Jump to content

Agenda 21


SciWalker
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am communicating this because I feel the modern method of fulfilment of over-arching social plans goes hand in hand with the kind of agenda that are knitted into the mindsets we see emerging through the fundamentalist churches.

 

I have been reading about the UN's Agenda 21 which, although dressed up in the gentle (albeit, for me, horribly paternalistic) terms of sustainable development and whatnot, is in effect a blueprint for the controlled destruction of rural communities. Such communities - at least some of them - might initially be enhanced in the developing world (ultimately to produce a more metropolitan, global society), depending on how seriously you take some of the - frankly frightening - plans for extraordinary global population control measures, but in the developed world it's a different story. The powers that be want to see a generalised mass, a conurbation in as many senses of the word as possible. There are worse things in the agenda than those that I have described here, but I shan't get into them.

 

Fight it.

 

Incidentally, as a tangential point, I was also reading in a different source that the CIA and Mossad have worked out that most fundamentalist Christians (and I am not sure whether or not the reference was pointing chiefly to preachers) are closet paedophiles, and for that reason are highly manipulable, via blackmail. (That said, I wouldn't like to be stirring up ideas in people's minds, here, that they may have been abused but have suppressed the memory. For one thing, I remember hearing someone, themselves a former victim, say that if you suffer sexual abuse, you don't ever forget it. But I am not well-qualified to discuss this, so that's my final comment on it.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a copy of the UN's Agenda 21 for anyone who would like to read it.  It's quite long.

 

http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf

 

Personally, I think that fears of Agenda 21 are based on the assumption that the UN has some real power to implement certain things and that world governments will cooperate in its implementation.  Now for a reality check.  Look around the world on any given day and you will see that worldwide cooperation just isn't happening.  We fight and kill each other daily all over the world.  The cooperation needed to implement the goals of Agenda 21 is subsumed in our own national interests which each nation attempts to achieve, in many cases, at the cost of other nations.

 

I also want to comment on the following:

 

 

 

Incidentally, as a tangential point, I was also reading in a different source that the CIA and Mossad have worked out that most fundamentalist Christians (and I am not sure whether or not the reference was pointing chiefly to preachers) are closet paedophiles, and for that reason are highly manipulable, via blackmail.

 

If the CIA and Mossad have come to this conclusion, then I'd like to see the underlying study.  I think this conclusion is total bullshit and has no basis in fact.  It is a broad and unfair generalization designed to impugn those in this group.  I do not like fundamentalist Christianity any more than any of you do.  But, assuming that they actually came to this conclusion (which evidence I have not seen), to say that "most fundamentalist Christians... are closet paedophiles", my conclusion is that the CIA and Mossad have their own agendas and one of those agendas is to slander a group of people with whose views they disagree.  Absent convincing proof, I dismiss the statement as pure nonsense.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a copy of the UN's Agenda 21 for anyone who would like to read it.  It's quite long.

 

http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf

 

Personally, I think that fears of Agenda 21 are based on the assumption that the UN has some real power to implement certain things and that world governments will cooperate in its implementation.  Now for a reality check.  Look around the world on any given day and you will see that worldwide cooperation just isn't happening.  We fight and kill each other daily all over the world.  The cooperation needed to implement the goals of Agenda 21 is subsumed in our own national interests which each nation attempts to achieve, in many cases, at the cost of other nations.

 

I also want to comment on the following:

 

 

 

Incidentally, as a tangential point, I was also reading in a different source that the CIA and Mossad have worked out that most fundamentalist Christians (and I am not sure whether or not the reference was pointing chiefly to preachers) are closet paedophiles, and for that reason are highly manipulable, via blackmail.

 

If the CIA and Mossad have come to this conclusion, then I'd like to see the underlying study.  I think this conclusion is total bullshit and has no basis in fact.  It is a broad and unfair generalization designed to impugn those in this group.  I do not like fundamentalist Christianity any more than any of you do.  But, assuming that they actually came to this conclusion (which evidence I have not seen), to say that "most fundamentalist Christians... are closet paedophiles", my conclusion is that the CIA and Mossad have their own agendas and one of those agendas is to slander a group of people with whose views they disagree.  Absent convincing proof, I dismiss the statement as pure nonsense.

 

Most of the activity in non-Western-aligned developing countries is undertaken via charities, as they make on-the-ground inroads where others can't. I'm talking about working through the higher (indeed the very highest) echelons of the charities; the people on the ground are genuine.

 

I'm sorry but there is no way you will see a sensitive study done by the CIA and Mossad. I can't help that.

 

How come you are such a vehement conformist on these issues? Do you think it helps you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How come you are such a vehement conformist on these issues? Do you think it helps you?

 

I conform to no issues related to Agenda 21 nor am I vehement.  What helps me is to consider evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just glancing through this agenda.  

 

I see many many things in here that economists have been saying for years.   It is essentially calling for elimination of trade barriers and more free trade with all nations.  The UN is attempting to do its job. 

 

Part of these trade barriers would be agriculture.  The advanced economies in the world have this fetish with subsidizing agriculture.  This would have to stop.  This would mean that rural farmer would have to find other ways to compete in the marketplace.   Ironically, for many family farms this would probably make switching to organic and sustainable production viable. 

 

That is just my reading of it.  

 

The UN is not this monolithic all powerful organization.   They do some good work in the developing world. It has also served the function it was designed for.  Allow the nations of the world to discuss issues and allow a forum to hopefully prevent yet another world world.   However, outside of that they have very little real power. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

just glancing through this agenda.  

 

I see many many things in here that economists have been saying for years.   It is essentially calling for elimination of trade barriers and more free trade with all nations.  The UN is attempting to do its job. 

 

Part of these trade barriers would be agriculture.  The advanced economies in the world have this fetish with subsidizing agriculture.  This would have to stop.  This would mean that rural farmer would have to find other ways to compete in the marketplace.   Ironically, for many family farms this would probably make switching to organic and sustainable production viable. 

 

That is just my reading of it.  

 

The UN is not this monolithic all powerful organization.   They do some good work in the developing world. It has also served the function it was designed for.  Allow the nations of the world to discuss issues and allow a forum to hopefully prevent yet another world world.   However, outside of that they have very little real power. 

 

 

Well that's a relief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet another conspiracy theory touted by the Glenn Becks of the world. It is a non-binding treaty. The intent behind it good--- but anything can be twisted to become sinister.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet another conspiracy theory touted by the Glenn Becks of the world. It is a non-binding treaty. The intent behind it good--- but anything can be twisted to become sinister.

 

This might be the way it seems to you but in parts of Europe things have gone completely crazy, planning-wise. Where once people had the power to resist things that encroached upon the welfare of rural communities, just in these past couple of years the rule-books seem to have been cast aside. Everything is developing apace, and the common person is becoming powerless. And that's in Europe - imagine what's going on in places where people have a much smaller voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude,  I barely know who you are. 

 

You have been on this site on this screen name for less than 25 posts and you start in with the personal attacks. 

 

I have to say you get a -1/10 for troll creativity.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude,  I barely know who you are. 

 

You have been on this site on this screen name for less than 25 posts and you start in with the personal attacks. 

 

I have to say you get a -1/10 for troll creativity.   

 

Personal? I would have said the same to anyone who has a way of automatically trotting out the predictable, zombified, packaged-thinking, rhetoric. Don't take that as a personal insult, just an indication of how you might be in danger of coming across, whether it's an accurate representation of you or not.

I am seriously not going any further down this road as I am only interested in the issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are all part of the conspiracy! Sorry-- I just don't buy into this stuff. I feel bad that it upsets you but I don't find the intent of what the UN is trying to do here inherently evil. But luckily for all of us, we are all free to believe whatever we want. For now anyway....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are all part of the conspiracy! Sorry-- I just don't buy into this stuff. I rep had that it upsets you but I don't find the intent of what the UN is trying to do here inherently evil. But luckily for all of us, we are all free to believe whatever we want. For now anyway....

 

Your use of the word 'luckily' won't go down well among those who see your beliefs as having been bought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So actually taking the time to even take a cursory read of the <insert government control doc of the week> and having a degree in economics and taking what I know and applying to the article makes me a zombie. 

 

No that's not a personal attack at all.  

 

You presented the topic. 

 

I at least skimmed through the article in question and then presented my opinion of what I read based on my knowledge.  You then immediately retort with a hostile and sarcastic "well that's a relief"   

 

You have no interest in discussing anything.  

 

You latest response stating."I would have said the same to anyone who has a way of automatically trotting out the predictable, zombified, packaged-thinking, rhetoric"  pretty much proves that you are only here to spout your fundamentalist conspiracy theory about the UN and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. 

 

This is exactly the same tactic used by political ideologues of both side, religious fundamentalists, and fox and msn news bobble heads. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So actually taking the time to even take a cursory read of the <insert government control doc of the week> and having a degree in economics and taking what I know and applying to the article makes me a zombie. 

 

No that's not a personal attack at all.  

 

You presented the topic. 

 

I at least skimmed through the article in question and then presented my opinion of what I read based on my knowledge.  You then immediately retort with a hostile and sarcastic "well that's a relief"   

 

You have no interest in discussing anything.  

 

You latest response stating."I would have said the same to anyone who has a way of automatically trotting out the predictable, zombified, packaged-thinking, rhetoric"  pretty much proves that you are only here to spout your fundamentalist conspiracy theory about the UN and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. 

 

This is exactly the same tactic used by political ideologues of both side, religious fundamentalists, and fox and msn news bobble heads. 

 

Sheesh. That's known as picking on things that have been said and taking them completely out of context. That's exactly the kind of tactic used by... No, I shan't be drawn any further on this, as I can't stand bickering. Please, readers, just contemplate the implications of what I have been saying about Agenda 21 and ignore the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q: And you know why they can get away with it?

A: People like you, Stryper, and Overcame Faith.

Direct personal attack that address nothing that I said about Agenda 21. 

 

 

 

 

Personal? I would have said the same to anyone who has a way of automatically trotting out the predictable, zombified, packaged-thinking, rhetoric. Don't take that as a personal insult, just an indication of how you might be in danger of coming across, whether it's an accurate representation of you or not.

I am seriously not going any further down this road as I am only interested in the issues.

 

 

You might also consider how you are coming across.   

 

In this one quote,  you express confusion about how the above is a personal attack.    Then you continue with a very general insult about my initial reply that still does not address the issues or provide any form of rebuttal.     Third, sentence they pleads to not take it personally that is just how you are coming across.  

 

Finally fourth ends with a claim to be here only to discuss the issues.   

 

All of this is designed to make yourself appear the victim here.  

 

 

You have yet to respond directly to my comments about Agenda 21 at all.   You responded with a sarcastic dismissal. 

 

 

just glancing through this agenda.  

 

I see many many things in here that economists have been saying for years.   It is essentially calling for elimination of trade barriers and more free trade with all nations.  The UN is attempting to do its job. 

 

Part of these trade barriers would be agriculture.  The advanced economies in the world have this fetish with subsidizing agriculture.  This would have to stop.  This would mean that rural farmer would have to find other ways to compete in the marketplace.   Ironically, for many family farms this would probably make switching to organic and sustainable production viable. 

 

That is just my reading of it.  

 

The UN is not this monolithic all powerful organization.   They do some good work in the developing world. It has also served the function it was designed for.  Allow the nations of the world to discuss issues and allow a forum to hopefully prevent yet another world world.   However, outside of that they have very little real power. 

 

 

Well that's a relief.

 

 

 

You then did the two above about me and others being part of the problem.

 

 

You then claim you are only here to discuss the issue.

 

 

Yet you have done none of that.  

 

My opinion is that you are trolling here and have very little interest in discussing anything.  

 

So far you have done nothing to disprove this opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are all just dupes to one conspiracy or another.

 

I misread your display name, Florduh, as FloridatedWater :-). (Contextual joke there -- no offence intended.)

 

If I was to be so ambitious as to outline a solution to the world's problems in one essay, it certainly wouldn't conclude that we should commit ourselves to the best-packaged, most widely distributed of belief systems, yet that's what people tend to do, as it's the easy option. It's all thrown at us in convenient belief-sized parcels; I try to dodge them. I would have thought that most ex-Christians would have got wise to the gimmick, but it seems not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
it certainly wouldn't conclude that we should commit ourselves to the best-packaged, most widely distributed of belief systems

 

Neither should one automatically discard the accepted, conventional wisdom. Often it's right, but rarely are paranoid crackpot theories right. Usually it's those who become immersed in fringe scenarios who have been duped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

it certainly wouldn't conclude that we should commit ourselves to the best-packaged, most widely distributed of belief systems

 

Neither should one automatically discard the accepted, conventional wisdom. Often it's right, but rarely are paranoid crackpot theories right. Usually it's those who become immersed in fringe scenarios who have been duped.

 

 

I can trump you with the following: what about the theory that what you call 'fringe' is deliberately engineered *to be* fringe, purely to make independently minded researchers vulnerable to the kind of comments you make above?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.