTC connected with Agenda 21 through the goals, programs, and objectives, it pursues, but a connection can also be made through the funding organizations who support the TSTC, including The Rockefeller Brothers Fund. For a more in depth look at the other funding organizations of the TSTC, and their connection to UN Agenda 21, read my article titled Agenda 21 in Connecticut: The Tri-State Transportation Campaign
The One Region Funders Group, also funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, is a similar organization operating in Connecticut, implementing Agenda 21 objectives. The One Region Funders Group collaborates with the TSTC on many operations in Connecticut, and is even a funder of the TSTC. The meeting that created the One Region Funders Group was organized with support from the Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities organizations. Hopefully, by now, the reader should be getting a better understanding of how this Agenda is operating, with the many interweaving foundations, programs, and organizations.
Both the TSTC and the One Region Funders Group are involved with various projects in the state that tie into Agenda 21.
A major project that has been the cause of controversy in Connecticut is the New Britain-Hartford busway, now referred to as CTFastrack. This is a plan to build a direct bus route from New Britain to Hartford, which will be inaccessible to personal vehicles. The cost of this busway is estimated at $569 million, and has been called a “boondoggle“, and the “the biggest waste of taxpayer money in Connecticut history.” The state has even used eminent domain to take peoples property, to construct this busway.
Many opponents of the busway say that spending this much money, on a public bus transportation project, doesn’t make any sense, but it does make sense, when the connection is made to UN Agenda 21. As I point out in my article United Nations Agenda 21 In Connecticut; New Britain-Hartford Busway, CTFastrack, the stated goal of the busway is to influence trip-making behavior, and remove cars off of the road, which has been pointed out previously, as goals of Agenda 21.
As you would expect, The Tri-State Transportation Campaign is a supporter of the CTFastrack busway. Another organization, the Transit for Connecticut Coalition, which was funded into creation by the One Region Funders Group, “has been instrumental in…working to make the New Britain-to-Hartford Busway a reality.”
Another organization receiving funds, support, and encouragement, from the One Region Funders Group, is the New York- Connecticut Sustainable Communities Consortium. According to the Funders Network website, “the Consortium will expand economic opportunity by developing livable communities and growth centers around key transit nodes in the most extensive and robust transit system in the nation.” [emphasis added]
In the Connecticut section of the Consortium’s official website, it is stated that through “transit-oriented development projects” these livable communities will “provide much of the area’s job and housing needs for the next generation.” [emphasis added] Notice the use of the word “much”. Again, these livable communities are places where people will be forced, financially, to live in, and where mobility will be severely limited.
An important feature of UN Agenda 21 is to erase existing borders and boundaries, that currently make up towns, cities, counties, states, and countries, which are generally controlled democratically, and replace them with new border, and boundary, areas, each with their own non-democratically selected bureaucracy. The New York-Connecticut Sustainable Communities Consortium is part of this border degradation process. The creation of the Consortium marked “the first time that a bi-state consortium of cities, counties and regional planning organizations from the two states have come together to support coordinated regional planning and implementation. ” [emphasis added]
The Resilient Cities program has similar objectives:
“What metropolitan areas need are new administrative frameworks that support urban development at a broader level or cover wider geographical areas. Local governments must work cooperatively with each other as well as with national decision-making bodies to create a shared vision and strategy.”
“The key to designing and building resilient cities lies in understanding that all of the challenges our cities face are interrelated; city planning must become a holistic, interdisciplinary project.” [The definition of holistic: characterized by comprehension of the parts of something as intimately interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole.]
In August 2009, US Senator Chris Dodd, representing Connecticut, introduced the Livable Communities Act into congress, which called for $400 million in grants to be used to advance livable communities “green” projects throughout the state, including the “One City, One Plan” and iQuilt proposals in Hartford, and the 360 State Street project in New Haven. After a quick search, I found that the “One City One Plan” program recognizes the Hartford-New Britain Busway as an essential element in their plan. I have yet to do a more in-depth analysis of these projects, and their connection with the overall Agenda, but plan to do so in the future.
Last year, in the Connecticut state legislature, a Livable Communities bill was signed into law by Governor Dan Malloy. The stated objective of this bill was to “foster the design and development of livable communities in which Connecticut residents can age in place.” (Sidenote: “Aging in place” is part of the Livable Communities program.) This bill was supported in testimonial by the Connecticut Association of Area Associations on Aging (AAA), which states:
“Enhancing local planning to include changes in zoning regulations promotes a multi-generational approach to accessible housing that can help reduce the State’s financial assistance burdens as more family caregivers are available to support aging family members.”
This quote shows how the State views caring for the elderly in hospitals, convalescent homes, etc., as a financial burden, and wants to create Livable Communities, and other policies, through zoning changes, that would save the state money, by keeping the elderly at home, when they’re sick.
This same line of thinking is used in the Agenda 21 document, where the elderly are considered “dependency burdens”, for the “resource demand” they require, due to their need for “health care and support”,
Another important aspect, in regards to the elderly, in the Agenda 21 document, is a policy that gives the state more power over life, and death.
Having family members decide the fate of a loved one is costing the state too much money, and Agenda 21 says that “institutional changes must be implemented so that old-age security does not entirely depend on input from family members.” Interesting to note, at the time this report is being published, an ‘assisted suicide’ bill, which would allow doctors to legally kill patients, is causing controversy in the state. I have yet to take an extensive look at this bill, and its potential connections to Agenda 21, therefore I cannot yet suggest that a connection exists with Agenda 21, and this particular ‘assisted suicide’ bill.
To expand further on the quote by the Connecticut Association of AAA, the use of “changes in zoning regulations” to promote “a multi-generational approach to accessible housing”, is another key component to implementing Agenda 21. Forcing everyone to live next to each other will require changing in zoning laws, in most cities/towns, to allow for construction of multi-family housing developments.
This particular change in zoning laws that needs to accompany the Livable Communities program is sometimes described as “intensification”. Intensification can be briefly defined as a process which “increases population density”. In a report put out by the Regional Plan Association, an organization funded by The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, plans are suggested, for various areas in Connecticut, in this case the city of West Haven, to implement the type of development we have been discussing:
“One method to allow for intensification on existing properties that maximize benefits to the community and minimize impacts is to craft overlay zones which would allow the appropriate redevelopment to occur on each property in the station area.
While multifamily and mixed-use development is appropriate on larger parcels adjacent to the station and along the Saw Mill Road/Main Street and Railroad Avenue corridors, accessory units and duplex/triplex development in single family zones would allow for gradually intensification while maintaining neighborhood character as property owners seek to maximize the value of their investments. A public outreach campaign may be necessary to understand any hesitations residents might have about density and demonstrate what well designed transit-oriented development can look like.”
Important to note, the One Region Funders Group is credited with giving “guidance and support” in this document.
Finally, these programs become implemented in your community, through grants offered by the organizations that are pushing Agenda 21 related policies. One example is a grant offered by the Tri-State Transportation Campaign and the One Region Fund. Municipalities are supposed to respond to one of these “requests for proposal” forms, where they are to receive money from these organizations, but only if they “support initiatives to envision, plan, or design local…development projects”, that are supported by the funding organizations.
This particular request form pertains to “transit-centered development” (TCD), also known as transit-oriented development (TOD). TCD, and TOD, is the idea of the state designing communities around public transportation. (Sidenote: The New-Britain-Hartford busway is described as “trans-oriented development”) The following features are part of this proposal:
- “regulations and parking policies that encourage walking and cycling and discourage auto-dependency”
- “Hiring particular transportation, housing or environmental experts to work with the applicant to plan and/or design key elements of TCD projects;”
- “Build community support for TCD through visioning, charrette planning and other participatory community driven development methods to ensure ‘buy-in’ from local citizenry and to mitigate opposition” [emphasis added]
As can be seen from these excerpts, the objectives of this proposal are the goals of Agenda 21. Readers should take note at how these organizations require municipalities, which accept the grant money, to hire someone from their list of specific people, to work on the plan’s implementation.
Another interesting factor is how these programs always feel the need to have a plan to “mitigate opposition”. In the Agenda 21 document, the need to “overcome confrontation” is discussed as a way to create political “solidarity”, in support of the Agenda. A critical thinker may question why there ever would be “confrontation”, or “opposition”, to such a wonderful plan to save the world. Who would oppose it, and why? Hopefully, the answer should be evident by now.
The purpose of this analysis was to make the connection between Agenda 21, connected organizations, and specific programs being implemented in our local communities. Seeing terms such as livable communities, complete streets, and smart growth, should now be clearly understood to be programs of a much larger plan of the United Nations to collectivize, and control, the world. This program, even down to its implementation in Connecticut, is so vast, that one person cannot possibly uncover it all, and that is why I encourage everyone to do their own research into the subject, and document their findings, as I will continue to do.