Agenda 21’s evil twin, Agenda 2030, is yet another potential threat to both property rights and the overall way of life in America. Mainstream media has ignored the implications and opportunity for government overreach created by the United Nations biodiversity plan since its inception in 1992. Expect more of the same with the equally rights-infringing Agenda 2030 plan.
The new global plan states that the agenda is part of an “unprecedented scope and significance. It is accepted by all countries and is applicable to all.” How exactly the United States Constitution and the freedoms it represents factors into the United Nations plan remains to be seen.
As previously reported by Survival Based, Agenda 21 is a voluntary, non-binding action plan that is allegedly focused only on fostering sustainable development around the globe. The UN plan was adopted by a grand total of 178 countries in 1992.
Agenda 21 Map
The biodiversity plan includes steps that the United Nations feels should be taken to abolish poverty, “properly” manage municipalities, and protect fragile environments. Agenda 21 and the regionalist movement geared to push rural and suburban residents into cities appears to many to be extremely closely related.
The United States is a signatory country to the Agenda 21 plan with more than 500 cities and towns already enacting some aspect of the international biodiversity plan on American soil. The philosophies of the plan have already been integrated into many public school curriculums via the Common Core academic program.
Living in a manner that respects Earth and in harmony with the bounty of nature that God has provided appears to be a good idea on its face. But, hidden just slightly underneath all of the tree-hugging prose a property-grabbing and government-monitoring mindset may very well exist.
Now, 23 years later, Agenda 2030 has emerged. Advocates of Agenda 21 are deeming the program a success, but only one step in a master plan to create a global sustainable community. In September leaders from around the world gathered in New York City to present a new 15-year plan to oversee the use of land, both public and private, on a global scale.
“Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” boasts essentially the same goals of the Agenda 21 plan, but digs even deeper with its intentions to control the way property is used. Some have referred to the Agenda 2030 plan as “Agenda 21 on steroids.”
The first United Nations biodiversity plan focused mostly on the environment. The Agenda 2030 plan goes further in scope to include a “new universal agenda” for all of humanity. The plan claims that the guidelines and regulations it encompasses will have an altruistic result for future world citizens. Opponents to the plan do not see the rules as being all warm and fuzzy; instead they are viewed as yet a new set of freedom-infringing mandates to create a new world order.
Goal 1 of Agenda 2030
“End poverty in all its forms everywhere.”
How would the United Nations end poverty for everyone everywhere? Who will pay for the social programs needed to complete such a monumental task? Exactly when did the United States of America allow another entity to dictate rules and policies to its citizens?
These are but a few of the questions those opposed to Agenda 2030 are asking. With nearly zero media coverage about the Agenda 21 sequel, many constituents don’t even know about it. And the fact that this agenda was created behind closed doors at the United Nations means that few lawmakers can offer answers when constituents do call to register their angst.
Goal 2 of Agenda 2030
“End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture.”
Folks who do not support biotech giants’ (such as Monsanto and DuPont) patenting of seeds and increasing the amount of GMO crops and chemical pesticides around the planet will likely not be happy with this aspect of the Agenda 21 follow-up plan.
One would think a program that focuses on sustainability and biodiversity would favor organic growing, but that is not the case. Biotech lobbyists, the politicians on both sides of the aisle they donate to, and teams of company attorneys have many convinced that only genetically modified seeds will increase crop outputs and solve the world hunger and poverty problem. The American farmer is a disappearing breed; fewer and fewer family farms exist in the United States. If more young people do not go into and become successful in the agriculture field, the breadbasket of the world could soon be unable to feed itself.
An excerpt from the Agenda 2030 plan reads:
“We are determined to take the bold and transformative steps which are urgently needed to shift the world onto a sustainable and resilient path. As we embark on this collective journey, we pledge that no one will be left behind. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets which we are announcing today demonstrate the scale and ambition of this new universal Agenda. They seek to build on the Millennium Development Goals [Agenda 21] and complete what these did not achieve. They seek to realize the human rights of all and to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls. They are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental.”
In the “United Nations 2030 Agenda Decoded” report by Mike Adams, the author said the United Nations plan is a “blueprint” for the “global enslavement of humanity.”
“The ‘goals’ of this document are nothing more than code words for a corporate-government fascist agenda that will imprison humanity in a devastating cycle of poverty while enriching the world’s most powerful globalist corporations like Monsanto and DuPont,” Adams wrote. “Nowhere does the U.N. document state [with its feel-good language] that ‘achieving human freedom’ is one of its goals, neither does it explain how these goals are to be achieved. Instead, the 17 points in the UN agenda are to be achieved through centralized government control and totalitarian mandates that are closely aligned with Communism.”
If enough countries, or the next U.S. president signs onto the Agenda 2030 plan as a signatory, is American sovereignty at risk? According to some political watchers, government watchdogs, and constitutionalists, that question is too frightening to ponder, but we must. Ignoring the potential freedom-usurping regulations places all of our rights at risk.